bryantan
-
Posts
428 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by bryantan
-
-
<p>Umm, 2 second self-timer? Check that the drive is in single or continuous.</p>
-
<p>"That's pretty much the definition of non-staff newspaper work and has been for many years. There aren't many staff positions left. For stringers there never have been any guarantees other than a fee based on column inch or other usage based fees. If they can't use the material, you don't get paid. Nothing unusual about it, no exploitation, just the way it's been done for many years. It won't get any easier with cutbacks in most newspapers."<br /><br />I realize that, but some publications are more egregious than others, offering assignment fees than barely cover your expenses, while at the same time, demanding too many rights, or worse, forgoing that meager guarantee against usage all together and paying only when an image sells. My one-line warning was meant to encourage the OP to do more research, because I don't think he fully knows what he's getting into.</p>
-
<p>Do you have any photojournalism/documentary experience? You might sneak in a good portrait or two into your book to show that you can light a portrait if need be to illustrate a story. If all you have under your belt is a wedding, I very much doubt that you have enough to show to get you assignments.<br /><br />To answer your questions: choose around 10 images, clean them up, print them at 8x10 at a high quality lab. Don't put them in mats, but do get a nice presentation portfolio to display your prints in.<br /><br />Also, carefully read their contract to check that they're not turning you into a day laborer, or worse, having you work on spec.</p>
-
<p>C'mon guys, so what if, best case scenario, he loses $100 per session? Maybe he'll make up for it in volume.</p>
-
<p>Random links aren't going to get you anywhere. Exchanging a small number (no more than 20 or so) of QUALITY links on a link page will help, but only if the incoming links are from high ranking pages.<br /><br />For example, if your home page has a Google PR4, incoming links from pages less than PR3 simply won't do anything. PageRank is determined on a logarithmic scale, i.e. a PR5 page has ten times the "authority" of a PR4 page. I don't mean to say that PageRank is the only determinant for search rankings, as it is not, but it is an example to show that incoming links from weak pages are essentially worthless.</p>
-
<p>Radiopoppers or the new Pocket Wizards. Both are TTL, which means you can control FEC from the camera. As far as I know, there is not a radio slave that allows full remote manual control for speedlights.</p>
-
<p>At 6-8 feet, the quality of light will be very similar to that of a bare flash. Follow this rule (loosely, of course): a X size light modifier produces "soft" light from up to 2X distance away.</p>
-
<p>"However, I think that the only real opportunity I have right now is to build up my own independent practice."<br /><br />Then your first step should be to ditch microstock and your blog, and head to over John Harrington's <a href="http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com">Photo Business News & Forum</a>. Start with this <a href="http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2007/08/au-contrare-mon-frere-or-tip-for.html">post</a>.<br /><br />I'm sorry, but if you call $4.50 a week (according to your last blog spot) "making money", then I guess you're shooting with a Holga you found on the street and are eating the cost of film. But knowing that you are not, I would venture to guess that you are actually several thousand dollars in the hole. A hole that you're probably not going to climb out of at ~20 cents a sale, before expenses. You're free to do what you want, of course, but I can tell you that operating your "own independent practice" involves properly valuing your work and growing a client base that does the same.</p>
-
<p>You don't need to be exact when gelling a flash; you just need to get close. I mean, besides knowing that you need a full CTO or CTS to correct for tungsten and a full Plusgreen to correct for fluorescent, there's not much else you need to memorize.</p>
-
<p>"Most non-NBA or NCAA D-top gym are ISO 1600."<br /><br />No, most <em>NBA </em>and <em>NCAA-I</em> gyms are ISO 1600+ at 2.8, so all other gyms are in hail mary territory. That means, leave the zooms at home, ISO 3200, shoot wide open, 1/400 or faster. And shoot RAW, should you need to push in post-processing.<br /><br />If you can set up a couple of off camera lights, a la this <a href="http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/02/on-assignment-speedlighting-college-gym.html">article</a>, I would try it. But avoid on-camera flash, not only because it is distracting, doesn't look good, but neither E-TTL nor manual flash will provide consistent exposures.</p>
-
<p>What do you mean more "even"? You mean a softer quality? If the dish were bigger, i.e. the size of a 7" standard reflector, then maybe, especially at close distances. However, the dish is not big enough. You might get slightly larger circular catchlights, but the quality of light will be virtually the same.</p>
-
<p>I don't see why not, as long as the quantam slave can safely trigger a speedlite. I use speedlites in conjunction with monolights all the time, but I trigger them with PWs or optically.</p>
-
<p>Pure physics would dictate that there would be significant light loss, due to the modifier, much like using a dome diffuser. What advantage do you think such a light would have?</p>
-
<p>I've never used that combination, but unless my math is completely off, I don't think so. 2k watts shot at 1/200 will be the rough equivalent of a 10 Ws strobe. The fresnel lens might be able to concentrate and throw the light farther, but you're still short of the ~100 Ws necessary to achieve f/8 from 9 feet.</p>
-
<p>If the place has white ceilings, I'd follow Mark's advice:<br /><a href="
-
<p>A single light, bare-bulb or with a standard reflector behind head. From the front, a large/medium softbox above camera; a small softbox below camera.<br /><br />The flare in the example image looks like it was added in post-processing. By the way, you're not allowed to post images to which you don't own the copyright. The correct protocol is to post a link.</p>
-
<p>If you apply for the Amazon gift card, which brings the total down to $999,970, it becomes a rather good deal.</p>
-
<p>That will require at least a 400. You <em>might</em> get away with a 300 if you're shooting from the sideline on a 1.6 crop, but I'd go with a 400. Below is a cropped image from a 400 2.8 with subject ~60 yards away.<br /><br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3262/3145954891_a5a66b2848.jpg" alt="" /></p>
-
<p>Another camera body, maybe a 5D. And at least double your card capacity.</p>
-
<p>Tim, you're right; I wouldn't actually use an incident reading (although, in this case, it would work, as there is a effectively a single background light). But it was much more simple to say "make sure your background reads a half stop over your subject" than to explain away the nuances of a reflective reading. Especially given the fact that OP might have trouble understanding.</p>
-
<p>"Bryan, you are off by a couple of stops on the background. 1/2 stop will only give you a dull light gray."<br /><br />It's an INCIDENT reading for a WHITE background. Exposing for the incident reading will give you white. Half stop over that will give you white with no detail.</p>
-
<p>Do you have a light meter? Place the lights so that the white background reads 1/2 stop (incident) over your subject area, and you'll have pure white.<br /><br />So do one of two things: pump up the power on the background light, or turn down the power on your main light. Either one will achieve your goal.</p>
-
<p>Manually select a focus point each time. Shouldn't be too hard once you get used to it. With practice, it shouldn't take much longer than a full second. After all, you only have what, 7 or 9 focus points to worry about?<br /><br />If it's too complicated, get a 40D or another camera that has a one-button AF selection mode.</p>
-
<p>Go with the 70-200 f/4.</p>
Canon 400 f/2.8 IS vs. Canon 500 f/4 IS
in Canon EOS Mount
Posted