pbjef

<p>YES, Lex! That cyan edging is all over the place when you really zoom in on an image. </p>

<p>Ya, that's true Andy. Just wanted to make sure that it was understood the processing for both was the same, which was nothing more than converting formats with the same program.</p>

<p>Tom M, I wanted to respond on the settings. For the image with the digital era lens the settings were as in the attached image. Since you can't see the film era lens settings you have to take my word that I shot at 75mm on f3.5 on the film era lens and 50mm at 3.5 on the digital era lens. Yes, different in focal length. I shoot in manual mode, but I will try the experiment and see what I can find. The scientific method usually works well for me. </p>

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

<p>Ya, I had to size the images for Photo.Net to take them, so, ya, I had to use PS to get them to JPG and then to Photo.Net. But, no retouching was done in that process. Opened, sized, saved as JPG, uploaded. <br>

The point of all that was to show how you could see the "haze" - now referred to as flare or otherwise - reducing that was the point. Lots of good pre and post processing suggestions. <br>

Never thought this would generate so much discussion. I like this forum because I learn a lot every time I ask a question. No, I'm not the best "question asker" but I learned a lot.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Andy, I wanted to get a true rendering of what I was talking about. Photshop can mask just about anything. And I know I can take certain things out or add them. I really wanted to know if anyone had run across a similar scenario or knew of a way to avoid it or correct it. The post processing is a lot of work I want to avoid if possible. </p>

<p>And this is the film era lens corrected. Still looks hazy, but contrast corrects a lot of it. You can see more of a difference, in my opinion, AFTER they are processed. </p><div></div>

<p>Thanks for all the advice. I'm going to shot-gun it and invested in a UV and CPL filter and a lens hood just to test the scenario. The film-era Minolta lens will NEVER be as crisp and clear as a newer lens, but it's FUN to sharpen my skills. I'm attaching processed pics. I can process out most of what I'm talking about, but I'd rather it be right out of the camera.</p><div></div>

<p>Andy, good point about film/digital lenses. I need to keep that in mind. The manual lens I shot with was a Minolta Rokkor X 55-75mm 3.5 with a Minolta to Nikon adapter. I understood the register distance is off. I've experimented with my dad's old Minolta lenses and found the sweet spot for these is in the 55-75mm range. A 135mm doesn't work well and a 45mm is too short. <br>

Correct, a manual lens doesn't meter, but I can get the exposure with a digital and then mimic it on a manual. Both shots are straight out of the camera, no adjusting. And I do shoot RAW and adjust as needed. I use the manual lenses to practice my focusing. They also give a quality to the photo that I like. I get similar results with a Nikon 70-200mm. <br>

Is there any filter that will help with the haze?</p>

<p>Thanks Jerry, it's hard to write that I have that body. I would love a newer body, but I'm not in a financial position to do that at the moment. But, yes, definitely on the Christmas list. Was looking into the D7000. </p>

<p>The photos lack clarity. contrast and saturation. I posted a sample of the film lens. I'll also post same location with a 50mm digital lens. I'll look into a lens hood, I really like this particular lens, just not the haze. </p><div></div>

<p>I use a Nikon D50. I've attached some film lenses, both Nikon and Minolta with adapter. Both film lenses give me a kind of haze on the final image. I understand that these are not the optimal combinations of lenses/bodies, but is there any way to filter or clean the haze by using filters or anything else?</p><div></div>

<p>What are some good places to look for freelance photography work? </p>

<p>That's really good news. I need a backup body, maybe I should look into a D70 since it has the same style shutter or should I go with the D90?</p>

<p>Last night I had a shoot. Amazing in itself sometimes. </p>

<p>Anyway ...</p>

<p>My max sync speed on my Nikon D50 is 1/500th. I was shooting with a dumb trigger to a Nikon SB-28 (in manual mode). I bumped my shutter speed up to 1/640th on a couple of shots and didn't notice any banding in any of the shots. For this camera on really sunny days I have gone as high as 1/1000th on the shutter and never seen any banding. </p>

<p>Is it possible that max sync speed has something to do with the speed of the flash or some "wiggle" room in the max sync speed? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I was wondering if anyone has had success using microphone stands as tripods for lights? They seem to be a cheaper alternative. Any advice?</p>

 

<p>Thanks for the advice. She's ROTC, not military, yet. Mom and GM want her to do more bikini for money. I'm not doing bikini stuff with her. 31 shots because it was getting dark and she just wanted to talk. I just edited them "straight" - meaning I ran through a few actions and smoothed the skin. Nothing more. <br>

Sometimes it's funny how picky people get when they get things for free.</p>

<p>Agreed. The shots were in camouflage fatigues. She's an ROTC cadet. I'm going to re-edit them this morning and see what they think. </p>

<p>I did a free session for a 16 year old a few days ago as a trade for CD. Mom and grandma are upset the pictures didn't turn out well. I admit that it wasn't my best work. <br>

I'm not sure how to respond. I do need to present my product in the best light, but, I'm not sure that they just aren't after free pictures. <br>

The model actually told me that her mom and grandmother wanted her to do more bikini shoots. She said she wasn't comfortable with that. Which makes grandma and mom a little suspicious to me. <br>

As I'm typing, I'm realizing it's more important to keep a customer than to question their motives. <br>

In perspective, I took a total of 31 shots. They wanted 9 processed. This is no big deal. <br>

Any thoughts?</p>

<p>I'm very interested in how processing was done on the image below. I can decipher some of it, but not as much as I need. It is very reminiscent of a Rembrandt style painting, but I'm limited in how to reproduce it. I'm not interested in turning it into an oil painting as PS has it's own oil painting plug in. I'm more interested in the colors, saturation and techniques. <br /><br />I can't find the person who shot it on MM. The image number was 4e4f9c7085e44.jpg. A great deal of credit to that photographer and their work. <br /><br />This is the image that I am referring to: <br /><br /><a href="http://www.photographybyjef.com/masters.jpg">http://www.photographybyjef.com/masters.jpg</a> <br /><br />Any help on how this was processed is greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>I think the plugin route is the best way to go. I downloaded Alien Skin Exposure 3 and tried the settings. I was surprised how many different films were available. I also tried DXO's version. Interface is nicer, but films are not a numerous. Thanks for the help.</p>

<p>Is there a way to take an image and put it in Photoshop and see what is missing from an image? Specifically, I'm looking to emulate Kodachrome 4 x 5 transparency film or get close to that look. Is there a way to see what colors are present or absent, how rich the colors are, things like that?</p>

<p>Not quitting my day job at all. I make way more at that than at photography and to break in around here is pretty tough. This is just to pay my student loans. I've read a few books on it and I don't really find them helpful. I tried a very inexpensive marketing campaign over the summer (mass mailing ) as suggested by many books. I could have used the $75 lost in a much better way. <br>

Photography is very much word of mouth and I need word of mouth ideas. </p>

<p>Thanks, Dave, I do have a fund-raising option for them that allows them to get 80% of the profits. It's event photography. I post it on Google Checkout and they get 80% of whatever is purchased. Can't get anyone to take it. They all say, "We have photographers we use." <br>

But yes, I'll get a couple of models per high school and see what I can get. It's all word of mouth, I just need some mouths to word me. </p>

<p>I'm beginning to get a little nervous. The short story is this. I'm finishing my masters at 41 in December, which means I will need to start paying my student loans soon. So by this time next year I hope to shoot 2-3 sessions a month at $100-$200 per session. </p>

<p>Trouble is, I'm not gaining any headway in making connections or getting any business. My plan to get connected is to interact with local high school booster clubs to make contacts by serving refreshments at their meetings and to purchase advertising at local football games. I'm looking to photography high school seniors, families and bridal portraits as the main part of my business. I am in competition with thousands of photographers in the area (Dallas-Fort Worth). <br>

Technically, I believe I am where I need to be to accomplish this. </p>

<p>Any advice on how to make more connections? I know there is no magic bullet, but Uncle Sam wants his money back and I'm hoping this will keep him at bay. </p>

<p>I'm teaching an Intro to Point and Shoot Photography in September and I wanted to branch off and show how you could non-destructively modify your camera to get some cool effects and push the limits beyond simple shots. <br>

I've found a few ideas I like, but I was wondering if anyone had a few more. </p>

<p>- Use a peep hole for a fish eye lens<br>

- Use colored cellophane as a color filter<br>

- Use polarized sunglasses as a polarizing filter</p>

<p>Anything else you have seen that may be fun, inexpensive and simple?</p>