shawngibson

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>I've been using PS for a long time (I use the current CC now) but I've always stuck to the basics. I have never delved into channels very much.</p>

<p>My question is (I think lol!) is it possible to open an image (RGB) and create 3 layers that represent the 3 channels (value-wise), and work on those channel-layers individually, then combine them to form a final layer?</p>

<p>Another question, I've noticed when I have blown-out highs, usually they are on one channel only. Is it possible to replace this channel with one of the better-exposed ones, and keep the original colours, i.e. keep it a traditional colour image but with those 1-channel values removed/replaced?</p>

<p>Merci, as always,<br>

Shawn</p>

<p>Thanks all. I'm still old-school with the quotes ">>"</p>

<p>>>That's not being old, that's being out of shape, I assume from leading a sedentary lifestyle.</p>

<p>Hey, I resemble that insinuation:)</p>

<p>>>I believe I have a sleeping disorder that affects my motivation but I can't be sure. I just role with it and don't worry about it.</p>

<p>I'm certainly no expert, but have known many people who have sleep+motivation problems, and everyone of them is diagnosed with a different 'thing'. As long as you are willing to roll with it, that's a good thing. Much as I am a huge fan of science, I think medical practitioners usually are just human, and are making educated guesses for all but the most obvious conditions. "Oh, that's a rash, here's a bottle of leeches; apply one a day, and drink plenty of goat urine. You'll be fine in a month."</p>

<p>>>If you're getting people who like your work enough to have you along as their lifestyle photographer AND ARE YOUNG WOMEN! consider yourself VERY lucky!</p>

<p>Age range of models who have AGREED (i.e. not actually shot them yet) ranges from 16 to 63. If/when I work with the 16 year old, I'm going to ask her to bring someone older with her, and I hopefully will have an assistant. I just wouldn't be comfortable otherwise. Actually, I'd be perfectly comfortable, on a professional level, but not at all on a "this is 2016 - the Internet rage age". I've already told her I'm 'old' and have asked for permission from her guardian/parent. She didn't reply to that, so at some point I will bring it up again, before we meet.</p>

<p>The 31 year old is an experienced model and artist, and has been very helpful, shooting her next Thursday:)</p>

<p>The 63 year old wants me to shoot her like Freud might paint her (nude), and Freud is one of my favourite artists, so I'm looking forward to that. </p>

<p>>>And based on this work, I see no reason why anyone wouldn't want to work with you to create new work.</p>

<p>Thanks Craig. The softness is a combination of 3 things: out of focus (unintentionally); bad scanning (my fault); and post-processing tilt-shift etc. (intentionally, I always wanted to be Paolo Roversi with a huge view camera lol)</p>

<p>>> So you tell them when and where they need to show up if they want to have the opportunity to work with you. They are the ones who are apparently trying to get a break and end up as professional models. </p>

<p>My biggest concern is no-shows. I work 9-5 weekdays in a great career, so that will always come first as far as when I am available goes. No getting around that...</p>

<p>However, I can only budget around $600/month for photography, and that includes equipment, studio/rental space, and all participants (models, MUAs, etc.). So if I book a studio and the model doesn't show, I'm in a pickle.</p>

<p>>>Your photos are fine for now but start to change them as soon as you get new updated photos from your new shoots. </p>

<p>That's the plan. I've already moved all my images on ModelMayhem into a folder called "1997-2005" and state very clearly in my Bio that this is older work. I also state that, while I've not worked with models for a long time, I am an AV Specialist at work and do photography, video, and audio on a daily basis, as well as having done paid jobs (on the side) for events, anniversaries, etc. for many years.</p>

<p>>>Besides he didn't ask for a critique and he may have intended them to look like that as some type of aesthetic statement.</p>

<p>No worries, Tim. I always expect critiques (and thrive on constructive ones even if the first sentence is "I think this sucks" as long as it's followed by "and here's why...blah blah blah...and that's my opinion" I'm fine with it, even if unsolicited.</p>

<p>Which I suppose brings us full circle. I suppose it makes a lot more sense to follow my own lead, and not worry so much what current 'professional' photographers think. I suppose professional photography is not much different than dish soap advertising. Everyone is going to say they are the squeaky-cleanest and their competitors can't get butter off a boiling glass.</p>

<p>Time to man up, as they say:)</p>

<p>Shawn</p>

<p>>>I guess the real question, and one to which you know the answer, is: does good quality work every get outdated? How important is it to me to go with the latest trends? To me, being yourself and not-so-fashionable is a better creative starting point than the other way around.</p>

<p>I think sometimes I will have a model, and sometimes a model will say 'no', based on my style. I don't think I'm particularly fashionable right now, but I don't let that stop me from being me. </p>

<p>I'm an old fart now, 46 years old. When I started with PDN I was young, in university, confident, attractive and in-tune with the day.</p>

<p>I'm learning that people who want to be models are above the iphone/instagram thing, so that's good.</p>

<p>But I'm still an old guy who wants to be in bed sleeping long before the models want to go out shooting.</p>

<p>I feel like models who like my work want me to meet with them and chase them around while they live their lives on a Friday night. When I was young, that was good. I was always willing to do Nan Goldin shots. But now, as an old person, I'm not so sure I can chase models around anymore.</p>

<p>Shawn</p>

<p>Well let's be frank here. Clearly I'm not very confident after having just a few photographers say my work is out of date or sucks.</p>

<p>But I've never been one for 'likes'. I'm not even on Facebook or other social media.</p>

<p>I would never bash someone's work; if I had something negative to say, it would be constructive.</p>

<p>I've met with a couple of MM models, and they like my work for what it is, old 90s attempts at fashion. We are going to work together, so I'm very happy.</p>

<p>I suppose I'm asking, is it more important to have a few models say they like your work, or is it more important for a bunch of unknown photographers to say you are outdated, or boring, or bad?</p>

<p>I think I know the answer to that question now, and I should just continue being me. I think. Who knows...</p>

<p>Shawn</p>

<p>Tim - I am consistent and capable of professional and beautiful work. I don't doubt myself. Just sharing what I've heard from people I don't know.</p>

<p>Shawn</p>

<p>Thanks Michael. I don't edit myself. I prefer to show my warts and shining images. I suppose today in an e-world that might not be such a good thing. Everyone can click on a filter after taking a smartphone pic.</p>

<p>Shawn</p>

<p>Hi All, I've signed up to modelmayhem, because, well, I don't have friends to shoot anymore; everyone I know is a lawyer, accountant, married, or otherwise not interested.</p>

<p>I've uploaded some of my old photos, in an effort to attract new models/actors/dancers. Am I doing myself a service or disservice here by showing my old images?</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1090844</p>

<p>On modelmayhem, I've had 2 models who want to work with me. That's a good start. But I also have a bunch of photographers saying my work is crap, or old, or boring. So I'm not sure if I should be showing my old work?</p>

<p>Suggestions, please and thank you?</p>

<p>Shawn</p>

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>I'd like to buy a filter kit (like <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1131615-REG/formatt_hitech_htmk8577_ken_kamineski_85mm_master.html">THIS</a> one) that will work with a Mamiya 75mm Shift lens, which is 105mm thread, and smaller threads as well.<br>

Any Mamiya lenses (and I assume the 105mm thread will be the largest, the only others I want are the 140 macro and the 50/4.5) will be on a Mirex EOS-to-M67 TS adapter on a Sony E-Mount. Any EOS or E-Mount lenses will also be on a Sony body, minus the Mirex adapter. </p>

<p>Is it possible to get a kit that will work on all of these lenses, with the obligatory step-up rings?</p>

<p>I'm a filter newb. In all my decades of photography I've never even owned a UV filter lol...</p>

<p>Merci:)<br>

Shawn</p>

<p>Thanks Jochen. I've chosen the Mamiya lenses (67 format, namely the 75mm shift and 140mm macro) because they seem decent and fit my budget.</p>

<p>Are you saying that I could buy something like this <a href="http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Toyo-View-45GII-4x5-Monorail-Large-Format-View-Camera-835-/401100943025?hash=item5d637aaeb1:g:tDoAAOSwbwlXAv7R">Toyo</a> and then just buy a front for Mamiya 67 lenses, and a back for Canon EOS (as I have the adapter) and that's all I'd need to do?</p>

<p>I want, of course, the most movement possible within my budget. </p>

<p>The GX680/Sony conversion guy got back to me and said he can build me a system for Mamiya 67 lenses. His work is <a href="http://chiek.co.kr/list/view.php?id=6807&page=1&sn1=&divpage=1&sn=off&ss=on&sc=on&select_arrange=headnum&desc=asc&no=5&PHPSESSID=63bbb6d9133e1ba1e1d3618329e56afb">here</a>. I'm note sure of the price, but based on the linked page, it seems reasonable ($1199USD for everything but the lenses if I'm reading the page correctly.</p>

<p>What would the trade-off be if I am correct in the Toyo/custom front and back vs. a GX680 conversion?</p>

<p>I really need to buy a book on LF movements. </p>

<p>Shawn</p>

<p> </p>

<p>And now it gets confusing:</p>

<p>"The Mamiya 645 autobellows has complete front movements.<br>

I adapted one to the NEX and A900 for use as a "digital back" by removing the rear standard and replacing with a modified focusing base from a Minolta slide copier that has a tilting camera platform. The platform uses an adapter that clamps the bellows opening around the NEX lens mount. Uses standard Mamiya 645 lenses with movements at infinity."</p>

<p>From here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2969508</p>

<p>Not sure what that means, but it doesn't sound good...</p>

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>I suppose technically this isn't a LF question, but I suspect I'll find the most knowledge here.</p>

<p>I've always wanted a camera with movements, namely to correct perspective, to allow for stitching, and to allow for portraits with 'that look' via tilt.</p>

<p>I currently have a Sony a7II and NEX-7, and plan on getting an A7RII when the used prices come down (say next year).</p>

<p>I know there are solutions out there which would allow me lots of movement with these cameras, but they are all out of my reach financially (i.e. Cambo, Horseman, Novoflex).</p>

<p>There was a guy out there who chopped up Fuji GX680 and converted them for Sony use with whatever lenses, but he has been off the grid for a couple years, and hasn't responded to me.</p>

<p>I've cobbled together a 'kit' in my head, but I have no idea if, in theory, it should work. So I'd like to ask for advice.</p>

<p>Simply:</p>

<p>1) For portraits, the Mirex Tilt/Shift adaptor (EOS mount, as I have the Metabones already), with a FotodioX 645-67 Mamiya adapter, and the 75mm (67) shift lens.<br>

2) For stitching, the same, using Photoshop to stitch the output.<br>

3) For macro, the Mirex adapter housed to the Mamiya Tilt/Shift Bellows with the 645-67 adapter and the 140mm macro lens.</p>

<p>The Mirex is here:</p>

<p>http://www.mirex-adapter.de/preisliste.htm</p>

<p>And the bellows I mean is this:</p>

<p>http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Mamiya-645-PRO-TL-PRO-M645-AFD-AUTO-BELLOWS-N-SHIFT-TILT-SWING-UP-DOWN-/222078199946?hash=item33b4e4688a:m:m_EmWGfVq0TbOdhQBtn52uA</p>

<p>Having no experience here, I'd really appreciate if you guys could chime in. </p>

<p>Merci:)<br>

Shawn</p>

<p>Thanks Peter. I'm a manual focus person. Both the 24mm and 90mm will be on Sony bodies with Metabones IV adapters to carry aperture info to the body. Don't care about AF.</p>

<p>Between my eye, focus peaking, and magnification, I'm sure I'll be fine. I'm not a sports shooter:)<br>

Shawn</p>

<p>An example of how I use 'tilt' which is to say, selective focus:</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18212397-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Edit: This was a Contax S2 with Zeiss 50/1.4, Delta 100 in PMK Pyro scanned using a Minolta scanner. The "tilt" as well as all other modifications are in PhotoShop.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks all. I'm glad I posted this. To be fair, most of the 'reviews' I've read have been comparisons between the Mk I & II, in which case I suppose it just makes sense that the II will be the 'shiny new better' of the two.</p>

<p>I am also glad that looking at samples myself, I find nothing bad about the Mk I, so I'm happy to take all reviews with a grain of salt.</p>

<p>My goal is to pair the 24mm up with the 90mm TS-E for a pair of portrait lenses (24mm on APS-C is a favourite of mine for horizontal portraiture) as well as multi-shot stitches with my 360deg. head. I'm not sure if one can do multi-stitching with a perspective-corrected image, though...any thoughts there?</p>

<p>For decades I've been artificially blurring images in the same or similar manner to a tilt-shift lens, for example like some of Paolo Roversi's older work (he works mostly with large format, of course). I've always wanted to get a real tilt-shift setup. So here I am:)</p>

<p>I'd also like to get a circa 2:1 macro setup with a telephoto lens (I have a focus rail available, and do image stacking with Helicon, using a pair of microscopes, so I'd like to do the same with a camera). Would the 90mm with a couple of extension tubes achieve this? I suspect if I can get 2:1-ish, the movements of the lens will reduce the need for stacking somewhat...</p>

<p>As you can see, I'm trying to get the most out of the least amount of gear, largely because I only have about $3000Cdn to spend at the end of April (yep, bonus time lol).</p>

<p>Shawn</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi guys,</p>

<p>The Mark I gets a lot of bad reviews, but the images on Flickr look good to my eye...which of course means nothing given it's just little compressed Internet images.</p>

<p>Is the Mk I really so bad, compared to the Mk II or the Rokinon?</p>

<p>I can't afford the Mk II...much as I'd like the extra movement and larger image circle.</p>

<p>What flaws of the Mk I can NOT be fixed in PhotoShop?</p>

<p>Merci:)<br>

Shawn</p>

<p>Could I possibly adapt this to work? </p>

<p>http://www.ebay.ca/itm/CONTAX-AUTO-Tilt-Shift-EXTENSION-BELLOWS-Unit-f-CY-Macro-Close-Up-/351683755813?hash=item51e1fc3f25:g:cwIAAOSwHgVW8V5B</p>

<p>I do like the idea of having corrections available, but I always thought that for a 35mm plane (24x36), you needed medium format lenses because of the image circle. Forgive my ignorance.</p>

<p>Shawn</p>

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>I made some images of a friend about 20 years ago, all on a Pentax 67. Couple of years ago, I decided to turn them into a triptych, so I cut them up (scary!) and fed them into my Minolta scanner, then merged the individual results.</p>

<p>I finally 'saw' a result I'd like to achieve, but I'm having some issues, namely, my lack of knowledge about anatomy.</p>

<p>I'm trying to create an image that goes from adult, to adolescent, to child (see image below). But I'm having a very hard time. The adult (left) is properly proportioned of course, because it is untouched. I've not dealt with the adolescent (middle) yet, but the child (right) just looks like a shrunken mature woman, not a child.</p>

<p>What sorts of things would you do, in Photoshop, using all the creative tools available, to turn an adult body into the body of a child?</p>

<p>I think...less muscle, more baby fat...shorter arms and chubby fingers...no hips...rounded bum...bigger head(?). I'm kinda lost on this...any anatomical help would be greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>This is a WIP, so my apologies...</p>

<p>Shawn</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18208763-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Thanks Brian. It's very challenging and time-consuming...but it's really cool because I am essentially making 'studies' layer after layer, while not having to consume paint, canvas, materials. </p>

<p>At the end of the day, they will still be digital, and won't have that awesome smell of lavender oil of spike and Canada Balsam, but they'll be pretty...I hope:)</p>

<p>Shawn</p>

<p>Thanks very much guys, appreciated:)</p>

<p>So I need:</p>

<p>R-to-FE adapter<br /> >><br /> Bellows II<br /> >><br /> Leica 14167 M-to-R adapter<br /> >><br /> M-mount lens</p>

<p>Is that correct? I plan on getting the 90mm Summicron (Canada) not a Dual Range. Also, per your advice, I'm planning on getting a Zeiss ZM 35/2.0 Biogon, but I was hoping to put some distance between my lens and the subject, namely living insects. The primary use of these lenses is walk-around portraiture: 35mm on the A7II and 90mm on the NEX-7 via Voigtlander VM-E (close-focus M-to-FE adapter). Gives me a 35mm/135mm (equiv.) kit. Great:)</p>

<p>I'm sure I'm misunderstanding a bit of the advice here. I can't get an M-Mount bellows and hook that into the VM-E because of clearance issues with the Sony, yes?</p>

<p>Also, I have a focus rail and plan on moving that, rather than refocusing the lens, such that I can keep the magnification consistent, for focus stacking. Is that plan solid?</p>

<p>Merci:)<br /> Shawn</p>

<p>Wow that's confusing. Thanks Stephen. I don't know how to translate that into a Sony body. </p>

<p>Is there a bellows that's just a bellows, for M-mount?</p>

<p>Shawn</p>

<p>Hi guys,</p>

<p>Is it possible to mount a 90mm Summicron (old one) to an A7II and NEX-7 via the Voigtlander VM-E and some sort of bellows?</p>

<p>I'd like to get very close, i.e. say a fly filling the entire frame.</p>

<p>Merci:)</p>

<p>Shawn</p>

<p>Hey guys,</p>

<p>I've only seen this for sale once, it was $1600USD with de-clicking and new mount.</p>

<p>Is this lens generally available? I don't see it on Ebay. What's the normal value of it? I've seen its images on Flickr, love the lens.</p>

<p>Merci:)<br>

Shawn</p>

<p>Wow, when I had to 'select a category' most of these categories are the ones I created for PDN almost 20 years ago. I'm getting old...</p>

<p>I've been putting a concerted effort lately into something I'm completely unfamiliar with: namely, painting photographs.</p>

<p>I know there are techniques spanning the history of photography for taking a monochrome image and colourizing it, but usually they are based on huge blocks of colour (for example, an entire face with a particular colour or a swath of blue for a dress); but I've been trying to actually paint old BW photos (both digital and film) with a Wacom pen in a manner that is more like a painter, i.e., almost pixel-by-pixel.</p>

<p>When I paint, which is rare these days, there is a lot of material involved, i.e. paint; and there's also a lot of wasting that material because I scrape a lot of it off in order to find what I'm looking for.</p>

<p>With Photoshop, that's not a problem:)</p>

<p>I've never used PS to "paint" before and frankly, as someone who always works from photos, I always want to start with the photo. In other words, I've no interest in creating 'brush strokes' ex nihilo.</p>

<p>So I've been sticking to basic brushes on a colour layer in PS and just adding fake colour, with the occasional dodge/burn layer and the occasional 'drawing' layer to sharpen softness in key points, like the shadows of eyes.</p>

<p>The short of it is, while I'm not wasting money on paint, it is STILL just as time-consuming to 'paint' in PS as it is with a canvas. Several months into this, I've still not finished a single 'painting'.</p>

<p>But I must say, it is INCREDIBLY rewarding each night to come home from work and not be afraid to create something new, because I know it is non-destructive, and it is also not going to cost me money for paint:)</p>

<p>Applying painterly techniques, for example the turbid effect (Reubens) in Photoshop, layering, adding depth by way of another layer, it is all incredibly fascinating.</p>

<p>Here are a few examples, and I must stress, none of them are finished...but wow this is fun:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1089361</p>

<p>Have any of you turned photos into digital paintings? If so, what advice do you have, given my early efforts?</p>

<p>Shawn</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hey guys, happy Saturday:)</p>

<p>I've seen several lenses from Japan I'd be interested in purchasing on Ebay. Does anyone have shipping/customs/duty experience with such coming to Canada?</p>

<p>Merci:)<br>

Shawn</p>