robertbanks

<p>Found an example I took years ago using a 70-200 f/2.8 VR I</p><div></div>

<p>I found the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRI quite easy to make flare (I have some old studio fashion shots where I used that), whereas the VRII is quite hard, I found.<br>

My most "flarey" lens is a Rodenstock (I had to fit it with Nikon mount) but suitable subjects are very limited.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p><img src="/photo/17507201" alt="" />Banks picture is a composite, and proves nothing, and his technique is far more complex then it neeeds to be for the purpose.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Umm - NO its NOT a composite, it is one exposure, and only contrast and small exposure tweak done post processing. I have the original raw if you need proof ;)<br /> My subject was still and I moved the camera, Muna's imagge (since taken down from ths post for copyright reasons) had a moving subject (and possibly is a composite). The other images in the showcase are just "normal" flash images, i.e. the falsh simply freezes the movement IMHO. I'd recommend Broncolor if you are rich for this.<br /> Rob</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17507201-md.jpg"></p>

<p>I think this is a similar technique to one I used recently. It uses both flash and continuous. Set the continuous first to give you a long exposure, maybe 1 or 2 seconds (in my case I also used a blue filter). Then set the flash to a level that is balanced to the continuous, it will give the frozen still part of the image. When you expose, the flash goes off, and then you move the camera around to get the smoke-like ghosting. My image has no photoshop, but the one referenced may have been a composite.</p><div></div>

Actually Broncolor is considered the ultimate flash gear amongst pro fashion and portrait photographers.

Their Move system is lighter, smaller, more powerful, faster and more consistent than the near comparable Profoto B4,

but of course more expensive, and I understand their presence in the US is limited so maybe out of the question for you.

I used their previous version and they were the best lights I've ever used.

The type of photography I do means I take about 150,000 images a year.

 

I did do some deletions a couple of years ago, but I don't have time for that now.

 

I've got about 18Tb over several external drives, ranging from 500Gb to 3Tb, some with raid.

 

I used to have one Lightroom catalog, but now use one per event. I store it in a directory at same level as the raw files

and it seems i can move this over to another drive and lightroom will still find the files. it must be using relative paths, i don't get the missing directory warning and so I don't have to point Lightroom to where I moved the files to.

 

My largest catalog has 300,000 images and a few months ago got corrupted after upgrading lightroom and took ages to

recover manually using SQL. I've had several more get corrupted too but it's not too bad to recover if they only have 10-

50,000 images in them.

 

I would like a solution that would allow me to keep more of my material accessible at the same time. I often get random

requests from production agencies to fulfill a particular brief, and searching for a matching image, even in the same

catalog, might mean plugging in several drives one after the other, which is tedious since they pretty much all use

different power supplies and its also slow for Lightroom to notice which directories in a catalog are now active. But

servers that can keep that amount of storage spinning are incredibly expensive, especially when you factor in some

growth and a safe raid configuration. I would prefer it uses zfs filesystem for the added reliability, almost instant snapshot

backups and facility to add capacity to the storage pool dynamically. i have no current backup solution, and all I can think

of for my envisaged server would be another one on which to store the snapshots.

As others have said, don't necessarily expect to be paid, but do consider drafting a licence agreement with usage rights. If

you "give" the model the shots and they happen to be good enough and she passes them on to an agency they could end

up being used for commercial gain and you might not even get a credit.

 

This just happened to me with images I took for a fashion designer for free as a practice session about 3 years ago - they

are now advertising her designs in a current magazine. No credit and no payment. Most people don't understand the

concept of licensing an image, they think if you give them the files they own them and can do what they want with them. I

was naive back then to not agree anything in writing, although I am pretty sure we discussed that they would only be used

on her website, which they were, and I would be credited, which I was on the website. Now I always supply with a licence

agreement, and let clients know up front what my standard licence is.

Thanks HP. They don't expect to be charged hourly, they expect to be charged per show.

 

There are already "going rates" for this work within a range that most photographers here in London adhere to.

 

It's a niche market, and there are not that many specialist catwalk photographers around, especially since for the clients I

am thinking of the photographer needs to be accredited by the governing trade body to get access.

 

The main problem for me is that most of my competitors don't really consider licensing, which is where the variation

comes in. They just take the money and give out the images, probably with no documentation at all.

 

I'm intending to offer a standard fee for a standard licence which should allow my clients to do what they need with the

images. If they need more, such as exclusivity, transferable/assignable rights or even copyright as I am sometimes

asked, then further consideration is in order.

 

I just wanted to take the service charge element, I.e. actually turning up and taking the images, out of the fee equation, to

simplify things. But I'm not sure if there would be any unforeseen consequences to this (I would of course reserve the

right to add an agreed service charge and/or expenses if the shoot requires anything extraordinary).

<div></div>

I shoot catwalk fashion shows for designers and PR companies.

 

What do you think of not charging for taking the images, but just charging for licensing them?

 

I want to simplify my contracts. I am in the UK.

 

Cheers.

Yeah, fashion and art has kind of been done to death, I would look at new technologies like 3d printing, see Iris Van

Herpen for the first 3d printed dress, and maybe write about how we could soon be creating clothes on demand to our

exact measurements and adding customisations...just an idea ;)

<div></div>

<p>No photoshop - just lighting and in camera</p><div></div>

<p>I've seen someone who was organising a fashion shoot using example images to show what they wanted to achieve in the shoot credited to that well known photographer "google". Sad really, a photographer should know better :(</p>

<p>Thanks for all your replies.</p>

<p>To clarify I was copying from the memory cards via the various readers to the laptop's internal hard drive.</p>

<p>As some noted, it did not seem to matter which reader was used (USB 3.0 or ExpressCard via PCI).</p>

<p>So I've just run HDTune on my "main" laptop (which I understand has an Intel 5 series/3400 USB controller chip for USB 2.0, and also a Renesas USB 3.0 controller and Root Hub, and which apparently has the latest drivers installed, disk was defragmented last week and is showing now as 1% fragmented, and I was definitely using the USB 3.0 connections ;).<br>

<br />Results were a minimum transfer speed of 40MB/s and a maximum of 80MB/s, average 69MB/s - so this ties in with my results and looks like the weak link in the chain.<br>

<br />Thanks again for everyone's input.<br>

Rob</p>

<p>I've been testing some of my cards with various readers and have been quite disappointed with the results.</p>

<p>The cards are both Lexar: XQD 1100x 64Gb and CF 1000x 64Gb.</p>

<p>For transfer from the XQD I used a Lexar USB 3.0 reader and a Sony ExpressCard reader.<br>

For transfer from the CF I used a Lexar USB 3.0 Dual Slot reader and a Lexar Professional ExpressCard reader (updated a driver so it could read UDMA 7).</p>

<p>I tested the USB readers' speed on 3 different laptops (two running windows 7 and one running windows 8). Only one of these laptops has an ExpressCard slot for testing the other readers.</p>

<p>In all cases the transfer speed I found from the card is around 40-50MB/s.</p>

<p>I've seen reviews where a Lexar 32Gb 1000x CF card with the dual slot reader achieved over 90MB/s (e.g. Rob Galbraith).</p>

<p>Any ideas why I am not getting speeds close to this?</p>

I really wonder why they could not just enable copying from pc to ipad over the USB cable. You can copy from the ipad to

the pc over the cable, so why not the other way? Are Apple users not to be trusted to see their iPad's storage as an

HDD? I guess I am just not tuned in to Apple's way of doing things.

 

Which is probably why i decided not to follow the iTunes route and instead ended up using the (overpriced) ipad camera

connection kit and an old USB stick. I copy the image files from my pc onto the USB stick, taking care to place them in a

folder called DCIM and making sure the names of the files are all in 8.3 format starting with "DSC" (yes, really, it

matters!). When the stick is pushed into the connection kit in the ipad it thinks that a camera is connected and the photo

app prompts you to choose the images to import.

 

Still left wondering why the ipad is so stunted :(

Could you use Lightroom with the LR/Mogrify plugin?

I use it to set an inner border with text, but you can set an outer border, can be fixed size or percentage of image height/

width, and can display any meta data. The border can be on any or all of the sides of the image.<div></div>

<p>I have two D3s's, one D3x and used to have a D3 (have a D4 too but will ignore that for now).<br>

I've not owned a D700, but I understand that it has the same sensor as the D3.<br>

In my experience the D3s is the best in low light of the 4 models mentioned.<br>

Rob</p>

 

<p>Oh the joys of shooting these types of fashion shows in club basements etc ;)</p>

<p>Most catwalk photographers won't want to use flash because you can lose details in the clothes, get problems with shadows, skin white outs etc. But sometimes you just have to. I've shot everything from shows where I could not even see what I was shooting to the runway at London Fashion Week where they spend a small fortune on lighting. Even there the "detail photographers" will use flash (they'll be shooting the shoes, jewellery even the nail polish and use special reflectors to concentrate their light).</p>

<p>I've been at shows where the "house" photographer has stipulated no flash, but in all honesty for the sake of a couple of ruined shots anyone who has any experience should not mind. A very important part of being a catwalk photographer is being able to get on with everyone in the pit (you never know when you might need their help!) but also deal with less than ideal situations. You'll come across the same photographers over and over again at different shows in the same city and I've seen people loaning memory cards, lenses and even bodies, and if someone really messes up I've seen people offer them their shots to get them out of a jam.</p>

<p>Anyway, I would say there is no hard or fast rule about flash for catwalk (even though I try to avoid it), unless someone in authority says either way (that's why its good to have a house photographer or pit manager). </p>

<p>As an aside I started off shooting "low budget" catwalk shows mostly as favours to friends and loved it so much I pushed it as far as I could and now have been published worldwide - so be warned it can get addictive!</p>

<p>Good luck,<br>

Rob (catwalk capture)</p><div></div>

Here are some web pages showing how different focal lengths affect portraits - take a look and decide which focal length

you like, although to be honest I think it may depend on your subject. If you are shooting skinny professional models you

might get away with a much longer lens, since the fattening effect mentioned above will be less apparent. Having said

that I have done some beauty work for magazines and preferred to use around 200mm, but then I have met other pro's

who like to shoot with wide angles, although looking at the examples in these links I hate everything below 50mm.

 

Edit: sorry just re- read the original question, had forgotten it was about sports. If you have to use 400mm to get the shot you need, then maybe you just have to do that.

 

gizmodo.com/5857279/this-is-how-lenses-beautify-or-uglify-your-pretty-face

 

www.photoflex.com/liteblog/how-lens-focal-length-shapes-the-face-controls-perspective-a-lighting-tutor

 

The second link has some three-quarter length shots that definitely shows the fattening effect.

If your subject is landscapes try 4 Corners images www.4cornersimages.com/

Saw a guy called Steve Lake from there during a talk about what picture libraries want from photographers.

They are a "boutique" library, so will not be selling your images for micro stock prices, and don't just dump them on a website, they will actively market your images to appropriate clients. Much better than a generalist library, IMHO.

Totally agree Starvy about being part of the street scene to be able to capture it almost from within, and you can see that

even at his age his eyes lit up when talking to people, he has time to hear their story, share time with them, the

photography almost seems incidental. A great talent.

Yeah, watching it too, great character, but just makes me think how if you tried to do that style of street photography

today, you would get challenged, or arrested or beaten up, or camera stolen.

I expect Corbis now have the right to licence your images, yes.

 

Will be interesting to see what happens to the sales prices.

 

My first sale on Demotix, sold directly by them, made me 75 GBP (image licenced to a UK newspaper).

My last two sales, a few days ago before the Corbis announcement, sold through Demotix but via Corbis netted me the

princely sum of 3.39 GBP each.

 

I know that Demotix took 50% of the sales price. So the first sale cost the client 150 GBP.

I don't know what the deal was between Corbis and Demotix before, but I know the last sales cost Corbis 6.78 based on

the Demotix 50% fee, but no idea what they sold the images to the end client for. The end client is a Jordanian

fashion/luxury magazine.

 

I had been running my own small picture library and licensing RM images in the same subject area to similar clients for 55

GBP, deliberately priced lower than all the established agencies to try to entice clients. So I expect the latest Corbis sale

was closer to that, which suggests they were maybe passing in 10-15% to Demotix?

 

So now that Corbis owns Demotix, will the Demotix/Corbis cut be dropped, so we will get some percentage of the original

Corbis sale price instead of the Demotix share of that sale? Maybe they will keep it in place in order to fund running

Demotix?