April 23, 2014, 11:59:23 AM

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 - thepancakeman

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 29
16
Photography Technique / Re: What if we were still shooting slide film?
« on: April 09, 2014, 11:48:10 AM »
As a sport shooter, I cannot imagine trying to work with film. 

The only way (for me at least) to repeatedly capture "the moment" is with a burst.  If I had to hear the "ka-ching" with ever shutter release, I'd miss shots because I was worried about wasting money, or I'd miss the attempted one-shots because my timing sucks, or I'd be bankrupt.   :-\

17
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom Mobile Version Official
« on: April 08, 2014, 06:01:24 PM »
"Q. Will Lightroom become a subscription only offering after Lightroom 5?

A. Future versions of Lightroom will be made available via traditional perpetual licenses indefinitely."

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/05/lightroom-and-the-creative-cloud.html


Indefinitely:  "for an unspecified period of time"

In other words it will be available until they decide that it won't, which may be sooner than you think.

18
I'm happy to inform you all that the "soap" ended very well.
The photographer told me that I did the right thing calling him to talk about the bride approached me asking for my images and he's still calling me for other jobs.
Lesson learnt, I feel happy and relieved.
Thanks for the update. Good to hear that the situation was handled well.

+1

Apologies for my earlier comments, I was wrong to assume you wouldn't do the right thing.

Yup, thanks for the update and glad it worked out! 

But Neuro, you can't apologize dude, this is the interweb; you're not allowed to be reasonable.  Ever.  For any reason.   :o

19
Wrong. Why would I post on a photography forum to show off?

"The Bride chose my images instead of the photographer, how much should I charge?"

Not, "What should I charge a bride for pics I shot at a wedding?"  No...you wanted everyone to know the bride preferred your images to the person paid to shoot the wedding. 

I have no idea why you'd come here to show off, but it seems clear that you did. 

Sorry, going to have to disagree with you on this one Neuro.  IMHO, the original statement is describing very relevant context, not braggadocio.  The option that you offer does not provide the necessary information that he was not the hired photographer, and that indeed there was one.

Quote from: Orangutan
I would offer a variant of Hanlon's Razor:  Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by human imperfection.
That's a new one to me, but I like it and indeed think it applies here.

20
Yet another pasionate debate without the facts.... sigh!

That's debatable.   ;D

21
First of all, congratulations on having some shots that someone wants to pay you for--that's a very exciting moment!

Secondly, as many others have said, any money you could potentially make on this are more than lost in a law suit and potential future revenue due to bad word of mouth.

Additionally, I want to caution you about too much patting yourself on the back.  Maybe you took some great shots, and maybe the "pro" really sucks.  But then again, maybe not.  I've been on shoots (not weddings though) where I knew that I had a backup and that they were relatively inexperienced.  Both to help them be successful and challenge myself,  I've set them up in the best/easiest "guaranteed" spots/shots and worked the more challenging angles/lighting etc myself.  And when it was all said and done, most of their shots turned out better than mine.  And trust me, they were not better photographers than I am (not that I'm that great, but they were really raw in their skills.) 

And on the flip side, I've done a couple of weddings where I was the backup, and because the main photog was working the "must have"/guaranteed shots, I was able to get more creative and ended up with some of the better shots, not because I was the better shooter but because I had more time and opportunity to get creative.

Good luck!

22
This is a QC production line and machining camera. Why can't the posters here get this?

Maybe because some of us have never heard of a "QC production line and machining camera" and have no idea what it is?   ;)

23
Canon General / Re: Tesco uses pictures of beef cattle in milk advert
« on: March 24, 2014, 12:32:41 PM »
Next thing you know, they're going to be using actors instead of real people in commercials...

 ::)

24
Release Date: March 19, 2014

Now how often do we get an announcement AFTER the release date??   ???

25
When Zeiss Glass does warm the heart…or at least, the cultured human cardiac myocytes in the lab this afternoon.    ;D

Hahaha!

26
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: March 14, 2014, 02:54:03 PM »
I think most of the images posted here was meant to show what the lens can deliver, not the skills (or lack of skills) of the photographer. At least that was my intention. So, from that perspective, the quote from distant.star is quite relevant.

Every time I get one of the images from this lens up in LR, I´m trying to figure out whether I could have the same IQ with one of the other (and much cheaper) lenses. And, after a fair number of shots, I am confident that this lens outperforms every other lens I have seen. The 4MB limitation for these posts reduce the IQ a bit, so for you who would like to see the full performance, it is well worth getting access to some images in full size raw format.

For the record, I am in the camp that believes you cannot substitute for great equipment.  Great equipment will not make a crappy photographer a good one, but it can certainly make a good one better and a great one truly remarkable.

But I'm still not buy this lens.   ;)

That being said, do you have any photos that you've taken the same shot with the Zeiss and with the next best option that you can share.  No doubt these images look good, but like you I'm curious if/what the lens delivers that can't be gotten elsewhere.

27
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: March 14, 2014, 11:54:51 AM »
.Wow!

Your lens takes really good pictures!
*He takes really good pictures!  :)

I suspect this is a tongue-in-cheek reference back to earlier threads talking about skill vs. equipment and photographic pet peeves.

It does beg the question though, for those who say it's not the equipment but the skill of the photographer ("I can take great pictures with my iPhone"), what is the point of a $4000 50mm manual focus lens?   ???

28
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: RIP Calumet Photo
« on: March 13, 2014, 04:39:43 PM »
So does one say "thanks!" to someone for sharing bad news?  Seems a bit strange, but none-the-less, thanks for sharing this.

29
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Replacement Mentioned Again [CR1]
« on: March 13, 2014, 04:18:53 PM »
Ok, like I said if it bothers you that's your thing but I still don't understand why it bothers you.  So what if you can see the pixels? It doesn't affect your ability to frame an image in any way.

If you are spending hours looking through the viewfinder, it's not just "the ability to frame an image".  I think you're asking for migraines and digital eyestrain and a whole bunch of other uncomfortableness looking at a pixelated image for that amount of time.

30
Lenses / Re: Canon 600mm f4 IS II Vs Canon 200-400mm w/1.4x TC
« on: March 07, 2014, 01:34:23 PM »
You asked which I would prefer, and that's easy: the 200-400.  Why?  Because I'm technically incapable of using sneaker zoom (aka primes).

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 29