bobcossar
-
Posts
1,622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by bobcossar
-
-
<p>If money is an issue then Faststone...also free....does more and better that Picasa. Paintshop is totally more complex and does everything imaginable. Steep learning curve though and your ten year old pc won't likely accept it well....if at all....Robert</p>
-
<p>Shadows are not acceptable if you don't like the look of them. As I look at this picture though, I can see lots of detail in the shadow areas and this makes me wonder why you needed the flash at all?</p>
<p>The "easy" answer to this shadow effect is to purchase a ring flash and use it as intended <strong>on the lens</strong>, rather than off to the side...Regards, Robert.</p>
-
-
<p>My advice is to develop YOUR vision and techniques to produce them....the i.models illustrations you show us are....well.....politeness forbids me to say exactly what I think of them.<br>
<br /> The Sun image is a pretty standard approach from what I see there....</p>
<p><em><strong>You</strong></em> have styles in you waiting to be born.....go find them, and you will be the happier for it...Regards, Robert</p>
-
<p>Free....and quite powerful is Faststone.</p>
-
<p><em><strong>"Well, it's only a G11."</strong></em></p>
<p>What kernel of wisdom is hidden in <strong>that</strong> remark?.....</p>
-
<p>Stephen....the scene you <em>"saw with my eyes" </em>does <em><strong>not</strong></em> exist. It's your brain that sees.....and interprets and edits too. PP is just you editing what the camera saw, much as your mind edits what you eyes saw....</p>
<p>Then too.....the output straight from camera needs <em>some </em>editing because of the very nature of the process. How far you want to take it is another issue.....and up to you. Regards, Robert</p>
-
<p>I'm with Todd on this one.....the ghosting lends to the overall ambiance of that situation rather well. And, it's not the kind of shot that is ever going to be a large print on the clients wall......it has life and spontaneity just as it is...Regards, Robert</p>
-
<p>What's going on here........several posts have <em><strong>erased</strong></em> with no notification. If we are to be <strong>censored</strong> it needs to be said up front....</p>
-
-
<p>Woah....And some people call <em><strong>ME</strong></em> cynical!</p>
<p>No Vail, I was completely serious.....try it, practice it.....you may find something you like about it.</p>
-
<p>*Vail.....something you might try for the bouquet toss....needs the bride and an accomplice.....is to tape a small video camera to the bouquet.....then, if it works well in the toss, include the clip in their slide show... regards, Robert</p>
-
<p>With a tripod it's a possibility for sure...without some solid support though I think you'll need more than just hands....Try it and see...maybe post some results....Regards, Robert</p>
-
-
<p>I was going to comment, but Leslie has said everything I would have...Cheers, Robert<br>
Oh...without cheating...the camera is clearly a Sinar P...</p>
-
-
<p>Scott....there are solutions to the acknowledged lighting issues and as to the physics...well....look at the photo I posted. Of course it depends on the magnification to a degree...but more important is the final size image needed...Certainly this is not the approach for billboards, but it can, and does, work fine for much of the illustration images so often needed....Regards, Robert</p>
<p>Oh...and many people don't like this kind of approach because it doesn't require you to buy a big expensive lens etc. This is a solution centered answer.</p>
-
-
<p>If your work is as good as your prices, then just relax about it, and let it go, Regards, Robert</p>
-
<p>I don't care for the "rim' lighting on the arms, shoulders, nose chin etc. I would prefer to have seen more out-of-focus background as a better way of creating a 'separate' plane for the people.</p>
<p>Flash is a bit hot, leading to shines on the faces etc of the bridal couple. The flash also overpowers any shaping the available light may have given the contours on the couples geography. I know one cannot always help that last point...depends what the ambient was like and we don't know that.</p>
<p>Pity about the smears...but sometimes you have to get the shot that's there in front of you. Then there's that fence....ah well....It's still a very enjoyable grab shot. Regards, Robert</p>
-
<p>Thanks for the clarification as well, Bill...:) Robert</p>
-
<p>Can you amplify that last remark please, bill.....thanks, Robert</p>
-
<p>I used to come here lots more than I do these days. The questions from the "newby" wedding photographers have, generally, become more inane than they ever were in the few years I have been a member here.<br>
Nothing wrong with needing to know things......but NOT if you are also doing wedding photography for pay. There needs to be a bar set, and there isn't one.<br>
I genuinely admire Nadine for the generous way she deals with posts that come from folk who should NOT be shooting weddings for money because they so obviously don't know enough to do so. In any other photographic field such people do little real harm....but weddings are just too darn important and un-repeatable, to let beginners be the principal shooters.<br>
Not to mention the damage they do to the professions image as they butcher important events.</p>
<p>I have no idea of what a real solution might be to this, for me, real issue. So I mostly just stay away from this forum. Respects to all who persevere to bring light into the dark corners, but I think that horse has been long gone...Robert</p><div></div>
-
<p>Tell them of the problem you are having, and ask them to help you to do what they have hired you to do. Nicely? Well...what wouldn't be nice about that?</p>
dream point and shoot for the pro's
in Mirrorless Digital Cameras
Posted