luis_modesti

Dave

 

Thank you for your words. You are absolutely right and I agree 100%. The whole reason why I am trying to network with a

professional local partner and giving out basically all profits. All I am asking in return is that I learn from him/her. Helping

a pro and watching them do this, I think is the right way to begin my own journey. No I don't feel confident enough to do it

by myself.

 

Thanks again.

<p>oh BTW, if interested, please drop me a voice mail at 954-385-2237 . I will return your call. Wedding is in October.</p>

<p>First, I am located in South Florida, US. Miami-Fort Lauderdale area. If you do not have access to this area without the additional cost of travelling, this may not be for you. <br /><br />As I transition from Amateur to Pro. or I should say semi-pro. I am getting more and more jobs. However, just got a request to do a wedding but I have never done one. I have the equipment, the theory but not the experience. That's where I think an experienced pro can come in. I am willing to (not sure which is the right word: "re-hire" , outsource...) the point is that I thought with the help of a pro, we would split the profit. I get less of course. if you are a real pro with experience, my intention is to re-hire you and I tag along with the purpose of learning from you and getting the experience. <br /><br />Details to be worked out. <br /><br />PS1: the only sort of requirement (if it makes sense) would be that you should be willing to share the images of this wedding as property of both of us. <br /><br />PS2: they are asking me to show some samples but I dont have any since I have not done weddings, so I have to choices; - be honest and potentially lose the deal , or use a partner for this shoot.<br /><br /></p>

<p>I am about to shoot a Baptism for a friend. (my first one). She is just paying to cover cost, and I am glad to do it, but I want to do an excellent work. I will be covering both the church event and the party afterwards. I will be using a Canon 5D MII but I only have two 550EX speedlights that I can trigger wirelessly with either radio triggers or Canon ST-E2 infrared, small softbox 12x12 for one of the flashes.</p>

<p>I already visited the church; no white walls, and the ceiling is really high (so bouncing may not be an option). light levels of course are low. What do I do to get proper exposures and get soft light all the time ? should I forego the use of flashes all together and bump up the ISO, or is there any technique I can still put the flashes to use with. Regarding lenses I have a Canon 24-105 IS F/4 and the 70-300 IS F5.6 but should I rent the 70-200 IS F2.8 but then I worry about too much shalow depth of field.<br>

PS: I know I am taking a lot of batteries.</p>

<p>Thanks for any advise.</p>

<p> </p>

This will be my only my second job for business Headshots. New challenge. I must shoot 5 hi-profile executives. They are giving me a

very confined space. A small office conference room 11'x25' approximately. But there is a conference table in the middle that cannot be moved out of the way. I'm exploring the possibilities of what I can do and what to avoid. ?

 

I have a medium and a large softboxes and several umbrellas. Two strobes and two speedlights. But i could also rent equipment. They want one of the backdrops to be white, But I only have about a foot or two from the subject to the background. I'm worry about shadow and the white not going fully white if unable to put a light behind subject. Also no much clearance to set hair kicker lights above subject.

 

Any advice and recommendations ?

These are all great comments. Wayne. I'm sure you wanted to strangle that teacher (in a nice way) LOL.

Thanks all. I will implement these tools and build upon it.

<p>As I somewhat transition from regular/advanced amateur to the point of starting doing some work for money, I am photographing kids. I am encountering the typical "Say Cheese" instruction from the parents while I try to capture their natural expression. They give instructions to the kids while I am shooting; "Smile", "look at the camera", and the hateful "Say Cheese" totally ruinning their personal natural expressions as they obey. <br>

What do pros do ?</p>

<p>if it helps you in anyway, I resorted to develop film myself. Now since I have now tons of C-41 Kodak chemicals to process my own film, I can't shoot enough to cover for how much I can process in the 2L batches. I will offer to process some of yours for a small fee. like $5 per roll.<br>

you can try me out with one roll. if you like it you can continue , if not . no harm done.<br>

Only C-41 . No E-6<br>

regards.</p>

<p>This can be categorized as tricks done with lighting. Studio vs. Outdoors can differ. In low light conditions the pupil tends to expand to make up for the dim light. Basically one trick is to shine a light (small flash light) into the eyes to contract the pupils and revel the color of the iris, prior to the shot. Outdoors this may already be the case by natural light providing the subject is not squinting. In either case you need to take advantage of light conditions. Some eyes will look better than others, it depends on the color and clarity of the iris.</p>

<p>So what everybody is saying is; (and I read this also in dpug.org and apug.org ) that even though Ansel Adams designed the 11 zone system on film ( which today still applies to Digital ? ), the print paper can only reproduce a smaller range of 5 zones. Or considering the fact that zones don't necessarity correcpond to F/stops, I should say; that even though we have aprox 11 stops of dynamic range in film or sensor, (camera test calibration aside) in paper we only have aprox. 5 stops of dynamic range to reproduce. ?<br>

it seems confusing as I though the whole purpose of the zone system design , was to reproduce all these zones in paper print. (whether digital or analog).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Expecting to emulate the Zone System Steps using the help of Photoshop, I created a stepwedge of 11 Zones in aRGB space. The steps used were: </p>

<p>0 - I - II III IV V - VI VII VIII - IX - X<br>

0 33 51 72 94 126 143 169 197 224 255</p>

<p>Having printed this on Matte finish Cold Press Natural Epson professional paper using an Epson R2880 Pro printer from Photoshop Managing color and the right paper profile from Epson, I went outside under very even ilumination overcast sky, I spot mettered each of the steps with a Sekonik Light meter in reflective mode. To my dissapointment, the steps do not equal into a one stop difference between one step and the other. For some steps the difference was 1/2 stop or less, particularly towards highlights area. Also there seem to be a big jump in tones from Zone 9 to Zone 10 in retrospect to traditional darkroom. I don't think there is enough room in between steps to vary the tones in such a way that would accomodate the 1 stop difference.</p>

<p>My idea was to shoot this with Film to study expansion and contraction using variation in development times all in one frame. (if you dont know about this subject, skip this paragraph, it won't matter).</p>

<p>Thank you for any ideas regarding the steps in the wedge and zone system, or on why this will not work ?</p>

<p>sorry, I meant to say D-76.</p>

<p>my question is . Can Kodak HC-110 help in this situation. ? </p>

<p>Can Kodak HC-110 developer help ? ot should it no matter sticking with Dektol. ?</p>

<p>oh I forgot to mention, I use Kodak D-76 developer as my standard developer. Not sure if another developer could help this ?</p>

<p>I was shooting ISO 100 film and spot metering with hand held Light meter. I had my light meter set to ISO 100. all good. I was metering middle gray so I expect my mettering to be accurate for my scene. Then I decided to switch to another film at ISO 400 but forgot to set my light meter to match the ISO. I shot almost the entire new roll metering with light meter set to ISO 100. The camera however was set correctly at ISO 400. This means that I am pretty much ~two stops overexposure for most of the roll. I was shooting Kodak Tri-X 400 . The scene I was shooting was an overcast morning with very dense fog at sunrise. Light did not make it through the fog, so in general it was a low contrast scene as it was. </p>

<p>My question is: How can I correct this mistake in development ?. I think the answer is PULLING two stops during development assuming I still have detail in the highlights. As I am no expert on this, I'd like to get some advise. Is this the right solution. ? I believe I have to lower development time to accomplish this, but this will cause lose of contrast, right ?. I am hoping not to lose too much more contrast due to already low contrast scene as described above. Should I pull one stop only ? then I am thinking I will need to use a higher contrast paper/filter to increase the the contrast during printing ? I print on VC Ilford B&W paper.</p>

<p> I also heard of intensification and reduction processes but not sure if that can play a roll here ?</p>

<p>These should be good images of the Everglades in Southern Florida. I have to do what it takes to rescue the images.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>Alan brings an important point I overlooked or just didnt even know. how about the wash part of the process. The temperature must be controlled during wash there too. I will use the pitcher idea. Any other suggestions ? or ideas.<br>

Thanks guys.</p>

<p>To control C-41 process temperature, need some advise:<br>

what is better:<br>

A) a Delta 1 Water Temp with lock control and a water container bin . Something like this listed in B&H <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/15867-REG/Delta_1_65010_Water_Temp_II_with.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/15867-REG/Delta_1_65010_Water_Temp_II_with.html</a><br>

or<br>

B) an electrical used Water Bath from ebay, something like this:<br>

<a href="http://www.ebay.com/itm/170974122328?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649">http://www.ebay.com/itm/170974122328?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649</a></p>

<p>both are approximately the same price, but with no-prior experience with C-41 , I would think the electrical water bath from ebay will be more precise and reliable solution. But I dont want to over-engineer it or spend more than I need if simpler solutions are available. I will be using Kodak Chemicals.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>I agree with the dark conductor. the fact that she is in dark clothes, keeps the eye busy going back and forth thru the contrast difference. It makes the picture interesting. The bottom left corner of the stage is absolute black, however not a problem , that is an unimportant part of the picture. I just wonder myself not being an expert, how Bruce's suggestion (zone system) exposure would compare in this case. It would be nice if someone can post examples of push processing vs. (expose for the shadow/develop for highlights) in the same scenario. I might even try it myself.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>As Arthur mentioned, the histograms are not really valuable here since they reference only the scanned copy and not the original photograph. At this point your best clue is to look for detail in the sky by looking at the original photograph. Even on a hazy day , if well exposed you should be able to tell the haze fine details as opposed to a blanket of white space.</p>

 

<p>I am using 35mm. I was using the TTL in-camera meter set to center-weighted metering to cover basically the area inside the tree only. <br>

I went back and re-read the book , a light bulb went off in my head. The detail I may be seeing could belong into some of the shadow or highlight areas on other zones and not necesarily the entire frame. So if I print the frame on zone 0-I and IX-X , I should have large areas of black or white with no detail , right ?<br>

So is it safe to assume that all film brands have only 7 stops of latitude where detail is recorded. ?</p>

<p>I performed a 10 exposure test of a middle tone well textured tree bark including an 18% gray card in the picture as well just for reference. I performed this test according to what I understood of Ansel Adams' Zone System , I started by exposing the tree at the camera's exposure to place it in Zone V. then manually modified the exposure by 1 stop every time until I hit zone 0 , and same thing overexposing by 1 stop until I hit zone X . <br>

After developing the film in D-76 and following specs in Ilford chart. 11 min. Film came out good. However, I see reasonable god detail in the film even at zones 0 , I and also in Zones IX and X . (I did not print it).</p>

<p>How come ? Does this mean that moderm film has a better dynamic range than what Ansel was using ? or am I doing something wrong ? I havent tried this on Kodak Film yet. I figured I would ask before I try.</p>

<p>thanks, </p>

<p>Some steps in both film processing and paper developing call for pouring the fixer back in the bottle. Since the Kodak Fixer is used for both B&W Film and Paper , can I mix what I have used for film with the one I have used for paper fixing. Can I pour them back into the same bottle, or should I keep them separate ? Each in its own bottle.</p>

<p>thanks.</p>

<p>Flicker.com has a feature where users can stop viewers abilities to right click on an image and download save picture as to a local drive. For those who would like to have this feature, can photo.net do that ? or are all pictures wide open.</p>

<p>thanks</p>

 

<p>First of all : thank you everyone:</p>

<p><strong>Answer to Monika: </strong> yes in fact, I did try that. by default the profile that comes out of the Nikon scanner is Nikon Adobe ARG, I converted to Adobe RGB using the convert to profile in Photoshop but same issue. Did not make any difference.</p>

<p><strong>Answer to Benny: </strong>the default profile that scanned files come out with is Nikon Adobe RGB. I use the default software from nikon and not Silverfast. Maybe that is your difference .</p>

<p><strong>Answer to Brooks:</strong> no you did not understand correctly. Refer back to my posting. I dont have a problem printing files from my Canon 5D Mark II, under exact same environment but printing a picture that was scanned from a Velvia Slide using Nikon 9000ED , some colors do not match. In both cases I let photoshop manage colors. However, when I print the scanned slide letting the printer driver manage colors, they match. weird. ?</p>

<p>thanks</p>

<p>Have you looked at Adorama or B&H, they have equipment rentals and they are in NY Manhattan.</p>

<p>good luck</p>