bob_osullivan

I also prefer the 2nd one. Here's why. While the first image obeys the "rule" leave your subject somewhere to go. As in if they are looking right leave room to the right. However sometimes you need to break the rules. The ducks are clearly moving away from the POV. So this conficts with that rule. You'd have to be looking at the ducks faces not their behinds for that rule to really apply. The message I get from this image is "Goodbye". So it works to have them nearly out of frame, again since we are seeing them from behind. Second, and perhaps more important, the clouds in the 2nd image have a bit more Drama for me.

Miller's Professional Imaging

She's a Flake, and doesn't value your service. If you re-book collect a "booking fee". Not a deposit. A deposit can be construed as refundable. A booking fee is non - refundable. Make that clear. It does not go on your calendar until the booking fee money is cleared in your account. If she flakes, it's a day off with pay. Don't call out sick from work for this client. Book it on your day off if at all.

$10 / month gets you both lightroom and photoshop, not to mention bridge and a host of other apps. Just do that if you're serious about commercial shoots.

To simplify it, exposing for shadows usually meant over expose the film some. However, this would potentially blow out highlights. So, under developing could compensate to save the highlights. Light hitting negative film causes emulsion to be retained in development more. More emulsion blocks light from the enlarger hitting negative paper resulting in lighter areas. Having less emulsion allows light to hit the paper creating darker areas. So underexposing saves the shadow are details, and reducing development time, agitation or temperature saves highlights that would have been burned out. This is basically "Pull" processing. Pushing film would be expanding the contrast not compressing it as the Pull does. You'd push when your film ISO / ASA is not sensitive enough for the lighting. Pushing usually loses detail in highlights or shadows but allows a usable image in under lit situations.

If those are your only two options definitely Tiff. See if there's a driver software update that will allow DNG files. They are smaller but still lossless and compatible with most platoforms.

You could use a gradient or mirror the background in PS to match the roll off of the light to balance the background.

Magnificent shot! The only change I would consider is to crop out the lower branch which is a tad distracting.

As a follow up project, this composition would be great at night after a heavy rain with streetlights glowing and reflecting on the soaked bricks. Just a thought.

I would try to catch it again another day at another time with better lighting. The image is flat. Lighting at 10:00 or 2:00 would add texture and shadows making it more interesting. And yeah, definitely B&W.

Out of your list the only one I have is the ETRSi line. I still have these with many lenses and viewfinders. Why? I just can't let them go. These are awesome cameras, simple to use. Ubiquitous so cheap. I've put together a 3 body, 5 lens, 5 back, 3 view finder and speed handle system for under $300 all in. They work will with studio lighting via pc sync cord. Others may be better, but you can't go wrong with the Bronica ETRSi. They are built to last.

Hence the recommendation for three lenses. A wide, a normal and a telephoto. A zoom simply emulates having multiple focal length prime lenses. Limiting a new shooter to 3 fixed focal lengths aids in the learning curve. This is better than infinite focal length choices of a zoom assuming one wants to learn the craft. Sitting in one spot with a zoom and being too lazy to move your body to get the best perspective, is the mark of a snap shooter, not a photographer IMO. You pick your best focal length and you pick your best position. Yes you can do the same thing with a zoom. The problem is new users don't bother to do more than fill the frame with a zoom which is not ideal.

The banding on the film photos looks like a film processing problem. Too little agitation, bad chemicals, wrong temperature or expired film. I'd try again with fresh chemicals and fresh film.

It would help if you could post a photo sample.

Glen, let's not overcomplicate this. Claire is a beginner and asked if stacking some filters I assume she already had would make sense. Answer, NO. She just needs an R72, like others have stated, to start learning infrared photography.

With digital I shoot color raw and decide later which images to convert to B&W. When shooting film (rarely) I'll chose B&W for architecture, street doc, occupational portraits and landscape. Basically, you use B&W when color does not add anything, or actually detracts from the images impact. In other words, when color is a distraction. That means when the composition's shapes or emotions are the most critical to telling your image's story, you choose B&W. Here's an example of an event photo, where the image in color was just boring. But looking at it in B&W allows us to focus on the composition and emotion. Note how the rule of thirds leads the eye to the interesting areas. The fist thing to catch my eye at the event was the girl grooming her dates hair. But looking at the photo I first see the interesting lines of his hands on her knees, then my eye moves to her hands messing with his hair. After that the women behind them (one seems to be looking on them adoringly and the other looking at the event). Lastly your eyes may glide over to the young boy who looks totally bored as he fumbles the fedora hat in his hands. You miss all this if this photo was left in color.

What lens for what? There's no one best lens for everything. I don't buy the "use only one lens for a year" strategy. It is useful to have some success early on with different types of images. A good start is to have one "normal" lens 35 to 50mm, one rather wide 18-24mm and one telephoto 135mm or above. I think zooms do more harm than good when learning. Your feet are your zoom. Learn what the perspectives these different lenses offer and how to use them to best advantage.

They are used to manage, minimize or distort perspective. Also, the focal plane (area in focus) can be manipulated by tilting it top to bottom or right to left, for some interesting selective focus effects. This is difficult to mimic in Photoshop.

This is an ancient question that has been answered long ago. But I'll repeat it. There is no longer any advantage to using film and it is obsolete. Having said that, some of us old timers do enjoy the process of shooting film, developing and making wet prints. It's fun. Even view cameras with full adjustments can be adapted to digital. Now, some prefer the analog look of irregular film grain vs the sterile and consistent look of sensor pixels. That's a matter of taste, much like some prefer their music on vinyl.

Short answer, you use Red; Orange to deepen / darken skies and make clouds Pop! Yellow and Green are used to brighten foliage. Green is often used to make skin look healthier. Blue will brighten a dark sky. Of course you should experiment and make your own choices. Polarizers are used to see through or enhance glare on water surfaces and glass as well as manage reflections on metal. ND filters allow much slower shutter speeds in daylight for motion blur.

Stacking red, green and blue filters will only create a neutral density filter, just reducing all the light. No point in doing that.

You use this technique when it enhances the image or better communicates your intention. Showing motion of people or water against a static background is obvious and intuitive. However, for moving cars, you keep the car in sharp focus and blur the background by panning, not as obvious. In either case you use a slower shutter speed. The difference is sometimes the subject should be flowing, and sometimes the background. You have to think about what you want to convey. And don't overdue it.

Hey Wayne, good point. Ok, neither of us is an attorney (disclaimer). IMHO this is another area where the law has not caught up with the tech. This sounds like photo journalistic use even if the images are used in advertising the event/entity. Simply using images commercially does not necessarily require a release. Posting marketing shots on an entities website is quite a bit different than publishing 100,000 posters and selling the posters. Also, if these are event photos and the individuals in them are not readily identifiable and not clearly the main subject there should be no need for a release. Then there's the questions of trademark/servicemark. If perhaps an individual has trademarked their likeness or if a company logo is protected likewise and appears as a main element in the photo there could be contention. But the likelihood of any of that is low...again IMHO. If I'm shooting a wedding and doing portraits at a park or beach, there may be some bystanders or a logo in the image. I don't worry about that, even though I may use those shots or a venue may use them for marketing purposes. In those cases the client/couple may have received a discount for signing a model release but the bystanders did not. I just think that there is so much of this going on it would not be possible/feasible for anyone to try to run that down, let alone prove damages. Just my 2 cents.

If you're in the USA shooting in city streets does not require a release.

<p>I'm currently researching this for myself. In addition to the 4K capability I've also found these differences.<br> 120 frame rate for slow motion video in 1080 on 6300. This is 4 times slower than the standard setting of 60 based on native 30 fps. It looks amazing but if your not into that it's a mute point.<br> The body is metal on 6300 and weather sealed 6000 is plastic less solid and not weather sealed.<br> High ISO low light performance is a little better, maybe 1 stop.<br> There is no mic input on the 6000 but the 6300 has one, important for video shooters as audio is half the picture and you want to use an external mic in many situations. <br> The 6300 can be powered with an external battery or cell phone charger for endless use. No worries over dead batteries while shooting. 6000 cannot do this.<br> I believe there are also some HDR, pano and time lapse features in the 6300 absent in the 6000 but double check that. I've read so much lately I'm a bit foggy over it now.<br> On the other hand, 1080 video is actually better out of the box with 6000. 6300 can be better but requires post work. <br> 6000 does not overheat like the 6300 but I think that only happens when shooting 4k video for extended periods like 20 minutes at a time.<br> I hope that helps. I'm leaning towards the 6300 myself more because in my area the price difference is $550 vs $999 or double not triple. And I see the extra $450 as cheap insurance/futurproofing.<br> I hope that helps someone.</p>