garypeck

<p>Guess I wasted my time responding to this query. Sad.</p>

 

<p>As you can see by the dearth of responses - this is one of the toughest questions we can attempt to answer. However, if you pay attention you will put yourself ahead of all the uninspired masses that you see all over the net. As you demonstrated in your image and for the sake of this discussion we will assume you can make satisfactory images and need inspiration regarding concepts. That said, I'm going to give you a little advice that might help. Photographers that understand the importance and powerful concepts driving their art are always the most successful. Be it a portrait or piece of actual photo inspired art the concept that drives it and the viewer is the key.</p>

<p>Your mask shot is OK technically yet fails of express an emotion, evoke wonder or state a feeling from within you. Art photography can evoke a full pallet of emotions but not if the artist fails to insert them at the onset.</p>

<p>Read a poem - what is poetry - imagery of course. Read a book that demonstrates great mental visuals even a movie can supply mental inspiration.</p>

<p>To see what I'm talking about visit Brooke Shadens website and study her work. She has a wonderful procedure designed to help her see within and design conceptual images that are great. Today she published a video demonstrating how she works - it's her first one and rather crude but hang in there it gets better and is definitely worth your time. Visit her site first and get a feel for the work then follow this link.</p>

<p>https://www.facebook.com/brookeshadenphotography/videos/vb.176453226632/10154243067856633/?type=2&theater&notif_t=live_video&notif_id=1479316499980407</p>

<p>There's probably a lot more info in the image. If you have LR try settings like:<br>

Highlights -79<br>

Whites +19<br>

Blacks -95<br>

Something like that might give you a little more "pop".<br>

Cheers.</p>

 

<p>Devon's absolutely right! They always beg you to do it when they're in a jam and then scream when it fails to reach expectations. Experience would tell you what you need to do this and how to accomplish the project. Without those skills you'll probably fail - and the client won't understand anything except you failed.</p>

<p>"Bad planning on your part, does not represent an emergency on my part" Just say no.</p>

<p>This could become a "big" production. Firstly, if you need "help" your probably unqualified to do the job. Not being rude, but honestly, shoots like this require experience to successfully accomplish. Based upon the budget and physical circumstances (limitations) I'd probably start thinking cherry pickers, lift trucks or scaffolding. You'll need a couple of 2000w/s power packs minimum - forget silks or umbrellas - at these distances they won't create a visual difference to hard light. You should, for a professional look use at least a 4x5 camera with adequate resolution for recognizable faces.</p>

<p>If you find this hard to believe - I recommend doing a test with your 7D and one of you lights to prove it. Evaluate the images based upon what ever size print their after and the sharpness and resolution present to recognize faces. I would just say no, there are folks who specialize in this kind of work with the equipment and experience to painlessly pull it off. MHO</p>

<p>Build yourself a "team". MUA's, stylists and models are all in the same boat, they are looking at how to get started or expand upon they've already started. You will need some "good" images to demonstrate your skills - that's the biggest problem with newbies, so find a friend, rent a studio and shoot and edit some very good stuff. Use MM or C'list to get some leads - review their work and bring them together. Models have cloths - so use theirs for now.</p>

<p>A wise man once said, "If you shoot what you love - the money will follow".</p>

<p>I've been at it 40+ years myself and re-invented myself numerous times. Now, I shoot what I love - I've heard every one of todays "gurus" preach this and can't deny it's value. To try and please everyone, is to please no one. I gave up the Hassy's and Sinars early on - I miss them - but there's too many opportunities to create fine work in digital. Those who are in it for the money - rearly last very long. Trust you heart and let it lead the way.</p>

<p>You have to meet with them when you shoot them - right? No tickey, no washey. I won't shoot a job without the signed release in my hand before anything happens - period! Never had a problem. Also, if I don't do it first thing - I'll forget until it's too late.</p>

<p>Jay - really? If you have no idea what equipment you need - then what makes you think you will know how to use it? This is not going to be pretty - think about it for a moment. You're planning on lighting that's easy for you with little concern for the clients involved. It takes time and experience to deal effectively with studio strobes and it usually takes longer than a weekend.</p>

<p>I don't mean to be a downer here - but you've obviously bitten off a bit more than you can chew - how are you going to position and pose these people while you're under considerable pressure and time constraints.</p>

<p>Please find someone with the experience and background to take this job - take a percentage if you must, but for the sake of all our reputations let this one go.</p>

 

<p>"The question is how you are going to achieve critical focus, manually, on the D800. That is where the challenge is going to be." Shun Cheung.<br>

Well said, Shun - one solution is a split image focusing screen with a Nikon DG-2 Magifier. Solves the problem.</p>

<p>Sounds like you're probably going to be slightly unhappy regardless of which way you choose. Aside from the ergonomics, what kind of images are you going after now that BB is over? If you're going after general images any of them will do. I for-see buyers/sellers remorse in your future. </p>

<p>If portraits are your thing then larger files are important for large prints - I really think you're over-thinking this whole thing and need to re-focus your choice based upon final image needs and actual photography that serves your needs. It's about images rather than features. MHO</p>

<p>Your question is dependent upon your intent. If you are shooting the same images over and over - and they represent nothing new - or if you are well ensconced in your comfort zone and just adding to the amount of images - then, what's the point. Thinking is usually is of value here, perhaps considering a concept, point of view and purpose for the images might be of value. It's kind of like the golfer that plays his first round of golf for 30 years - never learning, exploring or profiting from the experience.</p>

<p>If you've ever cursed your results for having "dead eye's" you'll appreciate a vehicle to enable the sitter to connect with the camera. As the examples demonstrated - it's an excellent means to an end. Dead eye's or dead face require training to see it, some never do, and the work suffers for it.</p>

<p>"The Squinch" is amazing - tons of attitude. Love it!</p>

<p>Just lower your shutter speed to 200th or below and you'll be fine.</p>

 

<p>Looks like she is carefully clipping the foreground and simply adding a black layer behind - looks to me like daylight.</p>

<p>Fred, love the Paramount image. Beautiful environment skillfully handled. <br>

Backgrounds, I've always taught find the background first - a slight move on location can alter the background/subject relationship - not a Tao concept - just common sense. Environmental portraits/subjects present significant challenges - but we are responsible for the totality of the entire image. We must previsualize (as closely as we can) the finished image. That's the truth of the craft - from Bresson to LaChapelle and everywhere in between.</p>

<p>Julie, I'm a composite photographer as are you, where you strive for realism I disregard it and search for visual harmony - if it fails to look "believable" I could care less. In answer to your question, I probably spend half my time thinking about finding and executing backgrounds.</p>

<p>I've attached some work to exemplify these ideas - some are complete and others are waiting for the subject to arrive. LOL</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17566475-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="460" /></p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17566477-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="453" /></p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17566480-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="454" /> </p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17566478-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="454" /></p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17566482-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="454" /></p>

 

<p>Moderation in all things - perhaps not. Cooler heads should prevail - no one's on fire or bleeding, guys. There appears to a good deal of frustration here from all parties. Frustration with each other, the business model or who knows what.</p>

<p>Please don't judge participants by their gallery or lack thereof, I have a web site that demonstrates many years of dedication to the craft and that I believe represents well my capabilities and dedication to the business. I pulled my images from PN as there was no incentive to maintain them here. In fact as a mere member my stuff was ignored and was invisible as it seems that only subscribers are of any note. Exclusion from most events and other activities fostered by PN are, I believe exclusive to subscribers only. That's fine but please don't criticize me for not being where I'm apparently not wanted. </p>

<p>Art has been consumed with controversy since it's very origins - that's nothing new - but personal attacks are uncalled for and unacceptable. It's simply a matter of intent. Criticism in this format is extremely hazardous as you can never gauge the competence level of those involved - as such - tempers flair - sad.</p>

<p>Jeff, you defaulted to the standard moderator programming - "if you don't like it leave" - you really need to do better than that. We're here fighting for something - something that we all love, yet you trashed your own "problem solving" intent. Might want to rethink that responce, and have a little respect for those who care enough to constructively criticize. We bitch, perhaps because we care and want to help save something worthwhile. </p>

<p>Another pithy response, very well said Rick. For what it's worth I concur completely. Personal evolution is one thing, as Micheal pointed out, however, there is a limit to how far down we can de-vovle to answer a typical question such as: "Does my ISO setting effect both jpgs and raw files alike?" or currently "Is Fill-flash just flash on lowest power?". How on earth could a moderator not move these to the beginners forum?</p>

<p>I truly believe that this constant flow of empty-headed questions is frustrating and aggravating for we who, have paid our dues in the craft, to constantly have to wade through in an effort to discover a post of interest. Of course these folks deserve answers but the answer should be directions to a resource that would satisfy their needs - not a time consuming short-cut to further misunderstanding.</p>

<p>I guess that's a part of it for me, PN has become bogged down with lazy new-bee's who have found a short-cut to quick answers and are taking full advantage of more experienced well intended folks. It's kinda like the "give him a fish or show him how to fish" concept. I'm tired of being forced to carefully provide information that I acquired in 30 years of pro work to people who haven't got a clue, and information that following a simple search is readily available here and elsewhere on the web.</p>

<p>I realize that standards are difficult to establish and maintain on a site such as this, yet considering the metrics, it might be time to re-evaluate the model. There seems to be a great deal of concern over civility and kindness. Perhaps, the frustration I'm and others are experiencing is driving that lack of patience to some degree. Might it be the "Are we there yet" syndrome? How many times must we suffer embarrassing questions from people too ignorant to even see how embarrassing they are! I gets very old and is very sad. Want your pros to stick around - then get the kindergärtners back in their room so the adults can play.</p>

 

<p>Well said, Harry - dittos.</p>

 

<p>"Unified View" is a pretty good barometer of what's happening on the site, and as anyone can see - it's incredibly equipment centric. It's all about this lens or that body or flash. Rarely is there an image oriented question. In addition, the answers to the questions being asked require little more than a glance at the owners manual from what I can only imagine are folks who refuse to read and are too lazy to do their homework. </p>

<p>As this industry atrophies to the low information photographer, we encourage this behavior by writing copious answers and justifying their sloth. There is a "beginners question forum" apparently that's not good enough as the same questions answered dozens time (too lazy to search?) just keep reappearing. These circumstances make for a predictably boring PN experience. I always ask myself on the way to the site " let's see what the idiots are up to today", I'm rarely disappointed and often appalled by the lack of understanding of the fundamentals of the craft.</p>

<p>It's really a shame, are moderators failing to monitor - or asked not to? Obviously one must fork over some cash to be included or even seen on the site, as members are ignored in deference to subscribers, a rather odd division of organization. PN seems very close to the Facebook model, with a great deal more to offer yet seems to not be able to get out of it's own way. </p>

<p>I can't find any mention of six screws or holes on the 180mm going back to 1971. What's the link to the site that speaks of it? You could check with John White, he's a guru on this stuff - do a search.</p>

<p>Check out: http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html#105 -- page down to 180mm and up for key.<br>

This page has most specs and serials that would help identify what you have.</p>

<p>http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenstype.html -- talks about mounts and screws here.</p>

<p>Check the history, John. In the past a good photographer could make six figures shooting stock for major agencies - now - it's all gone. We started taking percentage cuts - then the fee's went - now there's just pennies on the dollar. The big agencies sold themselves to Getty and others and they tried to buy the market until now the market is untenable. How can you question that?</p>

<p>Bruce Livingstone.<br /><br />In 2000, he founded iStockPhoto, he and his compatriots whored their market and destroyed stock as we know it. Couple that with the over-abundance of mediocre images flooding the market from overzealous talentless amateurs and there's little hope of putting the genie back in the bottle. Livingstone can create whatever he wants - my guess, the market won't care - nor respond. Good enough is cheap and good enough.</p>