christopheroquist

October 10, 2010

Hi Bob,

Thanks for the input - sorry for posting the photo - should have been aware of the rule. In case it gets taken down, here is the link: <a href="http://www-movieline-com.vimg.net/images/williams_monroe_500.jpg">http://www-movieline-com.vimg.net/images/williams_monroe_500.jpg</a>

October 10, 2010

Besides the white makeup, how can I achieve this effect?

My initial reaction was white seamless, and two or three powerful softboxes? I have three speedlights with umbrellas but I feel like I'll need to construct better diffusers. Maybe place one above and in front, and one above and to the subjects right, and then one farther away below? Am I completely off? Would continuous lighting be better?

Thanks!

Chris

August 30, 2009

I know this is a really old thread, but if anyone else is looking for information on the Pictosnap release that John mentioned, I just wrote a review of it. It does work really well:

<a href="http://www.aperculture.com/aperculture-blog/2009/8/30/review-pictosnap-wireless-camera-remote-release.html">Pictosnap Remote Camera Release</a>

August 30, 2009

Haven't been able to find a review of the Pictosnap anywhere online so I figured I'd write one myself. I use this wireless release and really dig it. Hopefully it's cool to post a link here?

<a href="http://www.aperculture.com/aperculture-blog/2009/8/30/review-pictosnap-wireless-camera-remote-release.html">Pictosnap Remote Camera Release Review</a>

October 11, 2008

I recently shot a friend's wedding and am really happy with most of the results. I need to finish editing all of

these and give her a CD with the files on them so she can have them and print them. I'm in the process of doing

some editing/processing on them and this includes cropping. My Rebel XT gives files that are 48x32 at 72 dpi

(which gives 8x12s at 288 dpi, probably close to 300dpi for a high-quality print).

So I guess I have two questions:

1. Does it matter if I resize the images that I am not cropping? Meaning, is it the same when a client takes the

files to get them printed if the image is at 48x32 at 72dpi than 8x12 at 288dpi, or should I resize all of these

to 8x12?

2. The photos that I am cropping, should I just crop these at whatever sizes will yield a dpi close to 300. If I

want a tighter crop, maybe make the size 4x6 instead? And in the case that some are cropped tighter, should I

give the client a list of all the images with the maximum sizes she can print each image at?

What do you guys do?

Thanks!

September 17, 2008

"In plain text mode, hit enter twice."

I didn't know that! (duh)

I always use ...

September 16, 2008

I'm aware this isn't a place to post requests for critiques - there is an image here but this isn't a critique

request... more of a discussion on whether or not a lack of sharpness or correct exposure kill a good photo.. let

me know if there is a better place for this post.

I've been thinking about this photograph since the moment I took it and glanced at the LCD screen. It was getting

dark, and I was wandering around Yangshuo in the Gaungxi province of China while my girlfriend took a nap at our

hostel. Trying to find my way back through the village, I glanced back and caught a glimpse of this girl on a

scooter behind me. I was struck by her face, pulled the lens cap off my camera, and snapped this one shot before

she passed me. I knew I hadn't really been ready for it but was still horrified when I saw how blurry it was -

the shutter speed and aperture were both way off.

It's under-exposed, blurry, and should probably be framed a lot lower, but I really, really like it. The

ephemeralness of it is growing on me. In a way, it reminds me of many photojournalistic images I've seen - and I

guess that makes sense - I had only a second to frame the shot and focus before I pressed the shutter, and

whatever I was left with as a resulting image is the only capture there is of that moment in time. I even like

how low she is in the picture - it adds to the fleeting quality of it.

Do you guys ever experience something similar, or have similar images you might have messed up but still really,

really like? Can "flawed" images like this be considered good photography?

Chris<div></div>

September 12, 2008

Hi,

I'm setting up a few shoots for friends' bands and solo musicians I know, mostly for free, just for fun and to

build some experience with this kind of shoot. Mostly what I've done has been outdoor/location type stuff, and

nothing I've really needed lighting for. I have one shoot I would like to hire some models for and shoot a sort

of "musician playing guitar on a couch in a dingy party/apartment surrounded by indifferent hot girls" scene, if

that makes any sense, and I would like cold, sharp, kind of grungy lighting.

At my job we have two Bowens Tri-Lights we use for product photography, sometimes with the built-in diffusers and

sometimes with a soft-box, but I thought that this type of light would work really well. I was surprised to find

out they are upwards of $700 for a pair. I could rent a set at Calumet here in Boston, but it got me thinking.

What, really, would be the difference in buying a few bright apartment/lamp-type fluorescent lights and making a

diffuser and using these instead of similar "professional" lighting intended for studio photography? Or even the

warm white bulbs found in most track lighting fixtures? If I could cheaply build or buy something that would - at

least for the time being given my amateur status - get the job done, I would rather own equipment I could use at

any time rather than rent frequently.

I'm not very knowledgeable about this, so forgive me if anything about this is ridiculous.

Thanks,

Chris

September 12, 2008

Yes, that's one of their tactics. I'm in ecommerce and the business models of some of the "wiseguys" are pretty unbelievable, everything from bait-and-switch, selling import versions as domestic pieces, overpricing and hard-selling unnecessary accessories (even bundling and charging you for them without your consent), insane shipping margins, etc.

I can't recommend B&H Photo Video enough. They've blown me away every single time I've ordered from them.

Chris

September 11, 2008

Peter,

If you have time to spend a day or so driving through Sedona, AZ, you should do it - very beautiful area with lots of great opportunities for landscape shots, amazing red and orange rock hues that I'm sure look stunning in December.

Chris

September 11, 2008

Great post. I wholeheartedly agree. I'm guilty myself of glancing through photos without making useful critiques

really often. Something to strive for.

Chris

September 11, 2008

I shoot almost completely manual. I think it's because about a year and a half ago, when I started to get serious

about photography, I had really no understanding of aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc., and how these elements

combined to produce an image. I forced myself to shoot manual 100% of the time to gain a better feel for how

everything contributes to a photograph, and now it's just kind of habit.

I still make lots of mistakes. Glancing at EXIF data reveals to me a lot of choices I could have made better -

usually I just forget about something while I'm distracted by a photo opportunity and realize, for instance, that

I had plenty of light, and lots of room to slow the shutter and kick down the ISO.

I guess I could trust the camera to expose correctly but at this point it's like being a micro-manager - I don't

want to delegate.

Disclosure: I am 25. :)

Chris

September 7, 2008

RE: "I might just have a Canon Rebel, but it has truly allowed me to bring out the photographer/artist inside of me -- something my p & s could never do."

Yeah, it's not like it could take a National Geographic-worthy shot or anything...

http://ngm.typepad.com/editors_pick/2008/05/film-is-dead-lo.html

Full Disclosure - I have a Rebel too

Chris

September 5, 2008

re: If the family ever treat you to a good meal, remember to comment on the quality of their saucepans.

Hahahaha

September 4, 2008

Hey Dallas,

It'll be an amazing trip. I loved Cuzco and Machu Picchu when I went a few years ago. I would also take the "b" combination, and definitely leave the laptop home. I would definitely take the 70-200, there will be a lot of opportunities for photographing not only wildlife but people when you need more pull than the 50mm can give you. Take a few extra CF cards.

This is out of the way, but if you won't be returning to Peru for a while, and have some extra cash and an extra few days, consider going to see the Nazca lines and taking an aerial tour. It's mind-blowing.

Chris

<A HREF="http://www.aperculture.com">www.aperculture.com</A>

August 31, 2008

Sorry, I couldn't help myself - had to add one more (even though this one was taken from a passing plane) - some

of the stuff on a.net is really out of control. <A

Contrail</A> Chris

August 31, 2008

You may want to post this question over at airliners.net, they have an aviation photography forum with some

really spectacular photographers over there: <A

HREF="http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/aviation_photography/">http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/aviation_photography/</A>

Here are a few examples I found, these were all taken from the ground. The last shot, especially, is amazing:

<A

HREF="http://www.airliners.net/photo/Turkmenistan-Airlines/Ilyushin-Il-76TD/1328949&tbl=photo_info&photo_nr=25&sok=keyword_%28%5C%27%2B%5C%22contrails%5C%22%5C%27_IN_BOOLEAN_MODE%29%29_&sort=_order_by_views_DESC_&prev_id=1307439&next_id=1119371">Double

contrails over the Alps in the Austrian province of Tyrol @ 400mm</A>

<A

HREF="http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-India/Boeing-747-437/0132340&tbl=photo_info&photo_nr=1&sok=keyword_%28%5C%27%2B%5C%22moon%5C%22%5C%27_IN_BOOLEAN_MODE%29%29_&sort=_order_by_views_DESC_&prev_id=&next_id=0908781">-***

High over Boston, this 747-400 crosses a cold late afternoon Boston Winter moon.</A>

<A

HREF="http://www.airliners.net/photo/Unknown/Airbus-A340-642/0653742&tbl=photo_info&photo_nr=4&sok=keyword_%28%5C%27%2B%5C%22moon%5C%22%5C%27_IN_BOOLEAN_MODE%29%29_&sort=_order_by_views_DESC_&prev_id=0953370&next_id=0068872">A

very high jet enters the East Coast of the United States at Boston as a nearly full moon rises in the

background.</A>

August 31, 2008

Wow, I had heard that mirror lenses weren't too sharp, but these images look fantastic.

Chris

August 30, 2008

I have a Canon 70-200mm f/4 L. At f4, it's not fast, but it's not slow, and is very sharp wide open. The constant f4 value means if you're zooming around you won't have to constantly be adjusting your exposure. The upper ranges of its zoom range should get you close enough, although the only thing I would worry about is that it lacks any kind of image stabilization. It hasn't been an issue for me, but in venues without a lot of light, this might be an issue. Having said that, it takes incredible photographs. The lens will probably run you about $600.

I agree that the Tamron won't yield amazing results.

Chris

August 29, 2008

Hey Jeff,

Checked out the blog, it's a cool idea, but there are some things I would consider changing:

1) The bouncing red title: That kind of visually loud element screams "amateur" in a website and is a bit

annoying. I would definitely make it static. Also, all the big sans serif text in the header over the divider

line looks adds to the amateur look - I would try a similar font that's maybe not as generic, like a heavy

Verdana or Tahoma.

2) Structure: I would consider taking the title/header and justifying left, flush with the journal entry text. It

will give everything a more "laid-out" and organized look, which you've already started to go for by segregating

the "About the blogger" and other info in the gray box on the left. Actually, if you put a few breaks between the

header and journal entries, you can do away with the double-line separator and it might look a little cleaner

while still implying the division.

3) Consider setting up an archive, table of contents, or some other kind of organizational page, linked to the

homepage, right under the header or in the navigation on the right. After you've added a bunch of locations, no

one will want to sift through the page to find a specific place, and if there isn't a way to browse, they might

not bother looking. For instance, you may have a page on The Berkshires but I wouldn't necessarily bet on it. If

I reached your page and was interested, I wouldn't bother searching for it, but if you had an archive index, I

might look at the New England section and give it a quick scan.

4) The watermarks on your images are a bit intense and detract from the look of the site. I don't now too much

about how much is stolen in the visitor bureau industry, but if there's no need for protecting these lo-res web

images, you might consider putting the contact or copyright info out of the way, on a corner of each image.

People who will come to the blog will ideally also want to enjoy the photos you're putting up, and all that

diagonal text is distracting.

Looks like your off to a good start though. By tightening the design up in general it should look pretty good!

Just some constructive criticism, hopefully you find something useful!

Best of luck,

August 28, 2008

Hey Simon, I don't know about any events myself but I live in Boston (in Beacon Hill, close to the Charles River and Boston Common), if you're nearby and want to go shooting together or just grab a coffee, send me an email. Have a safe

August 28, 2008

Here are a couple of things I can think of you may or may not decide you need, which on my trip to China this month I really wished I had, or was really happy I had:

A photographer's vest. While I was stuffing my 70-200mm in one cargo-shorts pocket and my 50mm prime into the other, all while trying not to drop my 10-20mm wide-angle, I kind of wished I had one. I have a backpack for all this gear, but I found myself switching so often between the tele and wide lenses to take pictures of people, then scenery, that it was a pain to keep taking off the backpack and getting stuff out.

The other two are useful if you're going to be roughing it at all. I don't know what your travel situation is like, these may or may not be necessary. We spent most of our time hiking, traveling, and staying in little hostels where there was really no where to do laundry.

MSR Packtowls. These microfiber towels fold up literally into the size of a thin paperback book and are good to dry yourself completely. They dry in minutes:

http://www.msrgear.com/camptowels/ultralite.asp

This other one might seem funny but I'm serious... If you're going to be roughing it at all, check out Exoficio underwear (no joke!). They weigh next to nothing, are really light and breathable, and dry in no time, so you can take a pair or two for your whole trip and just wash them frequently. Kind of a weird suggestion, maybe, but instead of taking 12 pairs of underwear, I took two, and haven't been more comfortable ever:

http://www.exofficio.com/product_details.aspx?item_cd=1245-0787&key=90bde27c-6d2a-4f4d-89c0-bcacc6f33d32

Backpack? I have a Tamrac Model 5547 Adventure 7 bag and love it. I second the suggestion of the second battery, and I would actually take a few extra CF cards (maybe take a number of smaller cards as opposed to one or two huge ones - in case one or two are lost, stolen, fall into a river, are crushed under the thunderous stampede of wildebeests, etc... you won't lose all your shots)

Chris

August 28, 2008

Thanks for the help guys,.. I got the leather case off and got the camera itself open... and... it looks a little empty to me inside there. I don't know anything about TLRs but it looks to me like part of the assembly must be missing. Look for yourself.

The blades that are kind of visible in the picture below are the shutter blades, I can tell when I set it to bulb and keep it open. There are no aperture blades behind or any other mechanism in there.. Maybe I just have a cool looking box!

Chris<div></div>

August 28, 2008

Thanks guys. I'd like to remove the leather case to see the back, but I don't know how to get it off. It has too little latches on the side, but when I remove them it still seems fixed, and I don't want to damage it while tearing it off.

Also, any idea to tell around when it was manufactured or how old it is? Am I correct in thinking that it's a 4B?

Thanks,

Chris

August 27, 2008

Hey Hansen,

Thanks. I intended to include the exposure information but neglected to do so.

For the shot above: 1/160 sec, f/4.0, ISO 800, lens at 75mm.

I did think about an autofocus issue, since the camera has trouble sometimes, but I mostly notice this with my 50mm 1.8, which I've read is pretty bad with AF in general, so I didn't think too much about this. I'll go through the procedure with one of the charts and report back.

I generally do sharpen the pictures a bit in Photoshop but this image is untouched (just resized to post). I know that sharpening it will bring out a lot of detail but some of the images I take just seem like they shouldn't be that soft to begin with..

Chris

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by christopheroquist