gabriel_gutierrez

I hate to tell you this but most of your pics look dark to me and I just calibrated my LCD monitor a couple days ago with my Spyder 2 Pro. An example of one that looked ok to me was the middle picture in the Birds gallery - just so you have an idea. I suggest investing in a monitor calibration system like the Pantone Huey or Spyder 2.

I second what Matt said. I've bought lots of photo mags thinking they would have juicy tips/secrets that they advertise only to be disappointed most of the time. Its usually not more than I already knew - and that is not much. I suggest getting a good book on digital photography instead. I only buy mags once in awhile for inspiration. Ones that I enjoy for inspirational pictures are Nature Photographer, Black and White, Picture and Focus. There are others but those are the ones I've purchased so far.

I feel exactly the same way (and agree about the exception in this forum). I only joined photography forums about 6 months ago when I sparked an interest in photography again after about a 10 year hiatus and I'm disappointed by the maturity level that sometimes prevails. I hoped that photographers were one group that didn't stoop to that sort of thing but I guess there's no escaping it.

I went to Art Institute of Philadelphia. In my day, Visual Communications was 2 things in 1. It was 1) media (tv commercial storyboards, designing ad campaigns, and 2) graphic design (package and print - magazine ads, and now websites I suppose).

 

I ended up in environmental graphics (signs). Its a different world than traditional graphic design so I can't tell you much about the field but in my field there is a lot of tight deadlines and customers who don't decide on a final design until there is barely time left to do the job. If most graphic design jobs are like mine, I would not recommend it to anyone unless they enjoy being under lots of pressure all the time.

Thank you for the offer Kellen but I really only spent about 15 minutes on those, so its ok.

Here are a couple that I came up with. You have my permission if you want to use them.

Hi. I happen to be a graphic artist. I really like the letter B in the design. I would leave that part alone. I would try a more formal font. The one shown seems too friendly and a bit stale in my opinion. I think it should be more prominent and business-like since it is a technical, expertise-oriented industry.

 

You might try using the B as the first letter in 'Beck' with the word plumbing underneath, keeping the B nice and large so it stands out.

I keep a Fuji A820 in my car's glovebox and a canon S3IS at home on a shelf. My rebel XT is hard to keep track of. Its always either in the car or in the house.

I read that Getty Images recently acquired its biggest rival for $202 million so these guys are getting the biggest visual media source in the world. I would be willing to bet that prices will be going up very soon, and photographers shares will probably remain the same.

Back in the 80's I shot 35mm film with my dad's SLR and did a lot of casual

shooting in my spare time. I remember having to wait two days or more before

picking up the developed prints and then rushing out to look at them in my car,

still parked at the store. I remember the euphoria of finding a beautiful print

coming out much like I had hoped and the sheer disappointment in finding out a

print I had hoped for didn't turn out well or was poorly exposed or had some

distraction in the background, etc.. It was often quite upsetting, especially if

an entire roll had no good prints. I remember thinking intently as I drove home,

trying to figure out what went wrong with the bad prints, would I be able to go

and re-shoot them, how many more times will I have to re-shoot it before I get

it right, and can I afford to spend more money on film, developing and travel

back to the location?

 

It seemed that the mere fact of having so much hanging on those 24 or 36

exposures forced me to very carefully and thoroughly analyze every single shot

and subsequently gave me a deep appreciation for photography and for those who

excelled at it. After developing 8x10 black and whites in a photography class I

have an even greater appreciation for the beauty of a good print and a

well-taken photograph.

 

My point is that with today's digital cameras where you can take and erase 300

shots on one battery cycle, and with all the popular "quick, photo-fixing"

software out there, photography as we once knew it wlll never quite be the same.

 

I understand that these high-tech advances can raise the bar for the number and

quality of good prints out there but in the hearts of all these point-and-click

photographers there is only a few who truly can appreciate photography for the

beautiful, sophisticated, timeless, and often elusive medium that it truly is.

I think it boils down to two things...the quality of light portrayed in the photo, and the composition. If only a photographer could master those two things, every photo would be something to behold.

 

I actually give more credit to a good black and white photo than to a good color photo because learning to take good black and white pictures is more of a challenge in my opinion.

A camera simply records colors and light as the human eye does. Whether or not a person's character is in line with what the eye sees is dependent upon each situation and setting/pose/etc... What is the easiest of the 5 senses to trick? The human eye.

If you think its bad now, you should be really glad I haven't posted any of mine. :)

The folks who buy these things are more enthralled with the exclusivity of owning a definitive piece done by a well known artist than anything else. The price is exorbitant to most of us but in the world of collectible art it is not.

I've seen some HDR images that fall into the cartoonish category that are simply stunning works of art. I am not advocating one HDR school of thought or another but I will say that to completely discredit one type of technique because of one's personal ideals about something as subjective as art (and photography IS a form of art) is limiting one's personal vision and creativity. I'm not saying you have to like everything, just don't discredit it as a whole as 'junk'. I've found that if I give chance to a type of music or art that I don't like I end up finding within it an unexpected gem or two and it braodens my understanding and appreciation for that once disliked art or music.

I have one of these. It is really powerful. Car guys use them to cool engines while they are testing them on a dyno. I actually found it at Wal Mart.

http://www.amazon.com/Stanley-655702-High-Velocity-Blower/dp/B0001BJDUQ

I would get either a 40D or 30D. Maybe better to get a 30D so they will understand that most DSLRs don't have liveview.

I own the S3IS and a rebel xt and I do think the S3 is the best P&S that canon offers (the S5 is essentially the same camera with a hot shoe and +2MP). The articulating LCD and incredible focal range (zero mm super macro - 432mm equivalent optical zoom) combined with exceptional picture quality and an f/2.7-3.5 lens(!) make it a big winner in my book.

 

I found that you can sort of circumvent the noise of high ISOs by shooting in Small as opposed to Large. The images will be smaller but the noise will be almost gone.

This is a thorough sharpness test done on that lens with a 12233 crop image. It will show you how sharp you should expect it to be. It shows a 3-section sample image which includes 100% crops from the center, halfway between center and upper corner, and upper corner. This shot was taken at 20mm:

 

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&FLI=1&API=0">Lens sharpness test for 17-40mm f/2.8L at 20mm</a>

I own an S3 and the only thing the S5 has that I wish mine had is a hot shoe for the flash. The one big drawback to both of these cameras is the noise at ISO 200 and up. ISO 800 on the S3 is incredibly noisy and most pics would be rendered unusable unless maybe you were shooting a very busy textured and brightly lit scene.

I've read Peter Lynch's book. I can't remember the title right now. It is true that he says to invest in companies you know and it should really boil down to products and industries you know really well. For example the kids knew the other sneaker companies 'sucked'. They had their finger on the pulse of the sneaker industry without realizing it. Which brings me to the second point, knowing the competition. Peter says he makes it a point to thoroughly check out the direct adversary of the company he is interested. He actually interviews a head of the company and asks them who their main competitor is then sets up an interview with the adversary.

 

I personally would not invest right now. The market is going through a lot of turmoil with the uncertainty of the credit crisis looming over the economy and the fear of inflation from rising oil. It is extremely volatile right now and no matter how good a company you invest in the fact of the matter is that when the market tanks every stock out there tanks right along with it unless there is some special reason for it not to.

 

Also the mindset of investors has changed. It is no longer a matter of picking a good company. It has to consistently meet or beat analysts expectations. I've invested in a few companies in the past that had positive sales growth but missed their targets and the stock tumbles regardless of the improved sales performance.

Whats bothersome to me is the disembodied arm. It would have made a big difference if there was a face or back of someone's head attached to it. If it was me I would crop in close so that the hand becomes an interesting form again instead of a dark stump and focus in on the bird's head, neck and right wing so we get a good up-close look at the action. The other thing is that the hand is pointed slightly down. I think the picture would look better tilted up so the hand and arm are slanting upward.

I photoshop pics in my spare time and I would say that A is a bit overdone. Not by much but I can tell without being told that it was photoshopped, especially the forehead and cheek areas. No offense to the artist is meant. I'm just saying that if it looked less photoshopped maybe this wouldn't even be an issue.

 

I shoot with a canon rebel xt and a canon k2 (35mm slr) and back before there was digital I used to shoot with a nikon FM (35mm slr).

Thank you for those added responses. I did not think about the frozen prop look at all. Thanks for those speeds and aperture settings!

 

Gabe

Thank you all for the quick and detailed information and the amazing images and links! I knew this was the right place to get help. I should have mentioned that I will be using a Rebel XT/350D (1.6 crop factor).

 

I didn't think about renting the 100-400mm although the thought of carrying such an expensive liability doesn't sit too well with me and I think that with the 1.6 crop factor 300mm will be sufficient (plus its more than I budgeted for). I should have mentioned that I want to stay within the $600 range and that this will be my first long telephoto zoom lens.

 

The other uses I will want this lens for are zoo photography and Sea World/aquarium photography so I am leaning towards the 70-300mm F4-5.6 IS since I will have use for the extra zoom, will always be shooting in daylight and have ISO 1600 available.

 

Thanks again for the awesome responses!

 

Gabe