bluphoto

Hey there,

I just upgraded my 20D to a 5D and now I'm struggling to find a simple

workflow which will allow me to select a file, do the raw adjustments and then

open it in Photoshop CS1 (PS8).

After saving for ages and ages to get my 5D I really don't want to have to

upgrade to CS3 (CS does everything I need, once I get the files into it).

I read that I should be using ACR2.4 (which I now am) and that I have to

convert the 5D files to DNG to allow Photoshop to read them.

I obviously need to be able to select which files to work on (and up until

now I was using Canons DPP software for this on the CR2 files).

I'm looking for a way to browse through the folders of DNG files (obviously

it would need to generate thumbnails of the DNG files).

Am I restricted to using ACR to read the DNG files? Can Canons DPP read DNG's?

thanks

Guy

I have a similar plan about a year ago, and purchased a Canon Eos 1V-HS - top of the line 35mm filem camera. I have to admit that I really love the quality and feel of this camera, but the hassle of the developing and scanning made me switch to a 5D the other day.

As much as I love film, and I agree that there will be many people out there still using it, I fear that its share of the 35mm market is dwindling.

Obviously with the price of MF digital backs, there's life left in 120 film for a while.

Although film will probably hold your interest for a whil - as it did mine - I would almost guarantee you will welcome the convenience of the DSLR.

The 5D is certainly a great deal right now as far as a full frame digital body is concerned - and I guess is the cheapest one out there. That said, it's still a lot of money.

thanks,

Guy

Peter,

I see you are shooting a 20D and 5D. I was going to sell my 20D now that I also have the 5, but I wonder do you still find it useful?

I prefer to shoot people, so I'm guessing the FF will suit me better.

I think my beautiful 1V-HS may be about to exit stage left.

cheers

Guy

Yeah, it did strike me as a little wierd, but maybe that's all they had in stock and didn't think I'd mind (much).

I just called them and they're sending me the warranty card.

Haven't been out of the office with it yet, so don't have much pictures to judge - but yes, it's great to finally get my hands on one!

I'm in Scotland, and the retailer was Park Cameras in West Sussex - England. I have dealt with them before and have always been reputable and reliable. That said, I've never bought a camera body from them until now.

I did save approx ?100 over the best price I could find elsewhere in the UK, so maybe it's no big deal.

The camera came with a Canon Europe 2007 cashback flyer insude - which I guess isn't much good to me now! There's a documentation package that comes with it, containing several items ~(manual, CD's etc) which includes a warranty GUIDE (20pages in multi languages) but no actual warranty CARD. The doc pack does say "Country of Origin: Great Britain" which is promising.

Don't get me wrong - the camera is great and I'm not one for complaining too much, but it does annoy me a bit, especially after spending nearly ?1200 UK.

I just received my new 5D body (and am delighted with it) but noticed that when

it arrived, the box was a 5D plus 24-70 kit (my heart skipped a beat - surely

they haven't screwed up and sent me a free 24-70 by mistake!).

Then when I opened it, I realised that they'd taken the 24-70 out of the kit

and just sold me the body - which I guess is what I had ordered.

Do dealers often split kits and sell the components separately? Am I likely to

lose out in any way because of this?

thanks

Guy

I have no major problem with the Elinchrom Skyports - I think Elinca is based in Czech Republic, although i've no idea if they actually manufacture there.

I have only a minor niggle with the Skyports - okay two - alright then, three - but can live with these inadequacies because of the saving over PW's.

1. Couldn't get Canon 580EX2 to work in Manual Master mode with the Skyports without a little modificaiton to the sync lead - I see this as a combined Canon AND Skyport issue - PW's apparently work fine with the 580's, and also the Canon works in every mode apart from MM with the Skyport - both are to blame, although I've heard that there may be a Skyport2 coming out in mid 2008 which will correct this problem - (it has a workaround anyway)

2. I noticed when out walking with my camera by my side (with the Skyport transmitter on the body) that the continual bumping against my arm while walking pushed the TX off the hotshoe, and it fell to the ground - lucky I noticed it, it could very easily have fallen off in heather and I'd never have found it! I believe the PW's have a locking mechanism to lock them to the hotshoe. I'm still trying to work out the best way to lock them to my hotshoe DIY style!

3. Sometimes they are a problem to START communicating. I always hit the test button a couple of times to establish comms, but once it's set, they don't miss a beat. This could be due to a low TX battery.

Rgds,

Guy

Okay, that makes more sense - thanks guys for posting although i was in the middle of typing the above which now appears to be mute.

So even in the traditional arts, there are movements which are dependant on historical eras (of which photography must land squarely in the most recent), but also in the "timeless" schools of thought mentioned by Dean G (ie the surrealist, formalist, impressionist, realist etc).

I think this is what I was trying to get at, more than the time-based periods, many of which are more than a century in length. Apologies for my naivety in this area, but my thanks for at least partially lining up the dots in my head.

Now all I have to do is read up on Arthurs and Deans quoted articles to find out how to make an impressionist photograph!

Thanks Ellis,

So there may be a swage of styles within a particular movement, with genres below each style, right?

Does the movemement depend on the medium of the particular visual art in question? ie, painting, charcoal, sketching, photography? or are the historical movements pretty much restricted to the "great arts" for want of a better term. ie Painting, Dance, Music?

I don't ever remember a sketch by any of the Masters being referred to as belonging to any particular movement.

Perhaps the movements themselves can only be identified in retrospect, ie did Vermeer know he was part of the Baroque movement, or did his decendants decide that long after his death?

Are movements in the world of different arts indicative of different periods in history? ie is a piece of Renaissance furniture from the same period as a Renaissance painting.

If it is indeed the case that artistic movements are dependant on world order, as opposed to artistic style, then perhaps ALL fine art photographs made to date are from the same, current, movement (contemporary?) independant of style, subject or genre and only when there is a distinct change of social direction in the world as a whole will a new "movement" be welcomed.

At the risk of sounding a little crass, perhaps artisans are a slightly selfish bunch who think that their particular branch of the arts is more important than others and deserves its own nomenclature when it comes to defining distinct periods in its history. I can't think of any other arts which are so young as Photography - people have been dancing/painting/drawing/sclupting/playing music since before we can imagine. So for photography to be included in the same "bag" as these other classical arts may or may not make it a special case as far as assigning finite movement "labels" are concerned.

Photography as we know it is just a baby compared to the classical giants but I don't see quite how much further it can go without changing into another art form altogether (Holography, for example).

Perhaps it is the Peter Pan of the art world, remaining young forever, and although preferred "fashionable" styles change from decade to decade, could it be resigned to tagging along with its big brothers as far as historical classification is concerned?

Good question - i've been considering getting a bigger softbox myself, but am unsure how big my lights will handle.

I have the D-Lite 4 kit so my lights are only 400WS each. They come with a softbox about 24" square, but as noted above the quality is decent by not great.

I'd buy the 48" Octabox or even a 6x3 "rectabox", but unless a 400WS light behind it can illumunate it evenly, what's the point?

thanks

Guy

Yeah, so you guys also found the same problem in describing these "things" as I did.

What are these "things" called. Somehow, "styles" doesn't quite cut it.

Just because a new painting is done in the "Renaissance" style, doens't make it a renaissance painting. So "style isn't the right word for it.

Maybe it's more like an "ethos", I don't know. I'm sure you guys get what I'm talking about?

When does "modern" become "post-modern", and was there a "pre-modern". Since when has the 1960's been modern? My second car was built in 1967, but I wouldn't exactly call it "modern".

I guess the world of art history refers to these periods as "movements". You know what I mean, all that "pre-Rafaelite", and "neo-classic" stuff. I'm unsure what to call them in the world of photography - if they exist at all.

Probably because retouching is currently touted as an absolute necessity in any commerially published image. A lot of emphasis is put on the eyes being sharp and clear, and the teeth being beautifully white.

Unfortunately, many people when starting out take this to mean the more retouching you do, the better your image will look.

The right amount obviously varies from image to image, but generally my rule of thumb is...

"less is devinitely more, but some is usually better than none."

The problem with correcting poor light by whitening the sclera (white part) in photoshop is that the remaining area around the eye is still poorly (sorry, inadequately) lit. Whitening the sclera alone serves only to make it look unnatural.

Same goes for teeth.

I'm not saying don't whiten eyes and teeth, but realise that although a model may have the whitest eyes and teeth known to man, most studio (or natural) lighting will show the detail and colour as slightly off white.

Either way this is a pretty decent photo - just remember that restraint is the best choice when you are wielding the photographic weapon that is Photoshop. It can do a LOT of damage!

cheers,

Guy

Forgive me for being more than a little naive in the world of art history. I

never chose "art" as a subject during my education and have only in the last

few years begun to appreciate many of its finer points.

I do recall some of the different "movements" in the art world, such as

classical, renaissance, impressionsist, modernist(?), post modern and

contemporary.

Now that post-prod manipulation allows photographic images to be altered,

modified and styled in a variety of ways, I wonder how these movements

translate into the world of photography.

With photography being a relatively young art form (in comparison with

painting, dance or music, for example), and computerised manipulation younger

still, is it still too early to establish finite periods in time which could be

categorised into movemements such as those above. Indeed are the examples

listed above separated by time alone? Perhaps geography or even the stylistic

preference of the artist play a big part in defining the "movement" of a piece.

Your thoughts are appreciated.

regards,

Guy Carnegie

I think if someone is conciously wanting to display some artistic photography, where each image is hung in an exhibitive way, ie to be considered and viewed as a piece of art in its own right by those who view it, then the genre really doesn't matter - it could be anything from portraits to war, landscapes to abstract.

If it's purely hung as an aesthetic addition to the decor of a room, then I'd reckon lansdcapes and floral are about your best bets.

I'd say if you took a hundred people off the street and asked them whether they prefer their wall hangings to be considered for their own artistic merit or to simply to break up an otherwise blank wall - so long as it looks nice, I think that you'd be pushed to find more than one or two who preferred the former.

cheers

Guy

Okay, so there's no reason for asking this, other than to find out if I'm an

unnatural hoarder...

Ever since I've been into photography, I've kept all the boxes for every part

of kit I have. I was quite upset when my boss picked up my newly purchased Eos

1V-HS on a trip to the States and delivered it to me in the UK with the news

that he had thrown out the box so the camera would fit in his suitcase.

I was also rather taken aback when someone from my work asked for my Manfrotto

tripod box which was lying around my office to send a piece of equipment to

Russia.

Am I a nutcase?

cheers,

Guy

I use two 35mm SLR's, a 20D and a 1V. I do like the instant feedback from the digital and I can learn the craft far faster that way, but I far prefer the build quality and "feel" of the film body.

I doubt if the pictures come out much better, but the main advantage is that I have full frame field of view for my wide lenses.

Sure, I'd live to go fully digital with a simlar camera, but for the digital equivalent of the 1V-HS, I'd be looking at a whole load of cash!

cheers,

Guy

I know what you mean about taking away from "us" to give to "me". I guess many spouses of amateur photographers would baulk if they knew what their partners were actually spending on their hobby, and thus many of us photographic enthusiasts probably feel guilty after any big purchase.

Your case is slightly different, and more justifiable. The problem only occurs if you are deceiving yourself (or your partner) that you are actually going to go through with this "business" thing properly.

Ask yourself what you're like as a person - ie what's your track record with large purchases. Do you have a history of extravagant and unneccessary purchases? I know I do! If you dont have a background of big buys, then there's every chance this was not a mistake. If you do, like me, then it's most likely spending for the sake of spending.

If you have sat down with your partner and discussed your options for starting out in this photography business, and also discussed that you will need to invest a certain amount of money into your new business for equipment, then I don't see what the problem is.

If you just woke up one morning and said - "hey, I'm into photography and my job sucks, maybe I'll quit and become a photographer", then went out and bought a D300 without thinking through what you actually NEED for this new business, then I think you probably made a mistake.

The D70 might not be the greatest camera on earth, but there's a lot of professional photographers out there who get fantastic shots from it. Check the galleries here if you don't believe me!

I don't mean to make you feel bad, but if you're worried that you've over-stretched yourself by this new purchase, then get your finger out and go earn some cash with it - quick!

That said, remember that this camera is not yours, it belongs to your business. If it's a business expense then you can write it off against your income tax (you were going to be paying tax on your new photography business income, weren't you?).

Too many people make some money from doing a wedding here and there, and maybe get some quick cash from the odd portrait, and never put it through the books.

If you keep things professional and above board, and you're honest with yourself and those around you, then you can't go far wrong. If you are going to call yourself a full time professional photographer with a legitimate business, then be prepared to put in AT LEAST the same hours you worked at your previous job. If you find yourself at a loose end two or three mornings a week, then you're not doing enough, you won't make it. Ask yourself how many people starting up their own business can get away with just working a 40hr week. I think you'll find that the successful ones are those who put in 70-80hrs or more.

It's mostly about being honest with yourself and believing in what you do.

cheers,

Guy

My 20D died too under what may be similar conditions, although not flash related.

It happened when I was carrying my camera (still attached to the tripod) using the strap.

The problem turned out to be the tension put on the BGE2 by the weight of the tripod. I changed batteries with no effect either.

In the end, I disconnected the BGE2 and after reconnecting, all was well.

Maybe nothing to do with your problem, but worth a shot.

Guy

Sara,

You obviously know that portraiture and fine art are two very different genres which happen to make use (a lot of the time) with similar subjects - ie people.

I think a lot of the above advice is aimes towards the portraitist, although you describe yourself as a fine art photographer.

A portraitist, in my opinion, provides a service to the subject. In this role, you would be expected to take pictures of whoever you are presented with (do what you can with what you've got).

A fine art photographer, IMO, dictates who they photograph and how they photograph them. YOU choose the model(s) and the situation. YOU are creating the image. Unfortunately, this means (as you've discovered) that you have three choices...

1. choose models to suit your ideas - ie pay for experienced models. Compromise your pocket.

2. choose models to suit your pocket - ie pay less, or make do with art students, models with less experience. Compromise your end result.

or 3. choose to go to (or host your own) workshops where the cost of the model is split several ways. Compromise your freedom of expression.

I'm afraid you can't get everything for nothing in this world.

BTW, I'm in the same situation as you, only I'm a "fine art enthusiast" rather than a "fine art photographer" by trade.

If you are truly a photographer by business (as you suggest) then selling your images should more than pay for your models. Us enthusiasts don't have that luxury. You have to remember, however, that business sense is probably 2/3rds of the job of being a professional photographer, if not more. That means that even creating stunning images only gets you a third of the way there. Business sense is what pays for your photography.

Yes, it's the chicken and egg thing, right? You can't have one until you've acheived the other. That's the way the world works I'm afraid. The clever bit is working out how to break into the chicken and egg cycle, and that you have to work out for yourself. (look at the three choices above).

But remember, DON'T just take great pictures, you need to spend a LOT of time promoting and marketing yourself, your style and your images. Then the money will come, and you will be able to afford professional models.

Also remember not to lose sight of the "fun" of photography. Hence the reason I have no desire to go into the business.

cheers,

Guy

Being a naive photo enthusiast, and by no means a professional (my job is a customer svcs manager for an oil service company) I'm sometimes a bit bemused by vast amount of knowledge on PN.

From what I'd gathered before I asked this question, if I took a picture of anyone, anywhere, anytime, then I was supposed to get a model release. There was never any "sometimes get one and sometimes you don't need to" until now.

This "anyone, anywhere, anytime" ethic MAY, however, have come from someone who doesn't generally look much beyond their countries own borders and I just wanted to establish whether this was a "global work ethic", or just a guide.

I understand that there is a moral obligation to help those less fortunate in any reasonable way, and I would imagine that highlighting the situation itself may be one of the best ways to help.

That said, I don't want to get into moral / ethical issues in too much depth. I was talking above about taking pictures (as an amateur) with no intention of ever publishing them - but not ruling out the fact that I MAY want to sometime in the future. If I can make money from my hobby them then so much the better - this is the real world I'm talking about here, and I am not going to turn down cash for a picture if I was ever offered any. I'm not a cold hearted, money grabbing papparazzi, but I'm not going to pretend that I'm Mother Teresa either.

So my question was "if I take a picture of someone in a foreign country, living or working in an environment which is a million miles from the hustle and bustle of western European/American life, then should I try to get a model release - just in case I want to use the images at a later date?".

Can I simply "give" the images away without a release - then what happens if the person I give them to wants to use them?

Can I exhibit publicly without a release?

thanks for any advice.

Guy

Oh don't you believe it, there are some seriously BAD people on here. You have to be especially careful if you're using the site alone at night. You should always use the site in groups of two or more.

I think the admin are in the process of developing a "notoriety" function - it's based on the photographers self portrait in their profile and the notoriety is apparently inversely proportional to the distance between their eyebrows!

Seriously though Heather. Just have fun!

Guy

Abdul,

This can be done as you say, buy smearing vaseline on a filter, or by buying a soft focus filter, or by simply shooting through some food-film stretched over the lens, but I'd suggest it's far more controllable in PP.

The reason I say this is that you can e selective about WHERE in the image you apply the soft focus effect. If it's overall, then sure go with the lens, but if you want sharp eyes etc, then PP is probably the way to go. Its a five minute job, and that includes booting up your PC!

cheers,

Guy

I have read that some others do indeed feel the same way, but please don't worry. Even those of us with a little more knowledge still get shot down in flames by the "uberklasse" who know more about photography than they do about etiquette. Most of us are real friendly.

One thing I should suggest though, without sounding derogatory, is that you try to use the search function (top right corner of your screen). I'm guessing almost everything you might want to know (at least at this level) will already have been asked and answered dozens of times. Certainly questions such as which set of lights, which lightmeters, which monitor calibration systems (I searched that last night!) etc have been answered ad-nauseum.

Of course if you really want to ask again, then by all means do so, and in such situations, we all need to be a little thick skinned. Some people will undoubtedly come back with the suggestion above.

Welcome aboard Heather! I for one will be more than happy to help you where I can.

Best regards,

Guy

Okay so maybe my coment that "we'd have nothing but sevens" was a bit flippant, but if I think Nan Goldins colours are oversaturated, then what's wrong with me telling her that? After all, she's the one asking me what my opnion is.

If my particular style was sloping horizons, camera shake and magenta casts, then I wouldn't expect many people to take that into consideration when rating an individual image. After all, when you rate an image, you don't have the rest of the photographers portfolio to consider. It's a one-time hit.

IMHO if I like it I rate high. If I don't I rate low. If everyone else does the same, then the creator will get a balanced opinion of how "likable" the image is, right?

Of course, I do consider the intent of the photographer, if I can identify it at all. In my opinion each image should be rated on its actual artistic merit as an individual image, and not on what the photographer was TRYING to express, or on the amount of work which has gone into creating it. Of course, the exception is if the photographer intended it to be considered as part of a group or larger body of work.

I was recently at one of our local club's competition nights, where one person got extra marks for having scaled a dangerous cliff face and waited hidden for hours in poor weather to capture an image of quite a rare bird. That said, although the task of getting the picture was quite an acheivement, the aesthetic value of the resulting image was questionable to say the least, with its only use I can think of being an encyclopaedia or ornithology tome. I have seen far better pictures of a pigeon eating crumbs around a park bench.

Of course George, please continue to post your unsuccessful shots. Obviously, the only reason you would want to do this would be to get feedback on how best to improve, and the system for providing this feedback is via ratings, comments and critiques.

Cheers,

Guy