For Marc: Hessie or Digital

[blakley]

Like I said, I suck at Photoshop, and Marc could undoubtedly tell you how to do this better.

 

1. I used the magnetic lasso in Photo to select the bride & groom. I did this quickly and

not carefully, which is why various parts of them are fuzzy. Extensis Mask Pro or

something like it would have made doing a good job with this much easier and less time-

consuming, but I don't have Mask Pro.

 

2. I created a new layer from the selection.

 

3. I activated the background layer.

 

4. I used the Gaussian Blur filter to blur the background layer (i.e. everything except the

B&G). I used about the right amount of blur for the background, but you'll notice that it's

much too much for the foreground. A real photoshopper would have made a separate

selection and layer from the foreground and applied a different amount of blur to it.

 

5. I converted the image to greyscale by using Photoshop's "desaturate" command. Again,

this is the lazy man's approach & doesn't do a great job. A few minutes' extra effort would

be required to select the correct color layers and use the channel mixer to produce a more

attractive B&W image.

 

6. I used curves to lighten the "light midtones" a bit.

[blakley]

(that's ... the magnetic lasso in PhotoSHOP ... of course... sorry.)

[fotografz]

Hi Rich, it's a 7' Elinchrom Octabox. The are different adapters for some of the more

popular strobes so you can use something other than an Elinchrom unit in it. I use a

Profoto Acute head in it for example.

 

Yeah Nadine, using hypefocal distance prefocus sure helps out with MF cameras (as well as

with any manual focus camera). Another addition to the prism finder I found useful is the

flip magnifier... invaluable with critical focusing in lower light. Canon AF lenses not having

an aperture ring with distance markings on it so you can go full manual prefocus is a

major irritation IMO.

[derek_c.]

Wrong, Marc.<br>

Rich people don't become my God.<br>

I'm tired of defending myself from these little jabs, but I had it coming.<br>

ha..<br>

Denis and Monte are one step away from having their own informercials.<br>

[karl_knize]

Marc -- After a tad too much wine with dinner the other night

followed with a CAO, it seems that I let personal difference color

the post, which I regret. A couple of years ago, it seems you

must have seen me peeing on the roses on the way in when I

picked up the V35 with the boys, and after your marvelous

response to my followup email I suppose I've had a burr under

my saddle. But I have a rule I try and live by, which is that

regardless of my personal feelings I give credit where I think

credit is due in regard to good work. Over the course of a couple

of years I've seen you reference a big bunch of equipment you've

moved through, along with references to making a great living as

an AD and so forth, and I assumed that weddings was

something you did primarily for the process and not the return.

But economics are economics and you'll get no argument from

me about the upside of dig. capture if you're shooting volume. I

think that the dig. work you show is really good, primarily the

85mm, but the M work on the average is better. More unique.

More arresting. Richer. It looks like sweat equity. Recentlly I've

begun collaborating with a creative consultant (Deanne

Delbridge ) to start moving my commercial work in a new

direction, to higher ground, and her only mandate to me was to

use the equipment I love, in a way I love working and can have

fun with. No more shooting to fit into a market. Outside of

covering the basics, Is wedding work so much different? A while

back you made reference that you want to work in the tens of

thousands someday. So how does one separate oneself out in

order to get there?

 

BTW -- Really nice home studio. The best I've seen.

[fotografz]

Sounds reasonable to me Karl. In the headlong rush, you do have to step back and

contemplate exactly what it is you are doing as an artist, as well as considering the

business end. I think you are right in that the only way to move forward into new financial

areas is producing even more discriminating work and edit the heck out of it... then find

those willing to pay for it. Digital hasn't necessarily moved me in that direction, which isn't

the fault of the gear, it's my fault 100%.

[karl_knize]

A few shots of the studio main floor, equipment cases still out between jobs.

Just finished repainting and there are no pictures hanging save one.

Downstairs basement includes darkroom, print storage, backgrorund and

equipment storage, workshop.

[karl_knize]

I forgot. Only one shot at a time. Popped four with the 553/Imacon. I'll keep it

at two.

[karl_knize]

Hmmm... don't know why they aren't showing. Pixels are 500 x 400 or so.

[EricM]

Karl, you need a caption. I built a studio last year. Started with a derelict heritage space. Seeing how we're showing off our pride and joy, here's <a href=" http://www.ericmilner.com/Photos/Studio_in_Progress/">mine.</a> I'm really happy how it turned out.

[karl_knize]

Looks like a knockout space, Eric. Somewhere around 2500 S.F.? The

windows and brick have great character, and the slanted support is a nice

touch. What city are you in? My little space in Chicago is about 1,400 on the

main floor with a matching basement and V shaped, the first floor commercial

of an old victiorian building. I have pix of the building as far back as the '20's

with mom and pop grocery stores and bars worse than the ones I frequent

now! I've attached a shot someone gave me of the building about 5 years

before I moved in. My space is up in the front. Recently, we had to bite the

bullet and had the exterior metalwork redone in copper to match the old.

Ouch.<div></div>