November 26, 2014, 12:56:03 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 - agierke

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 25
Portrait / Re: Colour help...please!
« on: March 22, 2013, 07:29:15 AM »
it looks as though you at least popped a bit of flash into the scene (bit of a catchlight in the heel of her shoe). was there another strobe source lighting her?

the reason i ask is that you can gel flashes/strobes with a straw colored gel to get better/healthier looking skin tones. she does look rather pink in the first shot but there is a bit of coolness to her skin tone that could use some warming up. fair skinned people often shoot like this and benefit greatly from a straw colored gel.

the 2nd shot she starts to look washed out. any chance you can link to some photos that you find the color pleasing so we have a better frame of reference?

nice shot regardless though. and your b&w interpretation is nice.

This quest for perfection at f/1.4 in a $649 camera is far beyond what the typical user of this camera expects.  Think f/5.6 at a soccer game, or f/3.5 at a birthday party.


this conversation is hilarious. do you all really care that much about the Rebel line?

I never said tech advancements aren't welcome. I stated that technique will improve DR more than any sensor will. Understanding this you can determine how much DR is needed.

ugh...thank you for stating this. this entirely sums up my feelings towards the dynamic range discussion. i get the feeling that many (not all...dont jump on me) people argue for greater dynamic range so that they dont have to worry about problem solving "photographic" problems anymore. as if greater dynamic range would free them up to shoot in any kind of light (including the absolute worst nightmare impossible situation you can think of) and the camera would be able to turn it into something resembling a good photo in good light. forget finding better light, forget planning a shot out for optimal conditions, forget forget technique altogether.

i'm not against tech advancements either...but it seems as though some want to forgo 150+ years worth of technique so they can get the greatest shot ever in a single frame...anytime...anywhere...any conditions.

i'm with you RLPhoto.....

LR 3 started to have pretty good NR and i hear it got even better in LR 4. if i am batch processing in LR 3 then i just use the NR there. if i am dealing with a couple of images and am already in PS i use my Noiseware plugin.

both are very good.

Lenses / Re: Bridge not sharp - why?
« on: March 12, 2013, 08:57:20 AM »
as neuro stated...around 1/20th of a sec mirror lockup is really needed. the initial impact of the mirror opening and residual vibrations are enough of a percentage of exposure during that speed of shutter to have a significant effect. at even slower shutterspeeds (2 secs +) its its not as big of a concern because the initial moment of impact is far less of a percentage of overall exposure. 

i am mostly impressed that you got your wife to go with you to that nerdfest! my wife tolerates my nerdery at home but no way could i drag her to something like that! lol.

Shoot! Just downgraded myself from a Rebel to an Eos M

you could put that lens on an Eos M. people would think you are just carrying around a approach to stealthy photography.

Lenses / Re: Bridge not sharp - why?
« on: March 12, 2013, 12:03:52 AM »
did you confirm that Mirror Lock was on? didnt see that in any of your replies. anyone else having issues like this in the future should understand that this is a likely cuplrit for camera shake at slow shutterspeeds on a tripod.

you also have to be careful of your own movement when making exposures like this. even if you are not physically touching the camera or tripod, walking around the camera position can cause vibration in the ground (depending on the surface you are on) and that can be transferred through the tripod and show up in exposures. this is not as likely outdoors but i have seen it happen on several occasions indoors when i or someone else walked by my rig during a long exposure.

i can endorse Noiseware as well. very good program and pretty intuitive UI. Imagenomic also has a very good program in Portraiture for smoothing skin tones.

Lenses / Re: Bad 24-70mm?
« on: March 07, 2013, 11:35:15 PM »
sounds like there may have been impact damage upon shipping. there should never be an abrasive feel when zooming/focusing an L lens.

Lenses / Re: Considering lens upgrade options....
« on: March 07, 2013, 03:21:48 PM »
if you get rid of the 24-70mm range altogether then i would recommend adding the 35mm F1.4L.

yes the 24-70mm F2.8 is a "boring" lens but i still find it pretty essential throughout the day to cover certain scenarios. a 16-35mm for me would be strictly relegated to dancing shots as the distortion is unacceptable to me for any other scenarios throughout the day. the 35mm @ F2.0 adds a special look to pre-ceremony shots and can be used effectively for bride and groom shots as well. the 70-200mm F2.8 is a special lens in and of itself (regardless of what variation you have).

if i had to strip down my bag to bear minimum i would take the 70-200mm F2.8, and the 35mm F1.4.

my 24-70mm ends up being my security blanket....nothing special about it but very useful and versatile as a main shooter. as a 2nd...the 70-200mm is king.

Landscape / Re: How Would You Edit This Landscape Photo?
« on: March 07, 2013, 02:50:57 PM »
i'll take first crack at it....

ACR + Nik Color Efex

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Art Tool or Art Object?
« on: March 07, 2013, 12:15:00 AM »
its something i think about quite a bit as well even though i don't really do street photography per se.

another classic discussion that overlaps the above is whether photography is capable of truth or if every photo is a perception of the photographer. (i lean towards favoring the latter rather than the former) it sort of nullifies the idea that you could even capture "the true state of human nature" as every shot is both an interpreted "edit" by the photographer and an imposed reaction from the subject.

Dorthea Lange is an interesting one to study as she was known to sometimes heavily direct her subjects to achieve the end goal of telling the story she was assigned. whether her subjects adjusted their demeanor (or how much) in the presence of Lange's lens will never be known.

Lee Friedlander and Gary Winogrand are probably the most well known and accredited "street" photographers and likely more appropriate to use as an argument for capturing true nature. i remember hearing an anecdote about how Winogrand would shoot his rolls of film and then purposefully not label the roll and put aside for more than a year sometimes before developing it. his hope was that when he did finally develop the roll that he would have fresh eyes towards the subject matter and would be without any of the expectations and persuasions that carried over from being in the moment of shooting the subject. an interesting effort to attempt to remain true to the moment but eventually our perceptions enter into the process.

 i think the idea of "storytelling" is a more comfortable way of describing photography but the problem still remains of who is telling the story. the photographer or the subject? i know i become internally frustrated when my subject begins reacting in a way that i wasn't anticipating or in a fashion that is contrary to my preconceived notions. to put it bluntly....goofballing. maybe i should accept the subjects performance as a part of them regardless of how contrived it feels and just move on to the next subject. a subject who becomes irrationally self conscious is equally frustrating.

 these concerns ultimately seem frivolous as the true nature of these types of photographs tend not to reveal themselves until much time has passed. or to put in other terms...what seems mundane today may take on significance when viewed 20 or 30 years in the future.

 bottom line is i should probably think less about it and shoot more....let the photos sort themselves out in time!     

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Art Tool or Art Object?
« on: March 06, 2013, 09:12:14 PM »
nice article. it certainly looks like a fascinating show.

one thing you wrote did give me pause though...

One alters a physical object at distance while the other preserves that object in time

though on the surface this statement seems true, i would argue that both (gun and camera) can alter the object at a distance and you go on to illustrate how this phenomenon happens in photography with the reactions people have towards the prospect of being photographed.

 public awareness of the power of photography has caused your average person to near instantly "change" when confronted by a lens. whether that change is positive or negative is inconsequential as it is the change itself that is often unwelcome by the photographer. how difficult has it become to document the true state of human nature as compared to the times of say Dorthea Lange, Cartier-Bresson, or Alfred Stieglitz?

 what was also interesting to me is your dismissing of your own qualifications to consume, process, and understand art. whenever someone is so self defacing i feel the need to attempt to demystify the subject.

 if you go back and look at art throughout human history (from cave paintings to the renaissance to the latest modern movements) the common thread is simply an effort to communicate an idea or experience. it is truly that simple. too often a viewer assumes that an artwork is "above" them because they do not understand it but the truth can be any number of possibilities that include that individual not being a part of the intended audience or that the artist didn't effectively communicate the intended idea or that there is no attempt at communicating anything to the viewer at all. in this last case i would argue that the viewer is not actually looking at "art" but instead something trying to resemble art.

 when i studied the history of photography i found it very interesting that early in its adolescence, the medium shifted from a scientific curiosity to avent-garde art form as artists like Julia Margaret Cameron, Henry Fox Talbot, and Henry Peach Robinson employed it during the pictorialist movement. it wasn't until Stieglitz and Steichen championed photography's merits as an artform that the establishment started to take it seriously outside of a documentary role. it was argued that photography relied far too heavily on mechanisms and an "artist's hand" couldn't be present amongst such heavy reliance upon technique. 100 years later and i think it is clear that that is not the case.

 maybe the confusion comes from the waters being ever more muddied....anything is art regardless of the effort or intent. i refuse to accept this myself. there is plenty out there that is definitely NOT art but i think your average person (including yourself) is quite capable and naturally equipped to experience and discern what art is.

 i actually think your article proves your ability to know what art is as the show clearly communicated something to you with which you then shared with us.

Lenses / Re: Lens purchase strategy
« on: March 04, 2013, 12:16:21 AM »
No one is a profesional wildlife landscape wedding fashion sports event macro architecture photographer.

lol, true....but some of us out there do try to diversify.

currently i am mostly shooting weddings/events, portraiture, and real estate/architecture. that alone has me looking at a pretty hefty lineup of lenses. i am also very interested in getting into product photography and food photography...add a few more lenses to the lineup.

for me, basic needs are covered by the 24-70mm F2.8 and the 70-200mm F2.8. you can cover alot of jobs with just those two lenses.

getting into architecture made the 24mm TS a necessity and i have found that i will greatly be helped by adding the 17mm TS soon. the 45mm and 90mm may not be too far off if i can expand my shot offerings to larger scale buildings that would require a bit of distance and elevation to capture properly. there, i have quickly justified the whole TS lineup.

as far as the event and weddings go...sure i'm covered with the 24-70mm and 70-200mm but going into my 5th year of doing weddings i'm pining to add a bit more flair to my shots. enter the 35mm F1.4. instant love affair with that lens and i still find the 24-70mm quite useful despite that. i then picked up the 85mm 1.8 to test the usefulness of that focal length at a fast aperture (jury is still out) as a precurser to purchasing the 85mm 1.2. eventually i will replace the piece of junk 50mm 1.8 with the 1.2 version but that is pretty far down the priority list atm. throw in the 15mm Fisheye for the obligatory fun shots.

thinking ahead towards my entry into product, i see the 100mm 2.8 macro as something that will likely be necessary. i also see the 90mm TS pulling double duty here as well. 

so considering that i currently do weddings, events, portraiture, and architecture and i am intent on entering the world of product my ideal lens lineup would look like this:

16-35mm F2.8L
24-70mm F2.8L
70-200mm F2.8L

15mm F2.8 Fish
35mm F1.4L
50mm F1.2L
85mm F1.2L
100mm F2.8L Macro IS

17mm F4.0L TS
24mm F3.5L TS
45mm F2.8
90mm F2.8

that lineup would suffice my philosophy of "the right tool for the job".

Lighting / Re: Getting by with speedlights
« on: February 22, 2013, 09:39:27 PM »
Strobes will offer more power and better quality of light. the AB units also cost less than a 600 EXRT. i would recommend picking up 1 AB800 (should cost about 280.00) and play around with that. if you enjoy the results and experience then you know that you should build a strobe set.

beware though, acquiring studio equipment is just as addictive as cameras and lenses. only there is much more of it out there....

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 25