marcomarks wrote:
LOUIE PATRIZI wrote:
According to some professional photographers say that using filters are a complete waste of time. You spend so much money on lens that have better glass on it to but cheap glass filters is wrong.
So who is right or wrong! Who should I believe on this situation.
I have historically always kept a UV filter on all my lenses more for protection than anything else. I still do today on my digital camera lenses. As someone else said, optical quality probably is better on brand name filters than others. The price difference isn't much so why not buy the best you can for $10 to $12 instead of $3 to $5?
I've tried shooting with and without a UV filters and I can not perceive any loss of quality. But I can sometimes perceive slightly better clarity because of reduced UV. It becomes obvious in a photo of, let's say, a mountain range. The mountains become just a little bit clearer. And I do mean, just a little bit. A person standing in the shade becomes just a tiny bit less blueish. It's nothing seriously better but can be seen sometimes. In a studio it would be a complete waste of time to have a UV filter. I mostly use a UV filter for protection to avoid the front element of my camera getting dirty, wet, or hit.
A polarizing filter is the only other filter I've ever carried and it can be quite effective - even exciting - in what it does to skies, water, reflections on shiny surfaces, etc.
Oh yeah... when I use a polarizing filter I take off the UV filter so the stack doesn't get too tall.
quote=LOUIE PATRIZI According to some professiona... (
show quote)
Your sensor is only capable of capturing RGB. UV cannot and does not alter the wave length of R or G or B.
The most common neutral density (ND) filters range from ND 1 to ND 10. They can be used to smooth out the flow of water from a waterfall or stream, which is usually best done at early morning or twilight. But when you find yourself looking at a waterfall at midday, then the option of shooting a 3 second or more image is not possible without a ND filter.
For example, A ND10 filter subtracts 10 stops of light from entering the lens.....a ND5 filter removes 5 stops.
Most camera stores, in town and online, suggest that you purchase a UV filter with your new lens......if you choose to do this, it is for protection only of your lens. Your sensor will not be affected by UV if you live 1000 years and shoot every day.
When you add more glass to a lens.....you add the need to clean yet another optic. I am not interested in protecting my lens with a UV.....and lens hood does that.
When you drop a lens.....and LORDY I have done my share, the UV filter can even cause more damage.
Now a polarizing filter is a different animal. If you are shooting landscape, it is a must.....someone said that it's hard to duplicate the affect of a properly tuned polarizer in photoshop and I totally agree with that. But if you are going to add a another layer of glass to a lens, be sure to purchase quality..... they are not cheap.
It's the same with ND filters. They too are a must have, esp in landscape photography. But buy goooood filters or don't buy any.
lockdown wrote:
Don't know were to sell my pictures or even if there's a market for them. Heres one just to give you an idea of what i do. I really enjoy making them but have'nt had any luck on finding a sit that will sell them.
I sell pictures online ....have been doing so since 2000. I use a program called Jalbum http://jalbum.net/en/. Be sure to pick the "Chameleon" skin....Chameleon has set up PAYPAL to handle the billing. It is VERY easy to use and free. I use this for most of the sporting events. I would prefer to handle all printing in house and we can with Jalbum.
I also use PRINTROOM http://www.printroom.com/ as a backup site......I have two premium accounts with them one for weddings...one for sports.....with printroom images/prints can be purchased with a credit cards........however, they do all the printing (you set the price - they take their cut and sent you a check) great company.
Lastly, and for weddings and portraits I use Pictage http://www.pictage.com.
Both Pictage and Printroom will provide you a website and portal for your pics to be seen and purchased......here is one of my printroom sites http://www.printroom.com/studio_homepage.asp?domain_name=PrepGallery. These are not free sites.
Strategically, you need to develop a website whose design reflects the type of pictures you plan to sell. Then you add a link where visitors can view and purchase.
If you want more detailed info on how to do any of these, send me a email (ed@emphoto.net) and we can arrange a call. Don't mind helping at all.
JPEG creates an 8-bit image, which gives 16.8 million possible colors in your image. When you are editing a 16 bit image, you are dealing with a possible 281 trillion possible colors. Clearly a significant difference is information.
All JPEGs are 8 bit!! Whereas, RAW files can be edited in 16 or 32 bit.
In reality the human eye cannot see the difference in 8 bit or 16 bit image.......but hold on, when you do ANY edits on an image, you are affecting image information. The more you have....the more you can afford to lose without image degradation.
This is one reason for shooting RAW.....but there are other reasons!
Imagine shooting a picture and bringing it back to the studio and viewing it. Ah, you wish you would have selected a different exposure or color balance. If you have shot RAW, you can change the exposure two stops in either direction just as though you were reshooting the image. You can change the color balance in the same manner. It's like baking a cake, once the cake is out of the oven....you cannot add or remove ingredients.....the cake is cooked = JPEG. But, if you shoot RAW, it is the equivalent of being able to taste the finished cake but still able to add or remove ingredients.
If you have a camera that shoots RAW files, then your manufacturer gave you a RAW file editor in your camera package. So RAW software is not an issue. There are a number of free RAW processors that might work even better than your manufacturers.....Picasso comes to mind.
I look at it this way.....you spend a lot of money on a computer/camera with the capacity to run at 16 bit capacity recording all the image information possible.......why turn the camera's functionality/output into something much less.
One last thing, I shoot RAW for ALMOST all images. I shoot a lot of sports and when I shoot for a magazine or newspaper, they want their images immediately after the contest.....I usually shoot JPEG and FTP the images at the venue. Processing in RAW and making final edits is time I don't have. Often I then use the RAW + JPEG option.
There is another point......you can edit JPEG files.....in Photoshop you can adjust exposure and color balance BUT you loose pixels and information that is NON RECOVERABLE. In RAW, your edits are all recorded in a separate file (called a sidecar) the actual image has not been affected.
When I think I am finished....something else comes to mind. If your computer is old and the processing capacity is lagging....then jpeg might be better. As you can imagine, 16/32 bit files are huge......after processing it is entirely possible that the file size might exceed 100 mb. Compare to a 1 o 2 mb jpeg file. Then upgrade your computer and shoot RAW.
Before Digital...........post processing was a dark room, enlargers, chemicals, filters, paper, and on and on. Expensive stuff. There are two stages to photography today, capture and post processing (dark room). You have bought an expensive camera, now invest in adequate dark room equipment (lightroom/photoshop/computer)
jf65625 wrote:
Kathi wrote:
Personally, I say no to flash, and I also severely limit my shots to those I can take from the way back of the church where I am not visible at all. I still believe that the ceremony is a sacred event not to be interrupted by the distractions of clicks or flashes. The weddings I've done have had the desired image shots "re-enacted" and staged after the ceremony. I guess I've been lucky in that the weddings I've been hired to do is what the parties were also wanting. Good conversation to have with the bride and groom in the planning conversation.
Personally, I say no to flash, and I also severely... (
show quote)
Kathi: I completely agree with you about the flash during a service, but I can turn the "clicking" off with my cams, as most dslr cameras can, so that is not an issue. Of course, it used to be quite a distraction with some cameras.
One time I do completely reverse this rule, is with civil weddings before a judge or jp [now usually performed by the clerk of the court in states like California]. Then, I would intentionally use the flash and "record" the service in a photo-journalistic, or "reporter's" documentary style.
Of course, we have only been considering our traditional American style wedding, which is most often in a church. I am sure that other cultures have traditions that would call for an entirely different approach. But, as photographers, we should be able to do something creative when the situation changes.
quote=Kathi Personally, I say no to flash, and I ... (
show quote)
You cannot turn the clicking off when using pro cameras....and they are loud.
English_Wolf wrote:
1. The minister isn't paying me. In fact he's nothing more than another employee for the event. 2. The minister didn't hire me, the couple did and they did so for a reason. 3. I have never been able to find anything written anywhere that says a flash during a wedding is immoral.
The officiant 'owns' the church, I have seen one who interrupted the ceremony because of flash photography taken by a guest.
Your aggressive attitude toward the officiant is rather strange. This is ALSO an agreement with the couple AND the officiant, because trust me, some are really exigent. it is not about religious norms or anything else but about a man or woman (officiant) who just feel the event is too important to be messed up by aggressively interfering folks.
The day you will be thrown out you will understand what I mean and trust me for a pro this type of situation is a business killer. 30 year of experience? probably in a small town. Try your attitude in Washington DC - or any large in fluent town) and welcome to club of really restrictive areas. Also welcome the end of your 30 years dictatorship.
A pro makes a contract with the bride and groom and during the initials contact has to learn where the wedding place takes place, that way you can go and check it out and check the policies toward photography as well as other conditions (is there another wedding after this one (usually yes) - there goes the time to shoot the formal.
The with this info go back to the couple and let them know what you have learned (if you did not know, after 30 years you should know anyway). By doing so you may have a couple that will change venue (if they want a flash at all cost) or simply stay because this was discussed with the officiant already and are aware of the situation.
The point is, a wedding photographer, especially during the ceremony has to be discreet and professional. A photographer is nothing but a hired hand, a mercenary with a camera instead of a gun, an employee. Always remember this. Most of the previous shot advice is BS as it seems that this '30 year experienced pro' wants to control everything even at the risk of messing a day that is 'significant' for each couple.
my apologies haze99 but here this is way out of line. The couple has to be first, always, and preparation and respect of their desire(s) is next to nothing. A pro must always respect that. We had to turn down contracts because what they wanted was incompatible with the officiant demands and since we there often, killing the relation with the church officiant was just not worth it.
i 1. The minister isn't paying me. In fact he's n... (
show quote)
I could not agree more! But we have not lost a contract because of this....we just work within the rules. We just need to know them. No problem! Everyone is happy and we hug hug hug!
At age 66 and also having shot far too many weddings, it boils down to, there is just no need for it. Today's cameras are able to render sharp, noiseless images at 3200 and up.
I shoot weddings mostly in the south, SC, Ga, NC, Tn, Va. Florida, Caribbean although we just did one in California. My personal opinion about the worship service is, no flash, I don't have to ask the pastor/priest. I hate to see photographers moving around during the ceremony, clicking unnecessary images, and throwing light (with the shadows) centered on the bride and groom. If the light is sooooo bad that I cannot get an acceptably lit shot during the service, I will stage those shots afterwords.
After the service though, I do not use flash, I like the Ranger Quadras by Elinchrom. The are lightweight, 400 watt power, assymetrical, long battery life. You can also bring modifiers and create some beautiful light.
I am just not a fan of flashes with their tupperware tops or flash diffusers.
The above is my personal photographic feelings.
Regarding Churches.....if the Church has a policy for no flash, it does not matter what the bride wants. we recently did a very high profile professional golfer's wedding.....it was at Christ Church in Greenville, SC, an Episcopal Church. There is a NO PHOTOGRAPHY policy during the wedding, forget flash. You are able to take a few shots, they said 6, but we took a few more, after the wedding. We had to take the rest outside. We knew this a year before the wedding. Because of this, the bride's family and I choreographed each shot we wanted, months before the wedding.
My guess, 70 percent of all Churches prefer no flash during the ceremony. 50 percent forbid it. To be honest, the Churches that don't have a policy are mostly non traditional.....anything goes so to speak.
Once you know the rules, you plan for the venue. The situation is always the boss.
I have always dressed for the occasion but times have changed.
For Church Weddings:
I require our staff to wear suits. We have two male and one female shooter and she always is dressed well..... (even in the July August miserable heat) First, we are being seen by a lot of people and future clients. I want for our group to look professional, sharp, as well as produce a quality product.
Weddings outside as in a Beach Wedding:
I visit with the Bride and usually mom before the wedding and we decide then but at the least we are dressed business casual (no jeans, no t-shirts, no sandals) sport coats and slacks.
We are advertising!
Jacquie wrote:
When I take Wedding Photo's I talk with the Minister first and ask what he prefers. My last wedding was a No Flash by the order of the Priest. I wasn't allowed to take pictures inside the church before the wedding and after the wedding it was still no flash. I found it to be very hard, the Priest made it worse when he watched to see if I was using flash. To top it all off, I only had 30 minutes after the wedding to get all photo's needed. I got though it, but I found it very difficult.
A rule of thumb, the more garb the person officiating the wedding wears, the more restrictions. Baptist ministers wear a sports coat or suit.....few if any restrictions in their Churches. Episcopal Church (very very formal) rarely can you even shoot images inside the Church....after the wedding you can usually get a dozen shots but they hurry you off.....so everything has to be done outside. If you fired a flash during the service, you might find yourself banned forever from wedding photography at that venue.
haze99 wrote:
To flash or not to flash? This is the question. Do you use a flash during the wedding ceremony or not? Yes or No answer, and if you want to, then tell why or why not.
Please no arguements against someone elses answers. Thanks :D
Depends on the light... for sure I use flash before the wedding.......I DO NOT USE FLASH DURING THE WEDDING even if the Church and Family have no restrictions. I will use flash after.
Even if the Church permits use of flash during the wedding I won't use it. My biggest reason is that the wedding is a worship service and I don't want to see flashes bouncing around during the service.....but also I want to capture the ambiance of the Church just as it is. Just remember to bring an expo disk to white balance your cameras. With the high ISO managed pro cameras in use today, Nikon D3S, Nikon D700...I can shoot at 3200 and still get low noise shots.....even the D3X can produce a low noise shot at 1600. Canon has the same quality of ISO management.
Also, these aren't action shots so shooting at 1/30 and 1/15 during the ceremony is all part of the mix (depending on the focal distance)
In other words, there is no need to shoot with flash.
Now this is another problem. During weddings today, you often see guest and family members jumping in the isles with their point and shooters often getting in the way of ME. I have gone back to the studio to review shots only to find a great capture is ruined by another flash throwing shadows hither and yon with very unflattering light.
I stress with the Bride that the program must have a note, NO FLASH PHOTOGRAPHY during the service.
While on the subject of flash.....it is the most unflattering light if not used right. Also my guess is shots with the flash will be the ones you like the least.
The vast majority of photographers are not professionals yet they too own their images. In one of your post earlier, I believe you said you give them a letter with your authorization to print. That is the correct thing to do. Yep....it's a bit of a hassle but it does provide protection....especially for the pro photographers who sell their images for living...as in me!
I take between 200 and 3000 pics weekly of sporting events. The images are uploaded and available for those who wish to purchase them. Anyone with some net skills can snag the images (even though I disable mouse clicks) and print on their home computer/printer..... if they have PS they can then smooth/clone out the watermarks and have a decent 4x6 print. Also, they can be linked to facebook. The later part I like....it is like advertising to see my logo on images circulating the net.
dave.speeking wrote:
I'm confused. Why not print at home? Good printers aren't that ($200) expensive.
Vehicle and weapons manufacturers aren't usually liable when their product is used illegally. There must more to this issue.
No one said the law was equitable or fair. You can snag prints from famous photographers and print...and hang on your walls if you choose. It is illegal but no one would be the wiser. You can also cheat on your taxes, expense accounts, take pencils home from work....and on and on.
But if you tried to take images that belong to another to a lab for printing. The lab is liable if it reproduces the prints without the permission from the owner. Just like the pawn shop is liable for knowingly taking cash for a stolen gun.
There are two issues being addressed in this thread both have considerable relevance and legal gotcha's
First, Model Releases
Second, are your images protected under the copyright laws
Both are mutually exclusive
If anyone wants a copy of my model release, send me an email request at ed@emphoto.net.....you can put your company where I put mine and so forth. Here is a good link regarding "when and who" should sign a release:
http://asmp.org/tutorials/property-and-model-releases.html
My state, South Carolina as no case law on "expectations of privacy" so we borrowed our release from the state of New York which has the toughest laws on this subject. We felt like if it is good enough for NY, we should be ok in SC.
Regarding copyright laws, your pictures belong to you and you are protected by the copyright laws IN THE UNITED STATES. Someone who steals your image is in violation and can be sued......but unless you file for copyright status with the US Patent office, you cannot sue and have your legal fees paid.