March 03, 2015, 06:17:52 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 - RAKAMRAK

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 21
Lenses / Re: Short tele for street portraits in Southeast Asia
« on: January 23, 2014, 10:19:38 PM »
take/get EF 24-105. (or just 135mm ) Do you really think it will be a good idea to change lens on the street? And if not why carry two lenses on the street?

Portrait / Re: Bikini on the beach
« on: December 22, 2013, 05:00:16 AM »
Interesting opinion. I'm sure you know that if I didn't light her with anything and metered on her, then everything else would be completely blown.

Of course.  I'd just wait for better light.  Perhaps a less strong lighting would have been less obvious.

This isn't a knock against you but, I've been told repeatedly that when someone KNOWS what they're doing with flash, you can't really tell they used it.  I've yet to see an example of that myself, but I've had my eyes open for it.  Until then, I prefer natural lighting.

Yep, true. This shot was certain time of day, so either couldn't shoot down towards the water or use flash.

As you have said the time of the day and the angle of the sun you had to make the choice of taking the shot and use flash or do not get the shot at all. I shall always go for getting the shot.

Just one thing, the "obviousness" of the flash is basicaly due to couple of areas on the skin (and the rim of the glasses) with localized highlights/reflections which would not be there if flash is not used, and a bit of extra (cannot say overexposure) exposure on the entire body. It is upto your taste and liking - but you may want to thing about reducing that over exposure slightly and eliminating those highlights. My guess is that will give a more "natural look". Of course depending on your liking you may disagree.


So, lets say you're a heterosexual male, the only way to keep your 100,000 dollar a year occupation is to sleep with your homosexual male boss. What takes precedence?
Like I said, you don't want to, you dont have to PERIOD!
Me being a straight male will tell you, that I won't have sex with another man, EVEN IF MY JOB WAS ON THE LINE. I stand by my principles. If you would be gay simply for that occupation, then don't go and cry about it later. Yes, he was in position of power. NO, he did NOT force you to make the decision you made though. It's that simple, no matter which way you TRY and spin it. These are all adults we're talking about here.

Ok, so tell me this AAPhotog, if this is the same 100,000 dollar a year occupation on line, and you do not need to sleep with your male homosexual boss, rather you have to sleep with your heterosexual female boss who is just a bit older than you. What would you do? Would your "principles" remain the same, if not then the example that you game is misleading and not appropriate in the present case.

Everyone is chiming no, so why not me.

My take. What are the given here?

1. Some of you are claiming that he is an well known sleaze.
2. Apparently he "can make" careers, at least there is this perception among aspiring models and that is why they go to him, that is why he get the power to coerce.

I am not going to argue whether it is immoral/unethical/illegal to do what he is doing. Those are rather philosophical and legal questions. I would also not argue whether girls wanted/deserved/craved for what they got. and whether they could decide not to go to him or not.

But my point derived from the above two givens is

"Why does the modelling industry support him (or him like other sleaze bags?)"

He derives the power to exploit because of the modelling industry. Clearly the modelling "industry" as a collective does not "disapprove" his behavior - the larger "society" may. That is why there are laws (which are creations of the society at large) against blackmailing like this, but there is no such disciplining mechanism created by the modelling "industry" (or film industry against casting couch) against such behavior. Clearly the evidence says that the modelling "industry" does not consider this behavior as troublesome or wrong by the codes of that industry - that is why he can flourish and stay in business. Individual acting independently inside the modelling industry can surely dislike or disapprove him, but as a collective the "industry" does not do so.

By my moral standards he is "bad", but that is my personal opinion. As long as the industry he is in supports his behavior and does not explicitly take steps to correct it, he is just an opportunist from the perspective of that industry. The industry is equally to blame, not only Terry Richardson.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: zeiss filters
« on: November 20, 2013, 12:34:47 PM »
That is good to know. As always Mr. Neuro thanks for the help.

Third Party Manufacturers / zeiss filters
« on: November 20, 2013, 02:42:03 AM »
I was reading about the new zeiss lens and this question came to my mind - what about zeiss filters? Do they make filters? So I searched their website and yes they do. So I have a questions for you guys have any of you used zeiss filters ever - specially the CPL? I always read good things about B+W filters from all of you, what about zeiss filters? anyone?

Software & Accessories / Re: ProDot Shutter Button Upgrade
« on: November 15, 2013, 06:46:08 AM »
After looking at the video I have a question about my photographing technique. I generally always keep my forefinger (of right hand) on the shutter button. It always touches the button and when I am about to take the photo I press it (once, since I generally use back button focus). But the video show that the forefinger is kept far away and at the moment of the capture it looks like it "hits" the shutter button rather than gently press it. I hope my technique is correct and not the one shown in the video. Yeah, me from India too and a thich swede type or velvet bindi will do the trick as well.

Landscape / Re: Lonely Walks
« on: November 11, 2013, 12:25:26 AM »
Very nice capture and timing. But for me the big building on the left side is slightly disbalancing. Although you did not ask for C&C for this photo (I beg your pardon for jumping the gun) but I would probably crop the building out. May be like the following. If however, you like the building aesthetically then just ignore my opinion.

Landscape / Re: Safely Moored
« on: November 11, 2013, 12:24:27 AM »
both are nice. But I do not like the empty space on the right side (of the image that you have posted as "orginal").. I myself would crop that out. OTherwise, the flipping of the image is an interesting touch.

1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: November 09, 2013, 04:15:31 AM »
Tanzania 2013

1Dx 200-400f/4
Shot @ 560mm f/5.6 & 1/1600th ISO400

The blood stained mouth is just...... awesome....

What are those buttons and knobs in the separate front panel for? Launching the next moon rocket?

Will it be so incredibly better than the 3k-5k monitors I read about here on CR for post processing (where one can use the Spider thingy or the Color Checker Passport system for accurate color etc.)?

Or is it just aimed at cinematorgraphers working with C100 and other such pure movie cameras offered by Canon?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Appeal of Nikon Df
« on: November 07, 2013, 08:50:03 AM »
I answered #4

I owned a Nikon FM2 back in the 90's and kinda like the retro look of the DF, but for a working camera, I'll take my 6D any day.  I'm not trying to impress anybody with the look of my photography equipment.

I know what you saying. But I will be honest and tell you that every time I buy a new camera or lens I like to look at it, feel it. Should I be ashamed of myself? :) Am I too much of a child?
When I get a new car I do take it for a drive with friends to the ice cream shop. Am I a bigger child for doing that.

When I buy a new lens I move the focus/zoom ring, see the writing on it, see the contacts, even look through the lens without mounting it on the camera. I guess I am hopeless....

I concur completely with you Mr. Sanj(ay)..... I also enjoy those moments.

there is a peculiar presumption going on (definitely fueled by the ads of Nikon) that this camera is a style statement and for show off. The point such presumptions tend to miss is that the buyer may just buy it for him/herself without any regard to what others think and whether others even notice it in his/her hands. Such naive negative and pessimistic looking glass can also be used to judge many 5D III or 1DX and great white lens owners (or even Nikon D4/D3 whatever) who never take any photo beyond that of their kids/pets/flower garden/brick wall (or for that matter those who prescribe such camera and lens combination to photograph kids/pets etc. by unsuspecting parents). The ownership of 1DX/5D iii in such instance is also nothing more than a style statement. The point that gets missed is it is just the choice of who is buying it, and if we start categorizing and generalizing people on such trivial matters of choice then the world would be a much more hostile place than it already is.

Lenses / Re: EF-s prime lenses?
« on: November 07, 2013, 04:30:45 AM »
sub]*) No, the Laguna Seca one has reflections. I don't like those. Grab a rubber lens hood from ebay, put it flush against the window, and presto - gone are your reflections![/sub]

Hey Thanks @Rat, good to know this technique...

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Appeal of Nikon Df
« on: November 07, 2013, 04:28:12 AM »
No. 1

Lenses / Re: EF-s prime lenses?
« on: November 06, 2013, 09:30:54 PM »
2 more from same day

That is wonderful stuff.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 21