mike_earussi1
-
Posts
3,004 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by mike_earussi1
-
-
<p>Why the R, do you plan on making really large prints? I would think the A7 would be better with its larger pixels making it less noisy in low light conditions, faster AF, electronic first curtain shutter, smaller file size, etc.</p>
-
<p>I would be a lot more concerned about theft than breakage. Providing a large empty studio is one thing, providing a lot of expensive equipment worth stealing is another. The simplest ( and safest) solution would be to just provide (cheap) lights and backdrops and maybe a few props, require a small to medium size deposit, and hope for the best.</p>
-
<p>If you shoot a lot of verticals it really helps the wrist from being strained. If not then it's just extra weight and bulk.</p>
-
<p>Besides the quality of the lens, the other influences on the image are:<br>
1. How flat the film is held in the camera (this is directly related to the cost of the body since tighter machining cost more money). Related to this is how accurately the lens is aligned to the film plane.<br>
2. How accurately the body allows you to focus (a rangefinder is more accurate than an slr).<br>
3. Whether the shutter is leaf or focal plane--leaf shutters don't have a "kick" whereas focal plane shutters do (this is mostly relevant to using slow shutter speeds on a tripod).</p>
<p>So besides the quality of the lenses, this is why the Leica M bodies produce the best photos: they are machined to very tight tolerances and use a rangefinder for focusing.</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p> Buy used. I own a Epson 1400 but the cost of ink was killing me prompting me to look for a cheaper alternative, so I bought two Epson 4800 for $200 each (at different times) on Craigslist (one set for glossy ink, one set for matte).<br>
They're very tough printers. Just make sure the heads aren't plugged before you buy.</p>
<p>I've also seen Epson 3800s, 3880s and 7800s as well (though for more money). You can also buy outdated ink on eBay for about 1/10-1/5 the price of the cost of the 13" printers ink (my average cost per ml is 27 cents). Doing this has saved me a lot of money over using a service, though it does take a little time to learn how to use the printers correctly.</p>
-
<p>You might want to look at the new Sigma 24-105 instead. According to all the tests it's not only sharper than the Canon but less expensive as well.</p>
-
<p>For black and white backgrounds any good material store has those "colors" in wide widths. For variegated have you tried Ebay?</p>
-
<p>f22 is guaranteed to destroy both contrast and resolution due to defraction. Educate yourself by conducting a test with your best lens:</p>
<p>1.set your camera on a tripod with mirror lock-up and remote triggering</p>
<p>2. use the lowest iso (the higher the iso the worse the image quality)</p>
<p>3. then start with the lens wide open and take a series of shots at each f stop.</p>
<p>You'll find that (with a good lens) the contrast and resolution peak around 2 f stops from the widest aperture. So if you have a f2.8 lens the best f stop will be around f5.6.</p>
<p>Also if you want to use a polarizer then you need to use a good quality multicoated one (which can easily cost over $100 depending on size), as cheap ones will often make the image quality worse.</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>As Ellis mentioned, when ever I have a color problem like this it usually means one of my inkjet nozzles is plugged.</p>
-
<p>There are many different types of watercolor paper, some with very smooth surface and some with a very rough surface. I suggest you buy the Hahnemuhle Textured sample pack:<br>
and test out the different papers to see which one you like the best. </p>
-
<p>The key is to have a passion and have that passion show through your work. What is your passion? From your work it looks to be more architectural than photojournalism.</p>
-
<p>Freezing Ektar 25 does not appreciably slow down its aging according to a Kodak tech I talked to at the time (15+ years ago). Has something to do with its unique emulsion chemistry. But ordinary film's life can be extended by decades if frozen, especially if it's less than 100 iso. But freezing does not prevent cosmic rays from slowly fogging film, so there will always be some loss of dmax. </p>
-
<p>1. buy a 4x5 Crown Graphic with a Graflok back:<br>
-
<p>I have one and it only works for really close-up macro shots. It's really not powerful enough for portraits unless you're shooting at iso 1600+ with a wide aperture lens.</p>
-
<p>I have the same problem with the NEX 7 when the sun hits my eye from the side. I don't know of any solution short of somehow blocking the sun, and unfortunately, Sony (or anyone else) doesn't seem to make a large eyecup for the camera. </p>
-
<p>There's always cut and paste (photograph the same item with and without polarizers, then replace the flat lettering with the gold version in Photoshop) though it's a lot of work. But if all else fails...</p>
-
<p>1. white background</p>
<p>2. two spotlights: a weak front light (possibly a ring light) and a strong backlight</p>
<p>3. place bottle on mirror</p>
<p>4. shoot.</p>
-
<p>A lens that badly damaged would be very difficult to resale if you ever wanted to. Also the chip is very large and close to the center which will definitely affect image quality. I personally wouldn't buy it unless it's really cheap. </p>
-
<p>The motion blur is certainly noticeable, but I've found this provides plenty of light at close range at an economical price:</p>
<p>The other problem is your use of f16, which not only prevented your use of a faster shutter speed but also produces a slightly soft image due to diffraction.</p>
<p>I get around this problem by using focus stacking, which works really well to increase the dof without compromising sharpness due to too small of a f stop. I use it quite often for flowers and have developed a handheld method that works fairly well. I set the aperture at f4 and use continuous shutter speed, hold down the shutter button and gradually change the focus of the lens to encompass the area I want in focus. I usually wind up with around 15 shots that I then combine in PS. The result is below:</p>
<p> <img src="http://g4.img-dpreview.com/12981B81D9F34554B48107A1D22400A5.jpg" alt="" width="891" height="700" /></p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>You idea reminds me of what some people are doing for the homeless, cleaning them up and photographing them in nice clothing, to not only improve their self image, but to try to change societies perception of them as well, showing that are as "normal" as everyone else.</p>
<p>I'm not saying your idea is impractical, but it might be a hard sell. But the key to success for any idea, no matter how strange, is how good you are, not as a photographer, but as a self promoter and salesman. So if you are a really aggressive person filled with self confidence you might be able top pull it off, especially if you're personable as well.</p>
<p>Skills you need to bring to this, along with being a good portrait photographer in general (I assume you already have lots of experience in that?) is a good knowledge of makeup, hair and clothing styles designed to enhance a person's appearance. </p>
<p>I also suggest you start out by building a good portfolio and resume by doing some volunteer work first. You might contact a woman's abuse shelter offering to do this kind of photography for free just to gain experience and to see if you actually like it. </p>
<p>Good luck.</p>
-
<p>You don't mention what you're photographing, so it's hard to give exact recommendations. But for portraits the soft lighting everyone recommended above works well. But for hard lighting you need tungsten spotlights.</p>
-
<p>You mentioned rental studios. There are usually a few in every large city. If you wanted to combine a rental studio with rental equipment to be used only on site under your supervision along with some printers and computers for printing then that might work, as long as this was all your own equipment. But no one would ever trust total strangers to use their equipment without a very large deposit (probably 100%) and strong rental contract. </p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>William, a 24x36 unframed from CanvasPop is $126. That works out to $21/sq'. Now on my printer my costs (canvas + ink) are around $4/sq', and that's using the finest Hahnemuhle Monet archival canvas. Nor does CanvasPop mention what kind or brand of canvas they're using, whether it has optical brighteners or not or if it's considered archival, all of which can be important selling points to potential customers. </p>
<p>Now I certainly don't object to selling my work through photo.net, but I'd much rather print it myself and pocket the difference. I just wasn't sure if that option was available. </p>
-
<p>Public record doesn't necessarily mean the "public" owns it. If that were the case I could use Tom Cruses' driver license photo to advertise my products without paying him any compensation.</p>
<p>I also believe there is a law stating that public photos can be used without permission for journalistic purposes only, not commercial ones.</p>
<p>I hope she wins her lawsuit. If not, everyone is in danger of having their (or their loved ones') photo misused. </p>
Lots of beginner questions- please help! :)
in Beginner Questions
Posted
<p>To help answer #1:<br>
the faster and more powerful the processor the easier it will be for you to edit and adjust, so you're looking for a computer with the latest Intel i7 chip with a clock speed of 3ghz or more. Also lots of ram really helps--I have 16gb but some professionals have observed that they can see speed improvements using up to 64gb.</p>
<p>A large hard drive is also important. A 3tb would be best with all the potential files you'll have to store. Another 3tb external is also recommended to help keep your main drive from becoming to crowded and to provide backup if anything should happen to your main drive.</p>
<p>Also a solid state hard drive (SSD) would really speed things up a lot for the initial editing--again bigger is better.</p>
<p>Finally, don't neglect the importance of a decent monitor, IPS is best with at least a 23" 1920x1080 resolution and a fully adjustable screen. These can run from under $300 for a low end to over $2,000 for the best.<br>
http://www.amazon.com/Viewsonic-VP2365-LED-23-Inch-Monitor-Black/dp/B0053YKE72/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1402235792&sr=8-1&keywords=viewsonic+vp23<br>
http://www.amazon.com/PA302W-BK-SV-LED-2560-1600-SpectraViewII/dp/B00EZP2720/ref=sr_1_20?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1402235832&sr=1-20&keywords=nec+monitor<br>
but the cheaper one will work for prints and web images.</p>
<p>It also must be color corrected for accuracy:<br>
http://www.amazon.com/X-Rite-CMUNSML-ColorMunki-Smile/dp/B009APMNB0/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1402235943&sr=1-2&keywords=color+munki</p>
<p>You don't mention your budget, but with computers and monitors you usually get what you pay for, so buy the best you can afford.</p>
<p> </p>