Messages

1

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Coming in July? [CR2]

« on: May 22, 2013, 07:52:56 PM »

Of course any wedding photographer worth paying would simply use the stepstool that they brought for such purposes.  ;-)

Now there's an idea! I'm pretty sure I've got a step stool sized space in my camera bag. Brilliant! 

If you're shooting a wedding out of your camera bag, more power to ya! 

I didn't mean to say the flip screen wasn't useful (personally I'm in favor of them), just that in that one instance there are other options. 

2

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Coming in July? [CR2]

« on: May 22, 2013, 03:11:09 PM »

Reminds me of the photographer at my cousin's wedding. For the big group-shot of all the family and extended family, she kept lifting her camera over her head, taking her best guess at aim, then bringing it down to see if it was okay. She did this 8-10 times until she was satisfied.

My brother, on the other hand, flipped the swivel screen out on his T3i and took two (great) pictures.

Of course any wedding photographer worth paying would simply use the stepstool that they brought for such purposes.  ;-)

3

Canon General / Re: Seeking advice for corporate sporting event gear

« on: May 21, 2013, 11:24:21 AM »

• Cycling with high shutter speed
• Cycling with slow shutter speed and pan
• Runner (with feet!) airborne
• Freezing motion in a poorly lit environment

4

Canon General / Re: Seeking advice for corporate sporting event gear

« on: May 21, 2013, 11:21:39 AM »

Think about having a couple of really strong images of each event.  Get the winners on the podium.

Winners on the podium--often easier said than done.  Many (if not most) of the events I've done just kinda hand out awards and call it good without really setting up a shot.  Step up and take charge and get the people to pause and pose for a photo.  Move them around if need be (all step up on the top podium for a nice close up).  If you just wait for it to happen....well, it won't.  ;-)

A few sport specific thoughts-- in cycling a good slow shutter panning shot is often one of the most expressive, but you'll get a lot more misses than hits.  If it's just "get a shot", crank 'er up and freeze the action.  But if you have multiple chances and can afford the misses, go for a panning shot.

Don't crop runners at the knees or ankles--runners love to be able to see their feet, especially if you can catch them airborne.

Photographing swimming sucks--good luck.  If you have limited time, try to catch the butterfly event(s) as those are some of the most dramatic shots.

You mentioned wanting to outdo the cell phone pics--one of the easiest way (IMHO) to do that is simply get the shots that they can't, which means more challenging situations such as freezing motion in a poorly lit venue.

I'll post a few samples below (not necessarily my best, just what I could dig up while here at the office)...

5

Canon General / Re: Seeking advice for corporate sporting event gear

« on: May 20, 2013, 04:31:43 PM »

Well, you specifically asked about the kit (as opposed to technique, etc.), so here's my two cents:

If you're renting a back-up body, definitely go with the 7d for the reach.  I shoot triathlons, bike races, and running races, and the 70-200 on my 7d is still often not quite where I need want it to be reach-wise.  You've got the 100-400, but if it happens to be a cloudy day you're going to struggle getting fast enough shutter speeds for a fast moving athlete.

6

Animal Kingdom / Re: Boa Constrictor - up close and personal - C&C please

« on: May 20, 2013, 12:44:39 PM »

To my eye, you definitely need a larger DOF on the first one.  By nature of the composition, you almost have to search to find the area that's in focus, which gives (me) the feeling that the whole thing is out of focus.

7

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 20, 2013, 12:22:22 PM »

I understand what you saying. I looked at the photo a long time and the bland sky kept irritating me so I added the cloud. But the moment I did that I got bit unsure of myself and posted here to get advice from experts.

If by "experts" you mean expert photographers, forget everything I said.  If you mean expert at having opinions, then mine are still valid.   

FWIW, my local camera shop has a fairly regular contest (not sure if monthly or quarterly) and for the current one they are encouraging Photoshop manipulation.   

8

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Need help with video lighting!!!

« on: May 17, 2013, 12:39:45 PM »

Can anyone recommend a good book on the topic (video lighting)?  Clearly there's a bit more of a learning curve that I anticipated.   

9

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Need help with video lighting!!!

« on: May 16, 2013, 04:06:05 PM »

Also, when filming indoors, change out your practical lights to match your lights you buy. It makes life so much easier when trying to set white balance, and for color correction/grading in post.

Huge detail that most folks forget about.  Adding daylight (5600k) to warm (3200k) will drive you nuts in post production.  Gel any other light you can see or swap the bulb to the color you're working with.

So if you're going to be shooting in daylight, what do you use for additional lighting?  Thanks!

10

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 10, 2013, 02:26:14 PM »

It's when you start adding elements not in the original capture, It's no longer photography.

I could not agree more, adding to the image changes it to photographic art; however, subtracting (the corner of a building, a flying bird, contrails, et cetera) is perfectly acceptable.  Obviously anything you can do it a wet darkroom, you can 'legally' do the same in photoshop.

So I can take a nice portrait shot and delete the everything but the eyes, it's okay?  Or do I have to run that by the edit police to determine what is deletable and what isn't?

BTW, by deleting ANYTHING you are adding as well--you are adding space or order or isolation, etc.  Like the construction crane behind the building example--that's not reflecting reality, it's portraying an enhanced reality that is meets the photographer's tastes. 

 Even just enhancing contrast is a change to reality, yet so many of you are saying "deviations from reality that meet my arbitrary criteria are okay, but everything else is taboo."  That's a bit egotistical, don't ya think?   

11

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 09, 2013, 04:01:24 PM »

The camera captured the image as it was through the lens, That is Photography. Editing and tweaking is allowed, but adding element that were not there invalidates that.
IE: This image is Digital art, Not Photography.

Okay, I think I've got it.  When I take a picture of a model in a bikini in front of a beech backdrop with an industrial fan blowing her hair and her head slightly turned to hide the hideous birthmark on her face and holding in her slightly out of shape gut, that's photography (and therefore honest/true) because it came thru the lens, right?

As a side note, the world has always been in color, which has always passed thru the lens, so by this definition black and white photography has never been actual photography.

12

Canon General / Re: the rebate program... what a sham!

« on: May 09, 2013, 03:44:30 PM »

I don't mean this sarcastically at all, this is an honest question:

Do we expect the rebates to end at their scheduled date?  (At which point I'm hoping the body prices will drop back to their pre-rebate levels.)

13

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 09, 2013, 02:52:21 PM »

To me, if it was not there at the time of capture, then it's unethical.
You can argue about composition, putting stuff into the photo, choosing angle, etc... All of those are FINE as long as you do it at the time of capture. At least, it will show that you have some vision. But you don't have to tell anyone what you did with the photo; however, you cannot fool yourself.

Can I use an imaged backdrop?  The backdrop is really there at the time of capture, but the image on the backdrop isn't.  If no, then what are ethical backdrops and which aren't?  If yes, then I can simply make a backdrop of whatever I want composited and then it's okay in your view?

14

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 09, 2013, 02:24:53 PM »

All that is done before the shutter is closed, thus is taken as photography.

So it's okay to change the background before the shutter is pressed ("Please step over hear for a better background to this shot") but not after?  What is so magic about closing the shutter?

Don't get me wrong or take me as too antagonistic--I get what you're saying, I'm just challenging the idea that there is something magical about pushing the button to capture an image.  If you're shooting a portrait in front of the Eiffel tower, you can buy plane tickets and fly over there and do it "for real" or use an Eiffel tower backdrop or green screen and composite it.  The only difference in the net result (if well done) is the cost of flying to Paris.  It's hard to get past the emotional push of the "true" or "pure" photograph, but again, if there is no discernible difference in the resulting photo, what is the justification for the hassle and expense?

15

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 09, 2013, 12:50:03 PM »

Once you composite images, Its no longer Photography to me.

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree.  Most photography has never been about capturing reality--it's always an idealized view of reality to express the perceptions and ideas of the photographer.

Ever use a backdrop?  Maybe a flash?  Even just move to a different camera angle?  That's composing (composite/compose both from the same french root componere) the image, you're just doing it before the fact instead of after.