joshua_mortel

<p>Lee,</p>

<p>If you're selling photos then you are doing something right. I couldn't sell a photo if my life depended on it --I am just not a good salesperson. I think that I too would buy photos of places I know. As a photographer I find it very difficult to separate myself from a subject that I care about to remain objective --our memories are connected to the process of being there. It's like a doctor that can't operate on her child. Even if I could go some place and easily take the photo myself, I would rather buy one taken by someone else... just to make sure they saw that something too, and captured it well.</p>

<p>I don't think you are alone in looking back at past work and feeling that it was no good. There are many aspects of making a good photograph... there is your technical knowledge, mastery of your equipment, mastery of the place, etc. You should be glad that your eyes and techniques are improving; that you are still learning and that you are aware of it. What don't you like about your old photos? It must be something deeper that you cannot fix in post production...?</p>

<p>The medicine, of course, is to go out and take more pictures :) also, to read The Luminous Landscape. Show your photos to someone you trust and get their opinion. Continue to compare your work to other photographers, to the greats, to magazine ads and hold yourself to an impossible standard of beauty. Most important: Don't give up! The day you are happy with your photography will be the end of the world, trust me :)</p>

<p>-J</p>

<p>Hi everyone --thank you for your insights.</p>

<p>I did not mean to get anyone hot under the collar about artistic license and who has rights over what images. And no, I am not trolling. I figured this was the casual photo conversation board so I just wanted to hear your thoughts about the Internet and everyone's own individual photography.</p>

<p>People that want to see the photo you just took --it doesn't happen much and it doesn't bother me a whole lot, but what does concern me is if some photos get uploaded somewhere and it ends up on a flyer or turns into a meme and I get sued. I guess that is kind of arrogant to stipulate that I am even capable of taking photos that are worthy of being ripped off, but it is something I think all of us photographers face. I also have an artist friend that had someone online --in a different country-- try to take credit for his work.</p>

<p>From everyone's comments it is becoming more and more clear to me that the only real medicine, I think, is to step out of the shroud of anonymity and accept the responsibilities of hosting photos and protecting the use of those photos the best one can. The days of a photographer getting under a black cloth to take a photo are over; this is the new age, for better and worse. I think for the longest time this has been a truth that I've been avoiding, simply so I might use it as a scapegoat later ("Hey, I'm not a professional...!")</p>

<p>Thank you for everyone that replied to my post..</p>

<p>Scotte & House - I am not trolling! That website is a long story... maybe it is a story for another thread but --long story short-- my best friend and I tried to do wedding photography a while back. I guess that is only something one can attempt when one is extremely experienced or extremely naive. It was a partnership that ended badly because of our differences in style... and to make things even more dramatic he shoots with Canon and I shoot with Nikon. I was not meaning to troll with this post, but I was trying to get some feedback on everyone's different style of self-promotion and how each photographer goes about that. I did not mean to sound condescending either; in fact that is one of the main reasons I wanted to not do wedding photography --I realize that there is still a lot to learn, and I am still learning.</p>

<p>Steele - Thank you for your input. I agree with you --I feel that I do my best work when I am not being paid for my time, when I am free to pursue a creative shot that may take some time to get.</p>

<p>Lookingbill - I think that the more open I am with my photos, the more comfort it gives strangers when one is doing street photography. I think that is when the personality of the photographer really comes into play --to reassure the subject that the photo will be treated with the utmost respect. At the same time, I'm not sure if I am doing a disservice to my fellow photographers... it is making it so that subject expects to see the back of the camera, and also the finished product uploaded somewhere. As far as personal rights go... I think it is the photographer's right to be free to photograph anyone in a public space without permission if it is used for non-commercial purposes. I started this thread because I am really not sure what to do...</p>

<p>Jenkins - For me personally, I don't really care if an image I shot goes up everywhere or turns into a meme, I am more concerned with that person (thing) being... exploited (for lack of a better word) without the subject's permission. I sure wouldn't want a photo of myself getting captioned and spread throughout the internet.</p>

<p>Brad - Sometimes I photograph people that get excited and want to see the result. Otherwise they are insecure about how they look. I don't get it often, but it is kind of annoying to have to show a result, having the photo be fine, but having the subject(s) not like the photo.</p>

<p>Jenkins - ;)</p>

<p>Weinberg - TL;DR just means "Too Long; Didn't Read" Let's say you covered an event.. took a photo of a couple. After the event is over you go through the photos and realize the photo of the couple wasn't all that great... do you post it? Artistically, maybe it is a weak photo that will hurt the set..... because you took the photo of them, are you obligated to share it?</p>

<p>Henneberger - I always give a present when I go to birthdays ;) No, I know what you're saying... I've heard both sides of the argument. There are people that would like to see and have their photo, but not share it with the entire world too. Is there something sacred in the photograph? It seems as though there is some intrinsic contract in the process. Is it right for a photographer to use someone's image to promote one's own business?</p>

<p>Before, I could take photos of strangers with my film camera and the only way they'd be able to see it is if they were my close friend and I'd see them again. Now more than ever people pose for a photo taken with a DSLR and immediately want to see the photo on the mini-LCD. Not only that, they ask where it'll be posted and sometimes download it and use it for their profile pic or something. This doesn't bother me, but it just gets me thinking about what I'm doing with my photography.</p>

<p>I am really lousy at promoting myself and, at the same time --I don't want to sound snobby or elitist--, but I have no deep desire to share my work or have other people look at my photos (I am not trying to be noticed or discovered as a photographer). I post my photos on a social networking site but that is more like a favor to my subjects rather than trying to get a pat on the back or whatever. My album sizes are getting larger and larger and I keep thinking about deleting all the photos someday, but I feel like they need to be "up".</p>

<p>I sometimes consider buying a domain and making a photography website, but I don't know to what ends --I'm not really looking for a job or anything. I run into other photographers and they have business cards printed up and they post their portfolio --I've met some photographers covering events that are hustling really hard to get their name out there. People see my gear and EXPECT me to have a website, but I don't; it confuses people. When I don't share my photos I think I come off as a jerk; I feel obligated to start a website to share my photos...</p>

<p>Looking at other photographers' websites is a mixed bag. I've seen photos so lousy with the photographer's water-mark all over them, and --on the flip-side--, I've also seen some really excellent photography on p.net with no stamp of ownership at all.</p>

<p>TL;DR = How do you promote your photography, and why? Also, does the photographer have a responsibility to show the photo he took to the subject and, if so, do you take credit for the image and put your URL on the photo? Thanks!</p>

<p>Telephoto lens :)</p>

<p>It is a life style --absolutely. A lot of people have a passion that is unique in the way each photographer has to discover his/her own technique and creative expression.<br>

For me photography is the answer to my own neurosis and lack of ability to make a real connection with someone. Photo journalism is a field where your solitude and ability to separate yourself from the moment is a positive thing. To be constantly searching for fleeting beauty and capturing it is a very special and sacred thing to me.<br>

How many hours do you spend working over the same photograph in the lightroom/darkroom? I always felt that there is a certain level of insanity required to fully take on photography. I mean just look at all the threads on here that compare cameras and lenses. All the threads that get down into pixel-peeping.<br>

It can consume your life, if you let it. For others it's not so hard a sacrifice to make. For me, though, nothing really matters --only the image matters. Doesn't matter what equipment you used, doesn't matter how much post you did. I think that is where the passion needs to be: your artistic vision. You've been living your whole life in it and you've just now come to realize it.</p>

<p>I gotta gripe about the D300's handle --it feels like there isn't enough room for your fingers. The vertical grip, on the other hand, has a lot more room and feels better.</p>

<p>And I gotta complain about auto-white balance. I don't use the auto-white balance, but I probably would use it if it were better.</p>

<p>Also, I don't want to sound like a basher, but it's a drag scrolling through so many focus-points? I appreciate that there are that many, but I wish moving the fp around were a little faster or easier somehow --was playing around with my friend's 5D mk I. It's an animal... old, by today's standards, but I liked the simplicity of the AF points.</p>

<p>I also wish the useless DOF preview button were programmable to do something else? And I wish you could add "format cf card" to your custom menu.</p>

<p>But those are my only gripes --the camera is excellent; I love it.</p>

<p>I got the D300 because that was what was available at the time. Quite honestly, I didn't think Nikon would release a camera like the D700. It even uses the same grip as the D300. I am kicking myself because it's FF, but what do you do. I'm just glad Nikon is back in the game!</p>

<p>You should first look at your own photography, and think about the kinds of problems you run into. If the problem is not enough light then you're going to get your stops from the sensor, your lens, or your speedlight. I think you should always try to solve your problem before getting the new equipment.</p>

<p>The image you take is all that is important. As good as the D700 is, even that camera will have its limitations. You have to think about your subjects, your lenses and your bodies --the various personalities these tools exhibit-- and use the best combination in concert with your camera mastery.</p>

<p>When the time comes, I will look at what the new camera options are, but --for me-- now is the time to start learning and shooting!</p>

Nikon primes are pretty outdated and, in my experience, more prone to flare.

 

But --for me-- the prime handles better, it simplifies my shooting, makes me 'think' more, and also it gives my legs a workout. I like it. I tend to be invisible with it too --you stick out like a sore thumb when you got a big honkin' zoom + lens bayonet on your camera. But, you get a lot of attention anyway if you're moving around all over the place.

 

But I still think large aperture primes on the wide end will always have a place in a photographer's camera bag. I've heard stories about photographers having a good experience with the 300mm f/4 + teleconverter, but I think it makes more sense to have a zoom for the telephoto focal length. To each his own!

I heard that if you don't pay for a subscription to photo.net Ken Rockwell will come over to your house and give your photos chromatic aberration.

I always run into like.. camera guys that try to chat me up at events while I'm shooting. But I swear to god I

hate choppin it up with people predisposed to Canon that try to push their system on me; they memorized the list

of features and recite them to me. Why they think Canon is the best. Who are you trying to convince? Me? Or yourself?

 

Sometimes I just wanna say: "You know what? If you're camera is so good, why aren't you shooting with it right

now? Oh, you left it at home. I bet it's taking great photos at home!!"

 

Hahaha

 

Harsh, I know! I need professional help, seriously...

I always wanted to shoot medium format, but never did. I just recently picked up a Mamiya C220 off ebay for $130. Went to Ritz and got a roll of 100 Tmax --the very last roll of anything 120 in stock. Came in the next week to have my film developed --they said it'll take 2-3 weeks because they have to send it out to a lab. Okay. Still waiting for my prints, but shooting with a TLR is a lot of fun! If you have the time to carefully plan a shoot and have the time to wait for your prints then I say go for it.

Frank, I was using a zoom on the wide end.. 17-55. Yeah, I should probably use "real" flash batteries heh

 

Thanks for the link, Michael, they bring up some good points.. "OPF" was indeed a problem at this show... hmm

I guess my question is pretty general --how do you cover the catwalk portion of the fashion show?

 

When I covered it I ran into some problems with flash recycling times (SB-800 with Alkaline batteries), but

nothing too bad.

 

Backstage I noticed there was another photographer shooting with a light ring --that is a continuous lighting

solution that I haven't really considered.

 

Ran into problems with composing shots... horizontal photos yielded long stretches with nothing going on or

cut-off legs. Tried to use the rule of thirds, but I have the hardest time covering this portion of the show.

It's difficult switching back and forth from horizontal to vertical picture because I have to swivel the bounce

flash --I am not using a bracket.

 

Just trying to get ideas... any advice would be appreciated, thanks!

Nikon guy here just wanted to add to the flame war... :)

 

21 megapixels... there's a point where more megapixels isn't doing your subject any favors. Do you want to see

the subject's blown-up pores at 100%? Ah-no. I'll pass. That's like just begging for more time in photoshop ;)

More pixels taken --more pixels to fix! ;)

 

In all seriousness tho, the 5DmkII looks like an amazing camera. Congrats. Rejoice, I should say :)

I shoot with Nikon, but I always suggest Canon to people that ask for a recommendation. First, price --Canon is always a bit cheaper in price for the "same" equipment. Second, ergo --I actually think Canon ergonomics are pretty good. If I had a chance to do it over, would I pick Canon? No --the Nikon system addresses a lot of problems that I have as a photographer (lighting, ISO speed, shutter speed). Try not to look at the brand and think about the shooting you do and might want to do in the future and invest in the system that has the features you want! Good luck.

Thank you for the replies everyone! Very sage. Glad you guys have a sense of humor too. I like the photos you guys posted.

 

Ric - The photo of the girl with glasses is cool :) I like the out of focus background. The only thing that takes away from the photo is the rusty panel connection (I do engineering so maybe that's why I noticed that!)

 

Elliot - The defocus on the background really brings out the subjects. Also the slight vignetting helps draw the attention to the center of the photo.

 

Nick - The colors on the fungus is amazing and whatever comprised the background was diffused rather nicely! It didn't come out too shimmery, is what I mean. If that makes sense...

 

I'm a bokeh-maniac, I guess!

 

Thank you for the lens recommendations. Piontek, you bring up a good point about purple fringing on the 50mm. The lens is showing its age. Thanks for the links; I'm going to read up on it some more. It's probably time for me to approach this problem in a scientific way...

This is a question that has been eating away at me for quite some time and I often dread when a certain artistic

element is tied to the investment in new equipment. I've been saving up for the 70-200mm. Okay, first let me just

tell you that I am a fan of smooth bokeh. There are times I want bokeh on a photograph I took where too many

subjects are in the same focal plane. So --and please don't flame me for this-- sometimes I use photoshop and do

some faux bokeh; I am able to produce the results I want but it just takes too much care and treatment and it's

not that I lack dedication to the final image, but it's more like this is taking away from time I would rather

spend shooting. So, back to the 70-200. Price --I'm willing to eat the price. What is bothering me is the

physical size of the lens.

 

I shoot with a 50mm 1.8 on a DX body and I am pleased with the bokeh on the portraits I take with it. I

especially like shooting portraits at night with it because things like street lights turn into beautiful

transparent circles and it makes the scene look very lush and vibrant. But you've used some kind of 50mm prime

before --it's tiny. I am just blown away by what this lens can do in terms of bokeh. Is it the 9-bladed diaphragm?

 

I am also looking at the 85mm 1.8 and 105mm 2.8 micro. Kinda curious about Nikon's lenses with defocus control

--been looking into that too.

 

I guess my question is... is there anyone else out there trying to find a bokeh lens? I'm open to all kinds of

ideas --even if you want to talk about a photoshop filter that makes faux bokeh simpler. I'm not trying to stir

up an argument; just trying to find some solutions that will cut down the lens weight. Thanks.

Start him off on a full-manual 35mm film SLR and a ton of black and white film -he don't need no color!

 

or, better yet, a pinhole camera... muhahahaha

 

Be like... Son, you see all these DSLRs? I EARNED these... okay? You'll thank me in the end.

 

If he still likes photography after that, he is worthy ;)

The Nikon 17-55 is a pretty heavy lens...

 

Comments on the D300 --I have the setup you tested out. I have to gripe about the ergonomics of the D300 --it

could be better. Heaviness aside, I think the grip for the fingers should be deeper and in that respect, the

vertical grip is designed a little better. After a long day of shooting the camera is particularly tough on my thumb.

 

My best friend shoots with a 5D so I can always look over the fence to see what's going on in Canon land and, I

gotta say, I like that large scroll wheel you guys have next to the LCD. And image quality --he shoots with

L-series lenses so everything is nice and crispy, smooth bokeh. He's the slow and methodical type and I have a

more paparazzi (capture the moment) approach --got the battery grip because I wanted the extra FPS.

 

As for features that weren't really mentioned in the article.. Active D Lighting is pretty slick, and color

rendition that takes place in-camera can turn something really mundane into something a little more cool and

exciting. But... you can do that with high end Canon gear too, I mean, that's not really a point of contention.

You mentioned Nikon's creative lighting system.

 

Good article.

 

It's a fun camera. I don't think the learning curve is that bad. Getting used to all that stuff coming from Canon

land --that's another story. But then, all cameras are beasts that need to be tamed :)

Get a Holga.

 

The camera for *real* photographers

 

;D

Joe, you are correct! The serial is FE 4274089

I shoot nightclub stuff on the side so I wanted to offer some notes from the field.

 

I have the Nikon 50mm f1.8D. Love this lens, on a DX body the crop factor makes it a 76mm. Having an aperture of

1.8 is fast but you're going to want your shutter at 1/500 or faster to freeze action. Is freezing the action

important to you? Are you going to be taking photos mostly of people who stop and pose for you?

 

You may need a wider lens depending on the venue. Also, I really hate taking shots where I'm not looking into the

viewfinder, but sometimes the dance floor is so packed that you really have no choice but to throw up your

camera, point it down at the crowd and fire. Again, this depends on how popular the venue is, what night you

shoot, etc.

 

I love the 50mm 1.8, but the AF will be too slow to AF-servo a (drunken) girl dancing wildly. Manually focusing

this prime lens is a challenge.

 

It really depends what kind of shots you want to take. If you want to take artsy photos with crazy blur,

streaking and noticeable grain then I can suggest the prime. I shot a nightclub this one time with my friend and

he brought a monopod and except for shots of people at the bar, the 'pod didn't make a very big difference in

cutting down blur.

 

Consider getting a speedlight.

 

I would say keep and use whatever lens you have and pick up a speedlight. If you're using a lens that's over

100mm long you will get the len's shadow in the photo if you are using the D40's pop up flash. The pop-up flash

isn't too bad, either, if used correctly. You have infinite film for testing (shoot and delete) so play with it

and see if you can come up with something that works.

 

From there it all comes down to how you command the light, diffuse it, bounce it, and there are tricks like

dragging the shutter to capture the ambient light of the club. Play around with it; come back here if you need

more help or google the strobist. Good luck!

I can't even ID the camera... it has the looks of an old Nikon F but I can't find the exact finish. Attached to

it is a 50mm F1.8 and there was also a 70-210mm F4 in the bag

(http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/emfgfg20/eserieslenses/htmls/70210mm.htm)

 

and then the flash unit.. an SB-15 (15!) :D

 

So, by comparison, my gear is D300, 17-55mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8 (D-AF version), SB-800. I'm going to eventually get

the 70-200mm and then that will probably be enough gear for me for a while.

 

For Christmas a couple years ago, my dad got me a Coolpix 995 :) --I know that is probably like blasphemy to you

guys ;) I used it a couple times but always went back to my film SLR (N70).

 

My dad saw the D300 with the MBD10 vertical grip and he asked if it was a "motor drive" and then I went on to

explain what it did. I was thinking in the back of my mind "what the heck is a motor drive?" though when I got

home... haha so I looked that up online too and learned that it advances your film and also improves your FPS

--same idea.

 

I should mention that I just recently broke the Nikon habit and purchased a Mamiya C220 TLR with an 80mm 2.8 twin

lens off

ebay for pretty cheap. Must say I'm very impressed with it! Apart from understanding how to compensate for the

parallax distortion, the full-manual mechanical functionality is refreshingly simple and --you gotta admit--

really fun! I got it Friday and haven't had a chance to put film through it because I'm still busy trying to edit

my friend's wedding photos... :(

 

But back to my dad's old Nikon camera. It got a lot of "love" over the years; it's pretty thrashed! The black leather

casing is reduced to almost cardboard. And the camera bag is like an antique. Very retro. :)