paulo_fonseca1

February 3, 2012

Apart from the correct exposition of great subjects under interesting lighting, the shots were taken with a Fuji X100. Although I cannot tell from here if it was used or not, this camera has a Velvia film emulation mode which gives nice vibrant, saturated colors.

January 20, 2012

Just a side thought: I think that non-artists, like myself, tend to romanticize the artistic work a little bit. We sometimes think

that art is something that comes from the "soul" through some kind of purely innate talent or divine inspiration. Pablo

Picaso said that "inspiration exists, but it has to find you working". In fact, true artistic expression comes through mastery

of the craft. One has to master the craft in order to fully express his/her soul. The technique also influences the

expression, just as much the language influences the thought. Therefore perfectioning the craft also helps to perfection

the expression of the soul. Joseph Haydn was a very methodical worker, with strict working routines. Does it make his

music soul-less? Leonardo da Vinci is the quintessential workaholic. He scrupulously perfected and documented every

aspect of his technique in any field. In this sense he was obsessed by his craft. Does it make of him a lesser artist? I

doubt "artists" who work only by the soul. I tend to believe they produce random pieces whose style they cannot

reproduce consistently. Even improvisation requires perfection of the craft, otherwise it is just random noise. Pawel, I am

not implying you meant any of this. This is just a side remark. I just sometimes don't get this "soul" thing. All the best!

January 10, 2012

Haha, if you live your life based on need, you'd never do much of anything in life. Cameras, like musical instruments, guns, bikes, boats, etc., are purchased based on dreams and desire. Men buying expensive toys they know little about helps drive the economy and keep our nation great. I say buy them both. That way you help keep the big wheel turning and can enjoy the best of APS-C and FF!

</blockquote>

I couldn't have said it any better! I wish I had a few thousand bucks lying around to blow on a 5D. I'd do it today.

To answer your specific question, Canon does not have two different production lines with different manufacturing tolerances and quality control protocols for the 24-105mm lens.

</blockquote>

And I will just add that, contrary to what I first thought, buying cameras and lenses in *kits* doesn't mean you have to assemble them yourself. :-)))

January 9, 2012

I have long hesitated before getting the 28mm f1.8 myself because of the not-so-enthusiatic reviews. I finally took the risk and bought a second hand copy. As it turns out, it has been perhaps my most used lens for the year or so since I got it. I take it everywhere. I also bought the 50mm f1.4 at the same occasion and I rarely use it because I often find it too long, but of course this is all a matter of taste and style.

I find the 28mm f1.8 to be a fine and very useful lens, specially mounted on a crop sensor. I am very pleased with the results. I think it is more useful to look at image galleries to see what results are achievable in real life rather than looking at MTF charts. For the anecdote, I bought this lens from a professional photographer who has done some exquisite work for the likes of the Royal Opera House and Shakespeare's Globe and who seemed to amuse himself as I shot a focus test chart as he never had took the trouble to perform such test and actually seemed unaware of the procedure.

Finally, I'd suggest that If you think a lens (or any other thing for that matter) is for you, then don't be put off by online technical reviews. Get yourself a copy from a reputable dealer with a decent return policy and try it for a few days to form your own first-hand opinion. Then if you don't like it, return it. It's no big deal.

January 4, 2012

@Sarah:

You ask how many people hate to be photographed. I think it has a lot to do with self image. I think young people don't mind being photographed because they usually look good. (I used to be in that category.) I think many early-middle aged women are towers of insecurity about their appearance and usually hate cameras. (I'm in that category now.)

</blockquote>

In my case it is not only a self image thing, I guess, although, unlike you, I've never really looked 'good' :-) It is more about personality, I think. Contrary to my physical attributes, my intellectual qualities are in fact quite OK but I never liked speaking in public, for instance. As for your current category, well, I've just checked your personal website and I respectfully beg to differ ;-)

January 4, 2012

@Brad: Thank you so much for the advice! The parades thing is a good idea. I'll also check the street photography thread.

@Harry: Thanks also for the tips. I've just checked the online preview of the "Beyond portraiture" book and it looks well worth the reading. I might get a copy. The funny thing is one of the first photos (page 8) really made me think of a snap I took in France (while watching a street parade, BTW :-)) back in 2008 (only much better, of course).

January 4, 2012

@Monika: Damn it! I really need to learn German! Thank you for your suggestions anyway... when I think about it, I also say to myself that the worst that can happen is that I receive a 'no thank you'. But then when the situation comes I am sort of petrified! And I am not talking about complete strangers here. I am uneasy even with people I know, like colleagues. With family and close friends, it is OK though. But yeah, I must take the leap of faith... and I see it coming... I just hope I won't get a straight 'get outta here your weirdo!' or I fear this will block me forever :-)

@Anders: Interesting thread indeed, but I am not sure it is the same thing. I never had any dream of enlightening the world about something, neither I am even pursuing a great artistic goal. I leave this to the real artists. But I don't really think it is entirely egoistical either. I'd be really interested in making the person involved, happy and gratified to make the photo.

@Chris: I am not sure I fully understand it. But notice it is not about getting the shot before people figure me out. Maybe it's too optimistic, but I'd really like them to figure me out and then be happy to be photographed and willing to collaborate.

@Frank: Ooohhh, don't worry, I'm still too far away from having the courage to approach a complete stranger who's not supposed to be photographed. I'd already be very happy of being able to ask say, a street performer, if he/she could do that part of the number again so I could take a picture.

January 4, 2012

Hi! I really like to take portraits but the problem is that I am often too shy and really lacking self-confidence when approaching people. Simply asking someone if I can take a picture of her/him makes me sweat. I guess this has to do with the fact that I do not like being photographed at all, and so I tend to assume and fear that people will react the same way.

Question 1. From your experience, what percentage of people do you think like/do not like being photographed? I used to guess it would be like 50/50, but given the number of people showing their pictures on facebook, I begin to doubt on that.

Question 2. Can you recommend any book, essay or video that discusses personal communication skills and strategies for portrait photography? Would you like to comment on that? I am trying to figure out what would be a sensible strategy for approaching people and potentiate her/him willingness to make a photo with you. Key, in my view, is breaking the ice and showing that you want to make a photo together with the person, taking into account and helping her/him to show in an aesthetic way what he/she wants or think it is important to communicate. Despite this presumptuous tone, I am not talking here about anything very elaborate. My skills are too modest for that anyway. I am just talking about making someone feeling comfortable and collaborative in that shot which, despite amateur and informal, could be made a bit less trivial and ordinary.

I guess this must be a very personal thing that in fact extrapolates photography, and I really don't expect to find any magic recipe. Nevertheless, I'd like to hear any personal account that could inspire me and make me think. A couple of quick practical tips wouldn't be bad either. I definitely do not have this natural talent but I hope it would be possible to develop some of these skills. Thanks and happy 2012!

January 2, 2012

Granted, the manual is not very helpful and the camera has its quirks so you have to be a bit patient and take your time to familiarize yourself with it so you can explore all its potential. In my view though, that's totally worth it. I am still learning but, all in all, its such a great little camera! IQ is quite good, especially auto WB in the wildest light combinations, which is well better than my Canon DSLR. Colors are great, specially skin tones, and that little fill flash is just amazing for what it is!

It's a pity you are not enjoying yours but that's life! However, if you think that "it is way too fussy for your use" I think you could simply use the automatic modes P, or EXR, and try to gradually learn all its tricks, with no hurry or stress. It is still a relatively new camera and, given its popularity, I guess more and more instructional resources will appear. As for now I am not aware of any free tutorial. There are some videos on youtube, specially some from the canadian Fuji guys (search Fuji guys X10) which give a walkthrough of its main features, but that's not really a tutorial on how to use the camera.

Finally, I'd bet you won't have much problems with amazon's return service if you really decide to send it back. At least here in Europe, it works very well. Happy 2012 shooting!

December 30, 2011

Well, staged or not, the image is great! The blaugrana uniform really stands out in an otherwise almost monochromatic scene. I am quite naive as such matters go so I didn't even think about the authenticity of the shot when I first saw it (and I still think it is the real deal) but, yeah, I admit the UNICEF logo might raise some suspicion, although I am not sure as whether people that don't know it beforehand would recognise the logo. Anyway, I do not think this affects the credibility of UNICEF or its cause whatsoever.

Another observation: I think the tilted horizon really works in this image. It conveys a sense of imminent loss of balance caused by the weight of the CRT raised above the boy's head at the exact moment he's about to invert the movement to throw the object away. I thought it to be really genius! However, at first I was also a bit intrigued by the rather tight framing up and down the image, specially with the boy's right foot being cropped away. Then, looking at the EXIF I saw that this was shot with a fixed 35mm lens and, well, in this case we don't always have the time to step back and adjust framing. In a sense, this and the tilted horizon also confers more spontaneity to the image. However, later I realised that the image might have been rotated in post-processing and that this caused the tight cropping... anyway, I'm probably over-thinking... great picture!

December 29, 2011

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/germany_61135.html The winning photo can be seen at: http://www.kailoeffelbein.de. Awesome picture! The curiosity is that the boy is wearing the FC Barcelona (Visca el Barça!) jersey with the UNICEF logo. I also love the 3rd place photo. Enjoy! PS1. BTW: Nikon D700 with 35mm f/2 shot in Aperture Priority at f/2.5 1/2500sec ISO 200 ;-) PS2. I posted this message yesterday in the Photojournalism thread but I can't see it anywhere except in my workspace, so I post it again here. I apologize if this is a double post or if this is not the correct forum.

December 27, 2011

You can certainly find a nice used DSLR for 400EU which will give you better image quality than a compact.

December 26, 2011

OK, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/focus_recompose.html" target="_blank">here ya go...</a>

</blockquote>

Yeah, I hadn't done the math yet but that's what I suspected this morning while reviewing some of my latest shots and thinking about this point. Moreover, I was thinking that the focusing errors I'd eventually get because of this focus distance change could still be less of an issue compared to the number of shots I miss for not being able to select the most appropriate focus sensor fast enough. I guess it will much easier to "track" my son using the centre AF point... I will give it a try. Thank you!

December 26, 2011

Hi folks! I have a custom mode of my camera (Canon 7D) set for portraits. In this mode, I have the autofocus mode set to single point AF and then I use the rear joystick to select the sensor over the subject's eye *after* framing. As convenient as this method is, it is sometimes just not fast enough for my kids. I guess it would be faster to just use the central sensor, lock focus and then adjust framing. I understand that, if one employs the latter technique, then the focal plane may move a bit off the intended position, resulting in OOF shots. Well, of course this will depend of the DOF and hence on the aperture, focal length and subject distance, however I am not sure whether this is a critical problem in practice. I may do some informal tests, but because I am a bit lazy, I would like to know which approach do you guys, much more experienced photographers than I, use :-p The question is of course vague so feel free to comment on any scenario you wish, but I am more thinking about half-body or head and shoulders portraits. In my case, I guess the more problematic situation would be with my primes (28mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4) although I do not often shoot above (wider than) f/2.8, except in poor lighting conditions. Thanks for any input!

December 14, 2011

Listen to the <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/upgrades.htm">voice of wisdom</a>.

December 12, 2011

Been there, done that.

I got the 18-135 as a kit lens. I think it is a very good lens. I just wish it had USM and then it would be great! Then I got both the 28mm f/1.8 and the 50mm f/1.4. The 28 makes a great normal lens on a crop sensor. My copy is not fantastic wide open in bright light with contrasty subjects (does it matter?), but if I stop down to f2.2, it is fine. At f2.8 it is excellent. In low light, even wide open it is fine for me, although I always try stop down a bit to increase sharpness and have some more DOF. In particular for portraiture, I'd say sharpness is not an issue with this lens. However at this focal length, subject isolation/background defocusing may be not enough for your taste unless you move quite close to the subject. For environmental portraits, I'd say it is fine. For landscapes, I think it is just not wide enough, but your kit lens will do the the job remarkably well at f/8-f/11. The 50mm f/1.4 can be a terrific portraiture lens although, to be honest, as a casual/family shooter, I've seldom used it during this year I've owned it.

So, I pretty much agree with what Marcus said. I'd only suggest that you experiment with your 18-135 lens to see which focal length suits your needs better.

December 2, 2011

Hi. Thank you all for the input.

@John:

If you are going to keep the 18-135 and carry it most of the time, then the 24-105 is just a duplication

</blockquote>

I don't plan to carry both all the time. Given the low resale value of the 18-135, I'd rather keep it as a backup or, as I said, to use it when (i) I can bring only one lens and (ii) I know I will need the 18-24 range or 105-135 range.

I'd only consider it if you need the extra stop. But you said you stop down to at least f/5.6...

</blockquote>

Maybe I didn't express myself well. What I meant is that in some situations, even if I would like a wider aperture, I still stop down because of the "softness" of the lens wide open, especially towards the wide end.

@Robin:

However, the changeover point is in some circumstances less than ideal – if you want to swap a lot between moderately wide and standard to medium-long you will be doing a lot of lens changing, and you would be better off with a suitable EF-S lens like your 18~135

</blockquote>

Very true. I might want to check which percentage of the photos I took with my 18-135 are in the 18-24 range compared to the overall number of photos within this range (which includes the one taken with the 10-22).

@JDM:

but if you are planning to stay with APS-C, the 24-105 will always be "too long on the short end"

</blockquote>

Well, I indeed think about getting a FF body in the future. Maybe a 5DmkIII if I can afford, or even a used mkII if prices would drop with the arrival of the new model. However, since I don't have a clear idea or specific timeframe, I didn't mention that and I'd better not base my decision on a purely hypothetical scenario that may never come true.

@Mark:

Consequently, the only EF zoom I now have is the 70-200/4 L IS; the rest of my lenses are primes

</blockquote>

I also have a couple of primes, and as for the 70-200/4 L IS, it is indeed a fine lens which I might also get some day. But I realize I'm not much of a tele-shooter, so maybe it would make more sense to get a better quality standard zoom lens since, as it happens, the lens I use the most, which is exactly my 18-135, is my "worst quality" lens, which is not very reasonable.

@Vasilis

I would recommend that you buy the glass, particularly if you plan to upgrade to full frame.

</blockquote>

You're the exception here :-)

So, thank you for the thoughtful bits of advice. The issues you raise are indeed pertinent. If I understand correctly, though, the more or less consensual lack of enthusiasm has less to do with the quality of the lens in absolute terms than with the inadequacy of its range on a crop body. It might be some wishful thinking, but I guess I could live well with the dual lens solution provided I'd have some improvement in the IQ department. I will try to go for a walk with my 18-135 and force myself into shooting only within the 24-105 range to see how much I would miss the extra range.

December 1, 2011

Hi! I feel embarrassed about posting this question, but since I can't make up my mind about this, here it goes.

So, I have the opportunity of getting a mint 6months old Canon EF 24-105 L IS USM for about 2/3 of its price new.

Apparently a good deal, but here's the catch: I have a 7D and a EF-S 18-135 IS lens. So, not only the 24-105 is not wide on my body, but

it also covers less range than the lens I already have at approximately the same speed. However, I also have the adorable EF-S 10-22,

which is what I really grab when I want to go wide. Moreover, I plan to keep my 18-135 so I will always be able to use it if I want to carry just one lens. So, my question is really wheather I should seize this opportunity or not. I have read overall good reviews about the 24-105

but people do not recommend it for crop bodies. Very often, though, this is based on the assumption that this lens is going to be used as

a general-purpose walk around lens, whereas I am not thinking about this lens as a soloist, but rather as a team player to be

complemented by the 10-22. Since I got the 10-22 I almost always carry it along with the 18-135 anyway...

So, do you think this 24-105 is a worth addition? To be honest, I am OK with the IQ of the 18-135 though I always find myself stopping

down to at least f5.6. However, it'd be nice to have USM and constant max aperture and I assume the IQ will be at least a bit better.

Heck, it's not even the ideal time to spend lots of money but heck, I am a sucker for a deal and this seems to be a good one, one of those

that don't appear very often here where I live. It could be though, that all this is just about the fetiche of having my first L lens. Maybe it

won't make any difference in practice and I'd better spend my money elsewhere, e.g. on a macro lens. It's crazy how much irrational one

can get about those red rings... I once tried a 70-200F2.8L and I'll never forget.

So, sorry for this silly question, I know you can't decide for me, but I'd be glad to hear someone else's opinion and, more importantly, any

aspect I forgot to consider in this dillemma. Thanks

November 3, 2011

Hi David, For this intended use and user, I guess you should take a look at the Sony A55 or its smaller sister A35. I personally don't have much experience with these cameras, but they are compact, have a decent auto-focus system, high fps, allegedly the best implementation of live view and continuous phase-detection focus tracking while capturing movies, and are really feature-packed (GPS, HDR, Sweep panorama, etc.). The A55 sports the same sensor of the Nikon D7000 and Pentax K5, so the image quality will be more than fine. Match it with an affordable Sony 35mm f1.8 or a even more affordable used minolta 50mm f1.7 and you're set for low-light action! Purists will regret the absence of a true OVF, but from what I've read the EVF is OK and, from what you've said, I guess your sister will not complain. If I am not wrong, dpreview gave the A55 the gold award and Popular Photography magazine has chosen it the camera of the year, so this must mean something. I am a purist 7D owner, but I would wholeheartedly recommend these Sonys to my own sister which, by your description, plays in the same league as yours. Personally, I'd rather have one such camera than a smaller sub-APS-C sensor one.

October 28, 2011

If this the sole use the camera will see, then I think you don't need to spend this much. A rebel with a ef-s 60mm macro will do for a fraction of the price. The 7d is a great camera but a pointless choice for this job. (EDIT: gotta type faster)

October 25, 2011

I'd suggest you to get yourself a copy of either Lightroom or Aperture. I've started photography (as an amateur) about four

years ago but only recently I bought a copy of Aperture. I consider these to be among the better spent 60eu of my short

photographic career. Not only it is a terrific library management tool, but it also covers almost everything I ever need to do

in terms of editing, all integrated in the same environment and in a non-destructive fashion so I don't have to worry about

saving multiple files. I cannot afford a copy of Photoshop but from my previous experience with "similar" tools (e.g. gimp),

I guess it would be too complex for my PP needs. If money didn't matter or if I were a pro, I'd probably also have

Photoshop but I'd likely reserve it only to the most demanding situations.

October 25, 2011

Thanks for the answers and, yeah, I must have some sort of psychological blockage about these plastic clips.... You know, I have a small kid and they are capable of the most unexpected things....

October 25, 2011

I am looking for a camera strap to replace my original Canon strap. I do not necessarily look for something ultra-fancy, but I would like it to be (i) discrete, (ii) comfortable and (iii) secure. I've been looking into a few neoprene straps (no Blackrapid style) but they all have some kind of "quick release clips", and I definitely don't like the idea of having my equipment hanging by a piece of plastic, much less when it is, by definition, made to be "quickly released". Any suggestion of a particular model which does dot have such clips? Thanks

October 22, 2011

Try arguing with that!

</blockquote>

Sorry if I did not express myself well. I won't argue. As I said, I am not judging. These are not illegal nor immoral means to achieve an end. If it works for someone, then great! I just think I would not be capable. Let me say it again, I have no opinion about this photographer. I don't know her work and even if I did, who am I to judge? Personally, I think there is no magic rule to be successful any profession. However, if you study the biography of people that have suceeded in their careers, you will find that hard work, honesty, perseverance and pinch of fortune are common denominators. If you have these and you are competent at what you do, then you are likely to achieve some success. Is this enough to be among the top 2%? Maybe not. At this level, I think there are even less golden paths, though I would think that it would at least take some talent in addition. I just don't think the very best need to spend their time praising their own virtues. They just concentrate their energy and skills on doing the best they can and let others eventually talk about them. Aim at excellence in your craft and success will follow. This is my naive and romanticized view of things. That said, I am just an average Joe, so you might want to hear from someone else. Cheers!

October 22, 2011

Study people like this <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Annabel+Williams&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=haU&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvnso&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=HEyiTvehCMWx8gOG_MD6BQ&ved=0CGIQsAQ&biw=1440&bih=797" target="_blank">(link)</a> closely. Most photographers regard Annabel Wlliams as having around average technical skills, but she is the most effective marketer in social photography I have ever seen, a fact which is reflected strongly in her (very fat) bank balance!

</blockquote>

It is not in my plans to get pro any soon anyway, but if what it takes to be a successful in this profession is to have a text written about yourself in your own website, in third person, comparing yourself to Madonna, then I guess hell will freeze well before I have my first client. However, I'm not judging. It's only a matter of personal taste and style.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by paulo_fonseca1