March 01, 2015, 06:52:44 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - klickflip

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
I have to ask, honestly. Do fashion pros really rent a huge crane and hire 10 people to take a photo that requires photoshop anyway? This could have been done for a couple hundred bucks by two people in a studio for a better result. They have to photoshop out the cables anyway and the sunset wasn't very impressive either.

Seems like they just hired some studly Aussie actors to play photographer for a couple days and make the consumer think this is how photography is really done. :)

How much has Canon spent on advertising to convince people their sensors are the best, which being money that could have been spent on making better sensors?

Oh lordy , yes of course this is how you do a job properly with a big client. Not saying that you can't do it on a smaller scale , of course you can. But when a client is throwing 5 or 10K  at a shoot then you want everyone there you can budget for.
A big client & agency shoot  shoot crew involves Photographer , digi assistant, retoucher, 2 lighting / general assistants , one or 2 runners . Make up & Hair stylists, wardrobe stylist / production. Production manager. Model, plus her agent or friend , Advertising agency staff, Art directors and account client handlers possibly 2-5 depending who fancies coming along, plus client side, prob canon Aus  marketing manager,  their no 2 & 3s and their assistants etc.
Catering / hospitality team possibly. And the crane ! So driver, operator and their assistants. Plus maybe a safety specialist to sign that part off.

Yes it seems excessive but everyone is s specialist on their role within it, so leaves the photographer to concentrate on getting the image and working with art directors to get what they want.

Yep its a bit cheesy set up all round but I wouldn't say the crew set up is faked too much for the Ad.
If you want to do this for 200 bucks then fire away like to see your result , taking in mind you should be charging around £100-£200 or your time only , never mind anything else.. What could you create in 1 - 2 hours that doesn't involve stock and photoshop?
Every image needs a story as well, especially one to advertise a camera in use!

Business of Photography/Videography / Re: The Pros or The Enthusiasts?
« on: January 23, 2015, 04:29:14 PM »
Depends what pro area of photography your are looking at and comparing it with enthusiast etc.
Seems like he is referring to stock and mass market subject imagery that anyone can get access to shoot.

For me there's no contest and I would not enter into any business area that there might be. I generally choose my clients and provide specialist images that not many enthusiasts could supply. But aside from comparing what images someone can make / provide , but there's the BIG aspect of it all is proper clients will pay for a decent service, especially for unique images or knowing that someone will without fail turn out to a job and deliver effortlessly and with style evey time no matter what the brief is. Its not just about taking the pictures there's often the drama you have to create or sometimes minimise completely to make the job run how they would like.
Then turnaround the images the next day all processed really nicely.

Sometimes I'll quote on a city scape, city lifestyle or landscape image and be quite honest that that there are probably plenty on stock that would be good enough for there needs and budget. Unless they are really wanting to create something unique, say some models with their product in a particular place or maybe get me to push it to a particular style but if it's more general vibe image then stock will do.

Being photographer is not just being able to take great images in the street, landscape, festival , gig etc.. thats where you learn as an amateur to deal with natural environments then next stage is to craft studio and location lighting to be able to create a particular mood , look & feel on demand no matter what the challenges are. Now thats something not many enthusiasts no matter how good can make the jump to quickly.
Theres also the business side where being able to quote& organise shoots well comes into play, then there's the accounting side of it all. Some years its good to buy equipment and some years its better to hold off depending on tax, selling current equipment  vs buying what just to or what may come out in few months.

Canon General / Re: What's a good studio lens for a small studio?
« on: January 13, 2015, 05:35:39 PM »
ähm, what's wrong with your 24-105 L ??

Exactly. That lens is typically very sharp at f5.6, particularly in the 35-85 range. Mine certainly is. It's my go-to lens for indoor portraits under controlled lighting.


24-105 @F8 is very good, almost every bit as good as 24-70mkI at and smoother look and OOF than the nifty fifty.
Get the 50 1.4 if you want to do nice natural light with shallow DOF style shots.
You might be surprised as 24-105 shot at say 70mm onwards for a tight headshot @ F4 or 5.6 , you'll still get a decent and pleasing drop off in focus to defocus the ears and background. Despite all the beef it is a very decent lens.

Why the need or want for a second body? Personally I've survived 15 years of not having a second body and none either film 35 or MF or digi FF have let me down. - I have and several lenses let me down tho, in which case id just adapt and use another one.

I get changing lenses can be awkward sometimes but unless you're shooting national press then you should always be able to get a few decent shots in a live environment especially with either the 24-70 or 70-200 depending on where you are placed in relation to the subject / action, and to be honest this should be you biggest decision beforehand.

 IF you're thinking 24-70 on FF and 70-200 on crop then that at big difference in distance to the subject you'd have to be placed. As much as it get dissed the 24-105 is a great all rounder on FF for events and not half as bad as people make out. Basically i'll use this in varying situations if I know client will want a bit of everything otherwise i'll swap between 35, 50, 85 and 135Ls and get a more considered stylish take on the situation than trying to cover everything all at once.

Moral here could be.. take your time a bit more and think about shots more than trying to capture everything, and caring looking pro or ready for the worst with more cameras round your neck :)

5DIII rocks- nothing apart from 1DX comes close to the ease and reliability it shoots. All I'd add to my kit is a 5Dc or 5DII as a last measure backup which hopefully would never be needed.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dii vs Nikon D750 Dynamic Range Test
« on: November 01, 2014, 02:16:02 PM »
Firsty well done and v brave doing this and posting! Can I ask how the hell have you got so much noise in ISO100 images ? They look like is 128000 shots. A well exposed shot sat 100ISO even  a predominantly dark image should not have that much noise in it. - Are these huge crops into the frame and have you lifted the exposure 3 stops or something?

If you are in the envious positions to have 7DII and D750 would it not be more beneficial to set them up side by side and shoot some real tests of landscape , cityscape , portrait and still life etc.
Id be really interested to see the difference side by side.
Now we all know that the D750 will be a fair bit cleaner and esp in the shadows depending how much you recover these for artistic reasons. But as long as you don't go mad and maybe recover slightly shadow and highlights to get a nice result which is what most people do.

Try some interesting examples shooting into the sun at dusk etc and lets see what these awesome babies can do! :)
Please seriously stop wasting you time on photographing charts!

Brilliant! These are great, lovely balance in the tonal range. Thankfully not HDR in the slightest!

Lenses / Re: Trip to Easter Island & Machu Picchu. Need advice.
« on: September 08, 2014, 07:09:07 PM »
Jeez , thats more kit than I use on many jobs!

Seriously, a 6D an 35mm prime.. free yourself!!

Why do so many keen ams want to own or feel the need to carry a white lens around? I can't stand using one on a job nevermind carry it for fun.
Unless your going birding or on safari then why bother? The best shots will probably be the wider ones anyway when its travel and docu. A nice F1.4 medium wide prime means you can still get shallow dof portraits or detail shots if needed.

However can't go wrong with the 24-105 and an UW zoom 17-40 or similar, many more better travel shots will suit that than the 70-200. Or maybe just 17-40 plus a 50 or  85 .. but leave the F1.2s at home however tempting it is!!

Good advice, using a student backpack non photo with kit in smaller padded bag inside. or get a cheap canvas backpack from the market over there.

Have fun, sounds like a great holiday and photo op :)

If it was as good optically as the 1.2L II then theoretically yes. But I'd  know I was using the 1.4 :(  and although i don't shoot at 1.2 that much, either normally 1.4-.1.8 or f8-10 for more studio work which is absolutely bitingly sharp at these apertures.
And call me vain but I'd prob rather know I'm using the best.

It's all part of the game. When you tell the client this is being shot on a £1800 lens they go wow and the results do prove it, and that leads to a better artist/ business perception in my eyes and justifies fees at then end of day. - but of course you actually have to be producing something really good at the same time of course.
Same if you use broncolor or a Hassy its all relative to the client and job and your perceived worth.

Sure I could do something similar with, a 85 1.8 and some cheap chinese lights, but consistency and quality is worth more in my eyes. If its just for yourself and hobby then the best for cheapest compromise prob makes more sense though.
Somehow i doubt that a 1.4 smaller cheaper version would get the same results optically. It may be very slight but some of us and our clients will notice this difference.

Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 11, 2014, 04:30:17 PM »
My understanding is if the photographer instigated the scenario then he owns the copyright regardless who takes it.

As an assistant i have shot many frames that were used for commercial purposes.. and I was happy to. I was only getting paid assistant rates not getting any of the bigger creative usage fees. Sometimes it was as simple as pressing the shutter for a still life which the photographer had directed and I set up, this was fairly common practice in the 80s and 90s when using 5x4 & 10x8 cameras. The Assistant basically did everything while the photographer directed everything and talked to the art directors and sometimes models while I shot the frames.
On some occasions I have shot more 'freeform' using my framing / timing  and judgement when the photographer is busy consulting with AD's or feels its in his interests to be taking care of something else on the shoot wind machine etc.

Plus there are many photographers that often don't shoot the actual shot themselves - Many fashion photographers, car photographers are as I mentioned busy doing other tasks that bring the shoot together more than pressing the shutter.
Terry Richardson, often gets his assistants to shoot as he directs and engages with the models (this is a mild way of putting it if you know his work!!!!) Plus the models often have shot kinda selfies of themselves with Terry .

Thesedays on still life shoots I often get assistants to shoot for me while I move lights and reflectors around, as its quicker and better me doing this than taking time to describe to assistant exactly what to do.

Wedding photographers often employ assistants / interns and get them to run around shooting 2nd cam reportage work. This is normally all part of the industry and great experience and learning to the assistants.

Now .. did the monkey happily gain from this experience ? In some sense I would think it was at least stimulating to it - did he understand the situation that anything he shot would be used and creative credit taken by the photographer .. of course not!

But I firmly believe that the photographer had sufficient input and insight to let the monkey take the camera and see what happens which is a creative decision to me.

Many artists don't produce certain aspects of their work, many sculptors and fine artists employ arttist assistants and technicians to actually craft certain or all parts of their artworks.
Do architects build the building.. ?
Many more examples

Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8 vs 85mm 1.8
« on: August 08, 2014, 06:31:12 PM »
As its going a bit OT about the 85 i.2 L II , I have to add my experience.

Its nowhere nearly as slow to focus or inaccurate as its made out to be, I regularly shoot sports / skateboarding shots with it to brilliant results at 1.2- 1.8, 6fps sequences too and its more about how you set the first focus tracking point and tracking settings than anything. You have to make sure (on 5DIII anyway) that the selected focus point or area can pick up a reasonably defined contrast area and this will remain reasonably constant shape and contrast for the duration that you need it to be . Learn how to make the most out the AF system rather than moan about inconsistent AF.
Low light can however get it hunting a bit on low contrast subjects, but many other lenses suffer the same.

Plus when I use it for studio portraits in one shot AF and that require more DOF , F8-10 it is spot on 95%+ of the time. And AMAZINGLY sharp compared to the 70-200L 2.8 or any other lens only other one that can get close (but not as good) is the sigma 35 art.

No doubt about it it is a super lens in all senses, beautiful wide open while still being sharp and really bitingly sharp when stopped down.
Yes it's pretty expensive and isn't a all day walk around lens but is certainly worth it when u need it.

Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 04, 2014, 04:56:36 PM »
My thoughts are..

Its prime time for Nikon to do this especially if its sub 10K , Sony sensor is there and great. yes new lenses would be needed, maybe they have been working with Zeiss which have designed 100s of MF lenses or Fuji or use another manufacturers mount if they got the license and make their AF work for these lenses would be the quickest way.

Heard sony and Fuji rumours of a MF camera, but this has been hinted to be a fixed lens one..

I think and really hope that we are going to see a resurgence in MF again as digital costs come down to put us back to where we were in the 80s / 90s with the choice of cheaper Pentax, Bronica, Mamiya  and higher end Mamiya, Hassys and Fujis .

Personally I'd love Fuji to bring out their GX67 / 80,  ranges again and the Bronica ETRSI which were my favourite cameras. - We still have the Mamiya 645 in Phase one DF  & Mamiya DF645 form thesedays.

I've not seen anyone use or talk abut the Pentax ever in professional circles, I think this is due to the quirky look plus not having a leaf shutter, which is the most useful for syncing at higher speeds outdoor. Most I know use the Hassy H2D with Phase one backs.

The H3DII 39 are not the best apart from in well lit or studio environments tbh, files break up easier than 5D III files in my experience but it is a 10 year old kodak sensor I think. The older Phase P30 Dalsa sensors are still very good at iso 100 though. And the newer  IQ ones are very good.
I haven't used any of the H4/5 sensors which I've heard are much better, but phase one seems to be miles ahead in quality terms.

The sony sensor is a great step forward for more varied use / iso MF though. If someone can put it in a decent and more affordable package much like Pentax has done.. but make it an appealing camera with and or maybe optional leaf shutter with LS lenses like the Phase one/ Mamiya platform that would be a winner.
Sure Phase one are amazing but I think their premium price days are numbered.

I know the D800 has affected the 30/40 MP Hassy & phase sales. (I just wish there were L primes equivalents) I've seen colleagues buy one and lenses at 10K instead of spending 30K, yes its not quite the same but in another way its more useful.
With 90% of the quality of say a phase IQ40  but 500% more flexibility-  but thats still 50% or more quality than a 5DIII or 1DX.
It feels like what 645 film was in medium format terms many years ago, a decent step up from 35mm but not quite as much quality Larger MF 67 69 etc or 5x4 etc. And quite a small nimble camera which the 645s were.

I would be very excited to see more manufactured jump on sony's sensor with new camera & lens systems, and then digital will have grown up properly in my eyes :)

Lighting / Re: Studio lighting advice for a newbie
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:51:02 PM »
Hi, well depends on how hands on and quick you are to pick up things yourself.
Or would you rather be shown some basic set ups and techniques first?
I'd advise If you are a bit unsure about it all then why not pay for a basic lighting workshop, either portraits or still life, whatever you find more appealing. As if you've not done anything of this nature before then it would be the quickest and best learning/ exploration step without spending much money on equipment you might use once then loose interest?

Or if you are hands on and quick to pick things up and have family & friends for eager models or some still life fascination then just buy some basic cheap ones on ebay or the budget lencarta/ ellinchrom ones with soft box, umbrella etc and dig in yourself.
Manual setting strobes.. Only! As these are so much easier than dealing with speed lights confusing settings and wireless stuff, and the adapters for modifiers.
KISS .. I used to laugh at my tutor's saying Keep It Simple Sweetheart .. but is very true especially in learning studio lighting. As there are so many 'have-to-get' lighting tech these days that can put you off it all so easily!

Congratulations first, it looks good ! just a a shame it wasn't a proper agreed paid assignment.

As others have said, 1 they have at very least taken the professional piss, as they have presumably paid a designer, ad space and probably a marketing / ad company to be involved in the production.. so they really should pay for the photography , and they will know this very well!

2 as Unfocused said work produced when working for your employer is property of the employer.. probably partly true but what clause in your contract says any photography or other work not electrical as specified in the job sheet that week/ month is their property? I doubt it , gut feeling says if you took this to court it would go in your favour.
As a note if you work as a staff photographer or designer then your contract will probably say that any images/work produced while on time / job / assigment are their copyright but everyone knows this beforehand. Seems to me your case is very different.

As you were doing a favour to the company, and all you were aware that they would be used in newsletters and in-house / union PR or maybe an exhibition and you say you are fine with that, most other people in a similar position would be too.
However and a big however, as this is now Advertising material, not just some pics to show the rest of company some ongoing work or best for an inhouse/ industry only union PR event. In my work internal company PR/ news  vs advertising are very different uses ( and fees)
PR and company news updates etc will often use a fellow employee  who is keen amature to take the pics. As they don't have much monetary commercial value then thats fine, and photog involved enjoys some low level limelight, and company enjoys his hobby and other skills which make them a bit more valuable or liked. 

This is much different, presumably they have paid for ad space, a designer and ad company to produce it - in which case your picture was used without consent for this use and normally they would have to pay somewhere from $400-$1000 to get a shot like this from professional photographer.

But I would first check if it was all produced in house by your company - was it designed by in house designer / marketing staff? and they they organised the ad space.
If it was a kinda off the cuff idea from some of the staff and they did it all theirself, especially if they don't normally do this type of thing but thought the pic was great so lets do this. Then it might be unintentional and innocent. which case you should still have a 'nice' chat with them and see if they would contribute to your equipment in future  ( state how much they have saved using your picture so say 50% of what they might have paid would be a good gesture.

But if it was made , organised or planned as part of an advertising drive then you really should be compensated paid for the usage of the image. BTW outdoor/ billboard / poster advertising normally attracts a 50%-100% fee on top of the photography shoot fee. SO use this to add validity to your case, at least you can say to help you pay for some new equipment to help take better pictures next time - but next time agree on the usage,  make sure its only for newsletter or website blog or maybe a union exhibition but not for advertising / marketing use.
Probably best write them a nice email stating how  and where any pictures you supply in future. just so you all understand, as for ad / marketing even PR to get as good shots as you can supply they would normally have to pay fairly decent money.

You may just have to take this one on the chin, if so I'd raise in email how you liked how they appreciated your picture enough to run it on an ad but aren't totally happy with this unsolicited use this time, and but will let it go for this one billboard.. however any more they would like to run it on they will have to come to some agreement about further usage and $.
In the future please do clarify the usage for anything else you do... hopefully they will appreciate your work and offer some $$ for you next time :)
Additionally you are in a very good position offer them really good photography, as you have the skills, plus inside knowledge about what & how should be shown in the images and be able to effortlessly get the best out of any staff you know. These things are as important or more than just good photo skills.

My experience is 5D III is for stills more than video , most other pro photographers I know have a 5D III or 1Dx and Video friends are happy with their 5D II. Some might get a 6D as replacement or backup and many have 7D as B cam including many midsize production campaniles but when it comes to mid to high end commercial productions they all use Red, and for many docus, run n gun or lower end productions its quicker and cheaper to use a sony or panasonic dedicated HD video cam .

However I am sensor jealous of the sony 36 MP sensor. Recently hired D800 for a job and shot at iso 2500 and the results were much much better than using a 5D III, though normally I shoot iso 100-400 and tests I did for tonal gradient sensitive still life the D800 is great ... however Canon is still way ahead because of its L pimes nothing nikon has quite gives the special look of a 1.2 L in tests I did and not just wide open but i won't bore you about that. ( yet to test the Nikon 58mm 1.4 or sigma 50 1.4 art , that looks promising )

Interestingly most of my video friends have passed on canon L and gone for 70s / 80s nikon & zeiss  primes or for more of a look older olympus & minolta primes that flare and are quite soft.

Stuck in hard place these days, would love the D800 sensor in canon but cannot give up my L primes for anything.
Clients are asking for bigger files these days so often a 5D III file is seen as lower res, which may force my hand to a D810 next year if Canon does not bring out anything comparable.

Hopefully 4K uncompresed video and more importantly 40MP and 13 + stops DR for the 5D III.... but may be a long wait.

Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
« on: July 18, 2014, 09:47:18 PM »
I'll have a shot at this , probably will be totally wrong but will be be fun :0

Can I ask, are all the shots your own ? or have you grabbed them form various sources for this exercise ?

Of course you can ask, not one of them is mine and they are all easily findable on the net, I wasn't sneaky or devious, I deliberately put in images from several lenses but I will say they are all the same focal length. I didn't use any of my images for several reasons, not least of which is I don't post process like many of them and I wanted to include a range of styles, subject matter, selective dof etc and as I have posted hundreds of images here I didn't want my test subjects, location, or post style to give anybody clues.

Well you have picked some good examples to make it difficult ;) Really is everything a 50mm,  a few look 100mm macro to my eyes.

Since we are in canon forum , are we looking at canon 1.4, 1.8. 1.2L and sigma 1.4 & 1.4 art... any nikons in there ?  have you compiled the exif date from each of the shots? we can look at afterwards

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6