edo_t

<p>Do you have highlight tone priority on? Having it on automatically increases the noise output at any ISO.</p>

<p>5D MKII. The 7D isn't really a professional camera and it shows in the professional setting. It would greatly benefit you and your future to invest in the 5DMKII, it will also most likely hold it's value for longer so that you can sell it and trade up to something better in the future.<br /><br />The idea of investing in equipment is an issue that most penny-pinching photographers don't realize, and it will save you tens of thousands of dollars in the long run. Sure the "it's not the camera, it's the photographer" argument can be raised, but you can't bring up that argument in a professional setting. The camera and resolution is important. The quality of each pixel from a 5D annihilate the pixels from a 7D, nothing to it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6884685">venda veverkova</a></p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>to this theme, heard about dollarphotostock.com, where amateur photographers can sell their photos for low price, i think it is better to sell them for lower price and to sell more of them</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What? The only good advice is to say "Ok, that's fine." and move on. There is no benefit for selling your photos cheaply. It makes you little money and greatly degrades your own brand value and worth. Never settle for less. If you find yourself looking for change here and there, what does it say about you, your worth, your business, your confidence, and your professionalism?</p>

 

<p>Wow, some people here talk as though it's the 1980's or something. Don't price for prints and the shoot. Just figure out what you want to charge total, then get a 50% deposit up front, then 50% in the back. Saying that you are selling prints may make them try to negotiate on that second 50% at the end if they suddenly decide they want only 3 images. <br>

Then, if they want prints, charge them for the images. It's the digital age, and so the game has been changed. Play the game 50/50 and it will prepare you for the future if you want to be a real successful photographer, I'm talking six figures big. Never bet on prints, it's dead in this age unless you are shooting a calender and have a 40k budget and are asked to work on it full service.</p>

<p>Well I don't think these statements and sentiments are right at all. I find it preposterous that fashion photo's lead to a subverted self-esteem. What is more than likely is that these people, or children, or whoever, already have some sort of self-esteem issue to begin with. Someone already prone to self-depreciation through the way they were raised either by parents or society (more than likely a result of both). <br /><br />Women and men have the incredible ability of changing there appearance. Dieting so they aren't overweight, fixing there hair, arranging more attractive outfits, changing their behavior. There are few outliers which cannot make themselves more attractive. <br>

"Ideal" is and will always be about excess. The fact that fashion photography serves to promote transactions does not make it exploitative. The "ideal" woman would be a culmination of desirable traits of society and as such they shall supersede the "attractiveness" of what amounts to be the "average" woman. It doesn't matter if society were to say obese women are the most attractive. If that were the case (and hell, it could have been), then we would see retouches that added 25lbs and skinny people would be complaining that it isn't fair.<br /><br />It sounds harsh, but it truly isn't. It is just that certain people have united to embrace something other than societies currently accepted value of attractiveness. This issue can also be seen as certain peoples unwillingness to accept and adapt to currently held values. Either way, it will always be a case of less or more, left or right, black or white. Attractiveness doesn't lie "normal" or "average," that's why it's called normal and average.<br /><br />Thank you. I know it was long, but if you go through all of it, thanks. Don't defy human nature, it's more destructive than adaptation.</p>

<p>Hi!</p>

<p>For using CTO filters to balance a flash in daylight I was wondering if there are certain times of the day in which it is best to use different degrees of the filter.<br>

For a balanced color in the light of the scene would it be best to say use 1/2 CTO at noon, and maybe Full CTO during day break and sunset?</p>

<p>Honestly I considered the original image to be better than any of the retouched images posted. I know you want to make it cooler, but that's my two cents. Otherwise, just cool the image, use curves to bring up the shadows and pull down the highlights, and use masks to keep the changes where you want them.<br>

With that said, Lightroom would be a great investment to handle your basic editing needs as well as handling RAW conversion~</p>

<p>I asked the same question a few months ago. I ended up choosing "myname.com"</p>

<p>I felt as though this is the best way to promote <em>myself</em> as a brand, not just my photography. But the multiple site method is also smart. Here is a good setup:<br>

Personal Hub (Portal for all your endeavors ie photo, graphic design, art etc) : "myname.com"<br />Client Gallery: "mynamephoto.com"<br />Photo Portfolio: "mynamephotography.com"<br>

You can think of it like that in the long-term, and pick names whenever you need them. Some people will tell you to worry about SEO, but I would just start with one and move on to the rest. In the end I really dont think it matters. In the end I think "myname.com" sounds more professional. Adding photography or photo adds an aura of Amateur business to the name.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hey Charles, I want to do it so that I can meter. The whole idea was generated when talking about spot meters with a friend, I figured I don't need one if i can figure the angle of the spot meter to get dead on accurate. obviously i can just keep taking multiple exposures, but I was trying to apply a fundamental element of film photography (ie zoning) and apply it to digital in order to save time when taking a photo.</p>

<p>And tighter angles make more accurate meters. So, in the end, I guess it is just curiosity!</p>

<p>hah!</p>

<p>~Edo</p>

<p>Hi, I am wondering a couple of things.<br>

First:<br>

What is a good book on lighting, I've seen some around at B&N but most seem to be from poor photographers with poor examples, so I'd like to know the DEFINITIVE guide to lighting, hopefully with an emphasis on film (though i guess that does not matter). No hot light work, I shoot with speedlights right now, hopefully strobe soon. **AND with a focus on Fashion Photography, as that is my main goal.</p>

<p>Second:<br>

What would be some great photo business books? I mean, something to get me started shooting for money. I can't seem to figure my way into the market, maybe I'm scared or maybe i need a push or pull in there.</p>

<p>Third:<br>

How should I go about getting an apprenticeship or assistants position ( i understand this will be unpaid). I would like to attend photo school too (i'm wrapping up my BA in Marketing at the moment), but I may want to settle on a certificate program or something due to money issues.</p>

<p>So yea, I'm based in Los Angeles, California~~ Any advice would be phenomenal !</p>

<p>Oh, I never thought of it that way. If that is the case is there any way for us to figure out the effective spot meter per focal length?</p>

<p>Hey guys, I was wondering what the light meter angle is on my Canon 40D when spot metering, does anyone know? I have searched but can't seem to find the answer anywhere.</p>

<p>If we can we should make a list for all EOS models if possible, that would really help people out there who want to get technical when shooting, or practicing psuedo zoning technique in the field.</p>

<p>~Edo</p>

<p>Dennis, why does the 90 only apply to horizontal shots?</p>

<p>ah, very good point, i forgot to load new font colors to the links, thanks ill fix that for sure!</p>

<p>Hm, what IS the benefit of the short-barrel?<br>

Marc:<br>

I agree, once i have a couple lenses in the mix i will have a feel for what should come next. I've never shot medium format before so....yea. I'm also completely aware of using longer focal lengths for people in general - the 50mm is for landscape (new hobby) and more experimental/conceptual fashion. I'm really thinking about the 110 because it's lightining fast.<br>

Christoph:<br>

How sharp is the 180 SOFT vs the regular 180? And what is the spacer you noted in your list?? That 150 3.5 sounds good too and it's cheap too, i love MF already hah!</p>

<p>OH, and I bought it "LN-" so the thing will probably show up looking like a showroom piece as per my experience with KEH~!</p>

<p>Everyone:<br>

Ok, so what is the W grade and C grade (and i think L) grade lenses mean? what are there differences? I'm aware that none "lettered" lenses are inferior to the others, but to what extent and how? I couldnt dig up this info. I know the ULD is ultra low dispersion (marketing) glass and the highest quality, so yea. Thanks all, i'm VERY excited, it will hopefully be here friday!</p>

 

<p>Aren't polaroid backs generally a lot more expensive than regular film backs? Perhaps because they are much harder to come by (relatively speaking).</p>

<p>Soooo, I just picked up an RZ67 from KEH (actually i'm waiting for it to arrive this week!!!!!).<br>

I am a fashion photographer (super [as in very very dedicated] amateur). So, for fashion work, (ie the stuff you see in Vogue or Harpers Bazaar) i was wondering what would be a good assortment of lenses. I know they are decently cheap and i'll probably end up having the whole line down the road, but for now~ what to do? What is the best route to go? W lenses? and how much better are the ULD's~</p>

<p>I got it with the 50mm F4.5 W. I know its pretty wide, sooo, what to get with next months paycheck!?<br>

a 110 2.8 W and then next time a 180mm? and how does the soft focus stack up vs the none soft focus? ok to many questions.</p>

<p>thanks guys!<br /></p>

<p>yea go for KEH, I bought a LN- RZ67...might as well be new, actually - even there used Bargain graded items look "Like New" when you get them, definetely a very very high standard of quality and amazing prices, DO IT!</p>

<p>Hi guys, I updated my site a little today, what do you guys think?</p>

<p>www.thedesignerfake.com</p>

<p>i will be migrating it to a new domain in the near future (some of you may have seen my domain name post). So yea, i'm keeping it minimal, and keeping the images on the site minimal as well.</p>

<p>what i mean by that, is that i'm trying to keep a high standard for the images that I post~ something that helps me take better photos haha.</p>

should i just buy both domains? and point them at the same location? Yeah i feel you on the SEO thing, hm, i'll be thinking this over for the next few weeks. But i feel that keeping "photography' out of the name increases the brand equity of, well, myself!

<p>so i am having major dilemma, it is rather smallish i suppose but i do not know whether to put the word "photo" or "photography" in my website name. I don't know if it makes it to annoying to type up or what not. I see most famous professionals do not use photo or photography in their domain names. It is normally "myname.com" boom, thats it. I guess it is personal choice right- i persoanlly dont like the look of other words other than my name on the domain name.</p>

<p>So what I want is opinions. I'm buying a new domain tomorrow for my site. I have one now but the domain is not my name. At this point I feel that I require my name be on the domain name so I can increase and maintain nmy brand.!</p>

<p>All very interesting to hear. Right now I am not actually a full-time working photographer, though I intend to be. Anyway, for client work I will shoot all digital. My lighting isn't necessarily bad but there is much more for me to learn. The film work will be entirely personal for the time being (landscape, achitecture etc.). I shoot 35mm right now but I am ditching it for a Mamiya 6x7 system.</p>

<p>I wanted to shoot digital for client shoots and also shoot a roll of film or two throughout the shoot as I transition in that direction. Also, for drum scanning where would I send it off too that has a reasonable price? Everything I see is something like $40 a scan~</p>

<p>anyway, yes don't negatives always have more dynamic range? and so there is a scanning "raw" file that is similar to the one we get out of digital?</p>

<p>I don't use any retouch software, I do everything using photoshops native tools as i find them more intuitive and yielding of better results. The reason I am inquiring is because i am new to lighting and very new to film so i want to know if i can save myself if i do screw up. Plus on location shoots may benefit from having more dynamic range in high contrast daylight. Are any of you scanning with a v700? i have no scanner yet, and dont have a highbudget mind you.</p>

<p>Yes this is a short question that will probably lead to more and more question:<br>

When scanning film (eg with a Epson V700) do files always end up as just JPEGs or TIFFs? and if so does it maintain the same degree of dynamic range as the film? I'm asking because I am trying to move from DSLRs to Medium Format film (6x7) for fashion photography so i want to know if there is as much freedom as with 32bit raw files. I know its a different medium, but i find film so much nicer to look at from the get-go.</p>

<p>I guess it is also because retouching is of such prominent importance in fashion~</p>

 

<p>WOW guys, I've learned so much today just from this post. Hope some luurkers out there got their fill too. Thank you so much for elaborating so much, it got me to think about film in a new way.<br>

I never thought about lighting temperature actually playing part of the madness in B+W. Phenomenally clever!!! </p>

<p>ISO 3, that's pretty awesome, how long was that exposure BTW? I'm thinking to paint my model accordingly now and then choose the appropriate filter hahaha~!</p>

<p> </p>