adam_puzach

<p>I actually respooled 120 onto 116 rolls. It worked just fine. It was fun to shoot with and to me was worth the effort at the time. The trick is finding empty 116 rolls</p>

<p>Well im not sure of the flash duration on the B1600 but if it goes low enough you could just set the flash to the lowest power setting. But you should look up the flash duration first. Otherwise canon speedlights all have have extremely fast flash durations at the lowest power settings so those will work for sure. Basically the lower the power on the flash the shorter the flash stays on for. Essentially giving you a faster shutter. The other option would be trying to have the object in extremely bright light. Such as the sun. This would then allow you to use a fast shutter speed. I reccomend something around 1/4000th of a second to really get it sharp. Hope this helps. </p>

<p>I do not believe that they will take over the pro market. Even if the resolution gets high enough professionals will probably choose the bigger camera. Whether or not we want to believe it sometimes its good to have a large camera in front of a client. It impresses them. And besides that I like to have the extra size of a pro body for large lenses. It really helps to have that solid feel in your hands. I have a Panasonic LX-5 I use for casual shots on the weekend but I do not see myself switching to a mirror less system anytime soon.<br>

I do actually use a "mirrorless" system for some work. ie Alpa XY. But I have a feeling that is not at all what the op is talking about. </p>

<p>I do not want to beat a dead horse here but it comes down to the use of the photo. I often use stitching, subtle hdr, other types of post processing but always to try to do it to the needs of the client. Sometimes hdr is required to get a perfect exposure or stitching is needed to gain the right field of view or more commonly for me a high resolution. When a client requests photos with this type of capture I am an image maker. There is nothing wrong with making an image that best represents the scene or product. I agree that if what he made was being used for commercial work that that would be misleading. But I often spend many hours post processing images to get them absolutely right. I guess it depends on your personal style but to get absolutely perfect images in the commercial world these techniques are used everyday. Though i would like to point out that his image would be far from acceptable due to the distortion, the lighting looks fake, and overall LOOKS processed. I might post process a lot but strive to make sure the viewer would never know.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I would say in your current position you would benefit more from buying another reflector and a wireless trigger from cowboy studios. This plus the price of the new lens will only cost you the 300.00. These items will help you learn lighting first. It is so important for your photo skills to truly understand how to take good photographs. The lens will allow you to use available light and simpler lighting setups so that you can add on to your lighting as needed. I am a firm believer in using the smallest and simplest amount of equipment that is possible. In your situation taking pictures with one strobe and reflector is fine. Buy the lens and enjoy shooting at 1.8. Besides, shooting at that kind of aperture will give a great dreamy bokeh to your pictures. I would look for a used 1.4. This lens will likely be one you will keep for a long time and you will love how sharp it is compared to your kit lenses. </p>

<p>I second the idea of the zeiss zf2s. I have the 85, 100 makro, and the 21mm is on its way. There is nothing better than the new zeiss glass.</p>

<p>I would not say that you are so bad you need to walk away and stop trying. You have the eye for the shots but need better quality models and better editing skills. The hardest part is realizing that you need to be spending hours retouching to really make it in the commercial business. No matter what people tell you about being able to shoot straight from camera that just is not true in the commercial photo world. ESPECIALLY in fashion.<br>

I would also work on your lighting. The people should POP off the page. The images are slightly dark or underexposed. I think some of this may have come from adding to much contrast in your post work. Grab a fashion magazine and compare your photos to the ones in the ads. See what the differences are. This will greatly help your work. Try and duplicate one of the photos. Not just in the composition but also in the post processing work. You will see that lighting will be much more even. I think some of your images are missing a hair light. I would reccommend adding one. It will give you that 3d look. Also remember you are not selling the models in fashion but the clothing! The shot should be making people wish they were just like the models so that they want the clothes.<br>

Also the hardest part about the commercial world is breaking in. It is hard to get anyone to look at your work because there are 1000s of photographers who all want the job and chances are they are all just as good as you are. Its a tough reality but fashion is all about who likes you. Yes first it comes to who is more talented but many people will be so similar it doesnt matter.</p>

<p>You are probably going to get a mixed response on this question but overall you are not going to gain anything else other than some blurring with the longer exposure. In reality nothing should change because of having the longer exposure. The thing about exposure that you should know is something called reciprocity. Reciprocity means that shutter and aperture are directly related so that a one stop change in your aperture equals a one stop change in your shutter. For example if your original exposure is f8 1/250 then an exposure of f16 1/125 will give you the exact same picture. This works because when you are changing your aperture from f8 to f16 your are essentially cut the light entering the camera in half. So then inversely by changing the shutter from 250 to 125 you are doubling the length of the exposure and making up for the light lost by the aperture. The only difference you will see in these exposures is potentially a change in depth of field due to the change in your aperture. The smaller the aperture the larger the depth of field. This is something you will want in landscape photography as most landscape photographers prefer a large depth of field. Also when shooting these long exposure shots be sure to be using a tripod. It will not be sharp with out being stable. I personally would try and worry more about the compositional factors i.e. the blurring of the sky or waterfall or possibly changing your depth of field so that it is positively affecting your picture or what you involving in your picture as a whole rather than how much contrast you have. That will be fixed by having exposed correctly at the right time of day then properly post processing. I hope this was all helpful! Sorry if i rambled to much.<br>

Adam</p>

<p>Hi hopefully i can be helpful to you as i have shot quite a bit of jewlery. I have shot with both tilt shift and focus stacking. Both work well. Tilt shift takes slightly more time shooting and focus stacking takes more time in post. You are going to need a powerful computer to stack images though so make sure you have the ram to do it efficiently. Also i looked at some of your images and i reccomend building a light tent. It basically is a tee pee made from white cloth. This soft light works great for the medal and also the tent prevents noticable reflections. Just the lens of your camera will peak through to prevent reflection. Hard light is needed for diamonds. I usually not only focus stacked but also combined different lighting for different parts of the image. LED lights work great for adding depth to a diamond. This workflow would take a very long time for a catalog but would be great for any larger images. I would reccomend shooting catalog images in the tent either focus stacked or renting a tilt shift. Then if there are any full size images use multiple lighting setups combined later in post. Also i have to agree with charles that you may need more light than you are currently using. Hope this was helpful<br>

Adam</p>

<p>I would take a look at what leica did with in the last decade with their R-series SLR. I personally always thought it was a great idea. That particular idea was just to expensive. The medium format market has quite a lot of this in the beggining because many of the digital backs mount on film bodys. The rangefinder market has yet to be tapped and is probally the largest film market that stil exists. I would be interested in hearing the details about this. I personally like the idea as a avid rangfinder collector to beable to do this. Personally i jsut dont have the patience for film anymore working in commercial work but would love to have the abiltiy to use those cameras again easily for a hobby.</p>

<p>Ive shot with the hassy. It has unbelievable resolution. The pictures really do pop. But honestly i think you would be better off with a D3s for what you are shooting. The Hasselblad is hard to shoot with until you get used to it. Its much more of a studio style camera. Also I use the Zeiss ZF glass on my Nikon and I find that it gives an exceptional sharpness that cannot be achieved with the Nikon glass. If you are worried about it looking that perfect they would be worth looking at. The 100mm f2 makro is the sharpest lens Ive used.</p>

<p>Depends on what you are sending. Personally I work in commercial and I usually send tiff files that are quite large. I use a cloud system by a company called pogo plug. You can give clients access to individual folders and they can download them from there. Also you can set if up for just viewing as well. It works perfect especially for large files.</p>