Very helpful to get flash off camera. Use a TTL cord. Spend a lot of time bouncing the flash off corners (giant umbrellas), the ceiling, where the ceiling meets the wall behind you, the wall to the side of your subject, etc., etc. Pay attention to the color of the walls...they can't all be white...
And finally...from an old photojournalist...there are always toilets about (at least usually) I have on a number of occasions taken two or three squares of toilet paper and puffed them in place with a rubber band on my hand held, off camera flash...now if you want to move up to the real pro level try a Kleenex. Man who say it impossible should not interrupt man who is doing it...........
ATTENTION HOGS
The most hated camera is the one you don't have with you when the most amazing photograph of your life presents itself...
Delderby wrote:
Mudshark- The RAW / JPG debate HAS become endless - but still some interesting points are drawn out - and most of us seem to enjoy returning to the debate - or we wouldn't do it. Your experience with old negs in this latest chapter is interesting, and I guess you enjoyed recounting it. So - endless yes - stupid no. :-)
However, the MAIN POINT was that one can return to old RAW files years later and use the very latest software to reprocess them. Sometimes with startling results.
mwsilvers wrote:
Agree. If the end result is great then it's irrelevant how you got there. Too many seem more concerned with the process. I happen to shoot only Canon raw. If I feel a shot needs work I adjust it in LR and Elements 13. However, I don't convert my raw files to Adobe's DNG and retain my .cr2 files. That way if I'm happy, or close to happy, with the image SOOC, I can open it in Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) instead. DPP retains all the in camera settings with raw files and I can still perform some tweaks there if I want to. If I export raw files from DPP to jpeg I get results identical to Jpegs SOOC. It gives me the option to go down either path without having to explicitly shoot jpeg + raw.
Agree. If the end result is great then it's irrele... (
show quote)
And a point I've made during these endless, stupid debates (RAW vs. jpeg) I have a huge library of RAW files on external hard drives and DVDs, etc. Many times
.MANY TIMES
I have returned to an image shot years ago, reloaded the RAW file in the LATEST version of Capture One. Every time
the software pulls more from the RAW file than I thought possible the first time I processed the image
..
Bet many have taken an old negative and reprinted it years later with much better results
of course, experience played a huge roll but perhaps a new paper or a better enlarging lens helped
same thing...
Blenheim Orange wrote:
That is a great point. Some people are more fascinated with the tools than with the results. Nothing wrong with that.
I would only add that not all of those working with raw files are "screw driver photographers" and not all of those who do not work with raw files are "shooters."
Mike
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
In the 60's and early 70's I was a Navy Photographer. We always divided photographers into "shooters" and "screw drivers" or "screw driver photographers." I was proud to be a shooter. The screw drivers were always messing with some new formula to push film or some modification to a camera. Most of the time, I must admit, their images had nice grain structure, etc. but were mostly BORING. The shooters on the other hand made images with meaning. The screw drivers enjoyed lab work while the shooters wanted to be out MAKING PHOTOGRAPHS. Screw drivers would become almost sexually aroused when someone would ask how they managed to get such a sharp image under those circumstances or what a great print. I always liked it when someone just stood and stared, or showed some emotion or just looked a long time and said "Oh Wow
"
Now in the digital age I suspect the people are the same it's just the machinery has changed. I shoot manual RAW for way to many reasons to repeat in this never ending BS
I hate messing around on the computer. But just like the old days
I was never happy unless I processed my own stuff. And I didn't want to be in "the lab" I wanted to be back out making more images
.
SharpShooter wrote:
Shark, let's divide this different.
No matter WHAT you like to shoot, HOW you like to shoot it, or how long you been doing that......,but let's divide this into anyone that has shot a roll of film, processed it themselves and done a wet print themselves......, in say....., the last 30 days. No Digitizing, no scanning, NO Bull-Sh*T!!!!
That will rule out all the posers and everybody that has actually forgotten how to do it and is not just living in the past.
How many do YOU think would be left in the club?!?!?
There would be a lot less MUD in the water!!
Hey....., just trying to SCARE ya!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
SS
Shark, let's divide this different. br No matter ... (
show quote)
The weekend after I picked up my brand spanking new Canon D1s, a 16-35 and a 70-200
I ran my last film job for a catalog. Do not want to discuss my mental state as I worked my way through the damn instruction manual. Within a few weeks I was honk'n on down the road
I've never shot film again and after many decades
do not miss it
!!!
I shoot a 5DII for a lot of stuff and a 5DIII for sports, moving stuff, etc. Love the III am about to retire the II to the newspaper side only and pick up another III. On occasion I need two bodies and I don't like switching back and forth between the two somewhat different setups. A 24-105, a 70-200 and a speed light make a fairly comprehensive package. Favorite lens for many shoots is the 135 f2L prime
most excellent
Early on I was confused
coming from 6X7 roll and 4X5 sheet film
I just wasn't ready for the "program" world. Was having a really tough time
Wayne, now retired from Schiller's in St. Louis said "Hey
just turn all that stuff off and shoot manual-Raw." That, for me was the answer. Now, over the years I do occasionally venture into one program or the other
but always RAW. I only use the program when "I" deem in a benefit
Everything goes through Phase One/ Capture One...
mwsilvers wrote:
I'm sure you're aware that many here thrive on controversy. Lots of old farts like myself who have too much time on their hands and are looking for stimulation.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
My oldest daughter is about to add the title
"Mrs." The reception will be held in my studio. A number of noted photographers will be here. We obviously have a bunch of photo gear. She wants to set up some kind of "photo booth" where people can sit on a bench, push a button, shoot a "selfie," so to speak, and have a small printer print out the image for them to take as a gift.
It sounds simple
but I'd like to hear some ideas.
Especially in the KISS department...
O.K. Hogs
Here's the Mudshark Answer
We divide this site into two distinct groups.
Group A
photographers who shot at least five years of film before rolling over into the digital pool.
Group B
those who have never loaded a roll of film, have never known anything but digital photography.
This would end a great deal of confusion on the part of Group B.
O.K. Hogs
are we gonna make 50 pages this time???
There are no benefits to shooting RAW. Just stick to jpeg. There is too much competition in the field already. Simply put everything on full auto and start banging away. Happy Shooting...
Look at the specs on Canon PRIME lenses...