NYers may soon flock west to enjoy the safety of places like Oklahoma City, Columbine or Aurora.... :)
donrent wrote:
AND THAT, is the main reason why so many decided to stay with their homes and not leave... The crime is too rampant to leave a vacant home to go to safty....
I understand the problem from diffraction, but I don't see how the Jimberton gets noise at ISO 100.
jimberton wrote:
i went to a live seminar a few weeks ago on product photography. product photography is what i do 5 days a week at my great day job. the photographer was using a nikon d7000 with a 24-70mm 2.8 nikon lens. he stated that if you fill over 75% of the frame with the product to be shot...then you want the highest number fstop that your lens will do...such as f22...if you want everything in full focus. ok...makes sense, i thought.
he took some great product shots and had them printed there and passed them out. the shots were awesome. he was using 3 monostrobes.
so...today i am doing some product shots. i have 3 studio strobes. i set them up like he did. set the camera on iso100, f22 and shutter speed was 1/250. i even set the brightness of the strobes with a sekonic flash meter.
i have the 7d and the canon 24-70mm2.8 L glass, so i am similar to his setup. i have 3 strobes and they are set correctly with a flash meter......
i take the photos on a tripod with a remote shutter control. the photos are exposed correctly...but they have noise and are "soft".
now i don't usually take soft photos and product shots need to be sharp.....like i always take. the photos literally suck. the photos are really not usable for my caliber of product shots. and how did i get full of noise at iso100?? i get better at iso1600 at f5.6
i lowered the fstop to f8 and f10...the photos came out awesome...of course i had to dim the monostrobes to make the exposure proper.
so big question.......why at f22 did these photos come out soft? the only thing i can come up with is that my canon L lens is crap at f22. at f8 and f10 the shots are as sharp as anything out there.
i took shots of 23 different products and they all sucked at f22.
so, did this instructor really shoot at f22? if he did, he blew the canon equivalent right out of the ball field.
or is f22 a no no on a canon $1600 lens?
i would sure appreciate some discussion on this. for the first time, i am really disappointed in my gear.
i have been taking sharp product shots for the last 7 years soft is not an option.
i have never shot at f22 before.
thanks in advance.
jim
i went to a live seminar a few weeks ago on produc... (
show quote)
Peter Hurley is the photographer's name. http://peterhurley.com/
He cuts the top of the head off to place the eye approximately in the "rule of thirds" position and because he finds the the face/jaw line/neck area more expressive than whatever people do with their hair.
He shoots in the horizontal format because he likes a lot of negative space around his subject.
Just because this style works for him is not a reason for other people to copy it but they do. Go figure.
BTW, he gives great workshops, yes at $1,500. If there is one in your area, do take it, but don't copy his style, copy his work ethic. He is quite extraordinary.
pooterpa76 wrote:
for the life of me i can't remember the photographer's name but he was featured in an internet article recently & is supposed to be a highly respectable, well established name in headshot photography & he typically shoots headshots in horizontal format & commonly cuts off the top of the client's head. it's now like his trademark.
jimberton wrote:
i have seen these and used it a few times from client requests.....just looks like a crooked photo to me....
and another thing...this new trend in cropping off part of the top of the head on a portrait???????...............i have had 3 clients in the last week come to me to get portraits without the tops of their heads cropped..as they received from my competition....
seems like everything is trying to replace anything that is or was standard.
i sure don't mind change, but some of these "trends" are pretty lame....but it's up to the client.
i have seen these and used it a few times from cli... (
show quote)
for the life of me i can't remember the photograph... (
show quote)
Peter Hurley is the photographer's name. http://peterhurley.com/
He cuts the top of the head off to place the eyes approximately in the "rule of thirds" position and because he finds the the face/jaw line/neck area more expressive than whatever people do with their hair.
He shoots in the horizontal format because he likes a lot of negative space around his subject.
Just because this style works for him is not a reason for other people to copy it but they do. Go figure.
BTW, he give great workshops. If there is one in your area, do take it, but don't copy his style, copy his work ethic. He is quite extraordinary.
pooterpa76 wrote:
for the life of me i can't remember the photographer's name but he was featured in an internet article recently & is supposed to be a highly respectable, well established name in headshot photography & he typically shoots headshots in horizontal format & commonly cuts off the top of the client's head. it's now like his trademark.
jimberton wrote:
i have seen these and used it a few times from client requests.....just looks like a crooked photo to me....
and another thing...this new trend in cropping off part of the top of the head on a portrait???????...............i have had 3 clients in the last week come to me to get portraits without the tops of their heads cropped..as they received from my competition....
seems like everything is trying to replace anything that is or was standard.
i sure don't mind change, but some of these "trends" are pretty lame....but it's up to the client.
i have seen these and used it a few times from cli... (
show quote)
for the life of me i can't remember the photograph... (
show quote)
Dear MsJ, I agree with you, there is a great beauty in imperfection. I'm currently working on a series devoted to the concept of wabi sabi - if you're interested in the subject more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi and Google the term for other sources.
While I love Lightroom and Photoshop because they open up new avenues of expression, I do find that commercial photography that relies on removing every vestige of "grittiness" is boring because where can you go after you have achieved plastic skin and perfect teeth and tack sharp landscapes? (Quoth Henri Cartier-Bresson: "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept.") But then, a lot of commercial photography has always been boring--although we did have Avedon and Irving Penn and William Klein.
We also have the legacy of other greats like Diane Arbus, William Eggleston, Lee Friedlander among many others who found beauty in imperfection.
Best regards and let's rejoice in delightful flaws.
MsJ wrote:
Shouldn't we appreciate nature's flaws? Does everything need to be perfect? I think I'm tired of "perfect" pictures and "perfect" people. Does anyone else feel this way? I really like seeing English shows because they are real...and sometimes plain or even homely real people. How do the rest of you Hogs feel? I wonder if I should strive to make every picture better than the subject--rather than the best photo of the real person AND their "flaws"? Love to hear other thoughts on this. (This includes flowers, etc., with natural flaws.)
Shouldn't we appreciate nature's flaws? Does ever... (
show quote)
It's a $ 499.99 Brownie at Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/Kodak-Brownie-Target-Six-20-Camera/dp/B003Q4YGU2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334644839&sr=8-1 (the previous link doesn't seem to work, a friend told me.) Yup, a penny less than 500 bucks.
IvanF wrote:
LOL! You're gonna really fall out of your chair looking at this: http://www.amazon.com/Kodak-Brownie-Target-Six-20-Camera/dp/B003Q4YGU2!!! :roll:
CAM1017 wrote:
frenchcoast wrote:
RMM wrote:
Of course, it's frowned upon. Everything is frowned upon by somebody or other around here. DSLR? Why? A good P&S can take a wonderful photo, if you know what you're doing with lighting, composition, etc. P&S or bridge camera? Sorry, can't focus on the eye for a proper portrait. Cell phone? You've got to be kidding! Photoshop? Get it right out of the camera, who needs post-processing? RAW? Nope. That's cheating. Software filters to create an artistic image? That's not even photography!
I'd be inclined to rate a cell phone with an old-fashioned box camera like a Kodak Brownie. You could get some awesome shots with a Brownie if you knew what you were doing, or just got lucky.
Of course, it's frowned upon. Everything is frowne... (
show quote)
I somewhat agree with you but then again the Kodiak Brownie was a starting point for a lot of folks. There is a starting point for everything and everyone. Imagine if A.G. Bell or old H.Ford had been discouraged. Where can you plug in a phone charger on a horse?
As for right now anything I shoot is with my I-Phone or a little Nikon Coolpix 5X zoom 6.3-31.5mm. The Nikon is a learning tool and the I-Phone is what we refer to as lagniappe, a little something extra. My new camera will be here in about a month and it might be a different story for me then. But until then it's gonna be I-Phone or Nikon.
quote=RMM Of course, it's frowned upon. Everythin... (
show quote)
I fell out of my chair when I saw the reference to a Kodiak brownie. Thats the funniest typo I have seen in years.
quote=frenchcoast quote=RMM Of course, it's frow... (
show quote)
LOL! You're gonna really fall out of your chair lo... (
show quote)
LOL! You're gonna really fall out of your chair looking at this: http://www.amazon.com/Kodak-Brownie-Target-Six-20-Camera/dp/B003Q4YGU2!!! :roll:
CAM1017 wrote:
frenchcoast wrote:
RMM wrote:
Of course, it's frowned upon. Everything is frowned upon by somebody or other around here. DSLR? Why? A good P&S can take a wonderful photo, if you know what you're doing with lighting, composition, etc. P&S or bridge camera? Sorry, can't focus on the eye for a proper portrait. Cell phone? You've got to be kidding! Photoshop? Get it right out of the camera, who needs post-processing? RAW? Nope. That's cheating. Software filters to create an artistic image? That's not even photography!
I'd be inclined to rate a cell phone with an old-fashioned box camera like a Kodak Brownie. You could get some awesome shots with a Brownie if you knew what you were doing, or just got lucky.
Of course, it's frowned upon. Everything is frowne... (
show quote)
I somewhat agree with you but then again the Kodiak Brownie was a starting point for a lot of folks. There is a starting point for everything and everyone. Imagine if A.G. Bell or old H.Ford had been discouraged. Where can you plug in a phone charger on a horse?
As for right now anything I shoot is with my I-Phone or a little Nikon Coolpix 5X zoom 6.3-31.5mm. The Nikon is a learning tool and the I-Phone is what we refer to as lagniappe, a little something extra. My new camera will be here in about a month and it might be a different story for me then. But until then it's gonna be I-Phone or Nikon.
quote=RMM Of course, it's frowned upon. Everythin... (
show quote)
I fell out of my chair when I saw the reference to a Kodiak brownie. Thats the funniest typo I have seen in years.
quote=frenchcoast quote=RMM Of course, it's frow... (
show quote)
Hi Nikonian72 -- may I, respectfully, I remind you that it's not the tools that matter but the artist who uses the tools. If you want to see what one can do with an iPhone, please go see my teacher Dan Burkholder's site http://www.danburkholder.com/Pages/misc_pages/Portfolios/iPhone_Artistry.html to see what you can do without relying solely on serendipity. I say, solely, because great photography, to me and to many in history, is part technique part serendipity...for example: Cartier-Bresson, Eliot Erwitt, Robert Capa, Alfred Eisenstaedt, etc. etc. At one time, and within my memory, 35mm was laughed at as a substandard, amateur camera, used by all the folks I just mentioned.
Nikonian72 wrote:
You have to admit that there is not much skill involved using a cellphone camera. And there is precious little ancillary equipment involved. Serendipity is the primary factor in cellphone photography.
Yes, the New Yorker (not as good as in the days of Dorothy Parker, but still pretty good) and Photoshop User. Also Toastmasters Magazine, but that comes with the membership in the organization.
docrob wrote:
CocoRoger wrote:
I was sitting in the Drs. office this morning and looking through a photography magazine and I was thinking of finding one to subscribe to and thought I would ask people what magazine(s) you all read and why you choose to read that magazine?
The New Yorker for its incisive analysis and critical thinking....also cuz the writing is just so good it makes me salivate rolling the words around in my mouth.
:lol: I like your sense of humor!
tainkc wrote:
Yeah, I read that also. Too bad they don't make a version for Windows ME. I think Me and Vista were the best operating systems ever put out by Microsoft.
Ahh, I guess those who do a lot of PP, like Vincent Versace,http://www.versacephotography.com/, Katrin Eismann http://www.versacephotography.com/, Scott Kelby http://scottkelby.com/, Trey Radcliff http://www.stuckincustoms.com, etc., etc., etc., are really lousy photographers. Adobe's reason for being is helping us hapless dilletantes who can't get it right in the camera. :-D
Underexposing and correcting images in PP is like trying to get free lunch :D.
If you Google "digital exposure" you'll come across a whole lot of great information about the whys and wherefores of digital noise and tonality.
There are also many articles on reducing noise in PSE 10 - Google "noise reduction in pse 10"
HTH
oldtool2 wrote:
rpavich wrote:
oldtool2 wrote:
Yes, that is what I meen and only shooting raw. Actually that is all I ever shoot. what I do not understand is why when I adjust the raw photo the noise seems to be getting worse. It doesn't make any sense to me. I know that in the camera, even when shooting raw, a small amount of noise reduction is done.
I am going to try something a little different tomorrow. Will let you know what I find out.
Jim D
I'm pretty sure that no noise reduction is done to a raw file. Raw is just that...untouched.
Are you saying you are wondering why you are getting noise?
If you underexpose you
will generate excess noise...no question about it.
Better to "expose to the right" and back it down a bit in LR or PS. but never underexpose if you can help it.
quote=oldtool2 br br Yes, that is what I meen a... (
show quote)
I just checked where I thought I had read noise reduction was applied to raw and I was wrong. What they stated was noise reduction is applied to jpg's even when noise reduction is set to off. Your right, no NR in raw.
OK, so why does underexposing generate noise? That does not make any sense to me.
As for over exposing, was taught to never do that because of the detail you will lose. As was already stated, once gone you can not regain it. Would rather deal with a little noise and have more etail than not have it at all.
Jim D
Jim D
quote=rpavich quote=oldtool2 br br Yes, that i... (
show quote)
If you look at the map, the upper west side is only halfway up Manhattan, you have great photo ops going up on the #1, 2 or 3 IRT subway line toward the mostly forgotten-by-tourists upper Manhattan.
Morningside Heights with your choice of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine (the largest cathedral in the world by sheer volume) 112th & Amsterday
The Columbia University campus at 116th street
Riverside Church or Grant's Tomb at 122nd & Riverside Drive
Fort Washington area: The Cloisters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cloisters or pictures of the GW Bridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Bridge
Harlem: with Duke Ellington's Statue at 110th & 5th http://www.jazzfm.com/2009/04/duke-ellington/duke-ellington-7-ny-statue/
Inwood: for newly weds this memorable street crossing might be appropriate :) http://www.flickr.com/photos/jag9889/2113407093/ near Inwood Park where Peter Minuit purchased the island from the Indians.
You may consider a third visit just for this area of our beloved city...Cheers, Ivan
Frank T wrote:
Greenwich Village - I'd shoot Washington Square Arch.
Little Italy I'd shoot a scene on Mulberry Street taking in the many Italian Restaurants
The Financial District you have to shoot the Bull Sculpture at the south end of Broadway.
Lower East side you can shoot Delancy Street especially on a Sunday
Midtown - Gotta be the Empire State Building or Grand Central Station.
Upper West Side try the Museum of Natural History
Upper East Side - Central Park/Central Park Zoo
Hells Kitchen - The Intrepid Air/Space Museum
Meat Packing District - Highline Park (Park built on Elevated Railroad Tracks)
World Trade Center Memorial a must
Times Square - Especially at night
Rockefeller Center Ice Rink
The Guggenheim - Round Building that's really unique.
Don't forget Hotels - Waldorf - Magnificant Lobby, The Plaza Incredable.
The Metropolitan Museum and Grounds You'll be there all day
There ya go. That should keep you busy for a while.
Greenwich Village - I'd shoot Washington Square Ar... (
show quote)
Hi djw60,
The best antidote I've found for being a perfectionist comes from the great painter Salvador Dali: "Don't be afraid of perfection. You will never attain it!"
:D
djw60 wrote:
Sometimes I think that being a perfectionist, like I am, really sucks when you are a photographer and it comes time to edit! .......Just sayin :(
:D :D :D :D :D