October 25, 2014, 08:02:19 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 - Hesbehindyou

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7
16
Charge what you think your time is worth.  I occasionally will charge a flat rate for being at the site, keep the copyright and then sell photos individually.  That way you are compensated for your time, but your work and work product actually determines what you are worth.

Is this for sports photography?

How much is the flat rate, and how much do you charge for the individual photos?

How many do you sell (appreciate that this can vary a lot)?

17
Lenses / Re: Get a 300mm or 600mm? Oh the agony...
« on: January 04, 2014, 06:59:07 AM »
OKee.. Here's the scoop. I have the 70-200 2.8L IS USM. But it just doesn't have the reach I want. I put a 2X on it and it gets me closer but still is short at 400mm.

Now if I get a 300mm 2.8 It will get me to 600 with the 2X but will it make me happy or not?

Since I can get to 400mm with the Zoom-2X combo,  would I just be better off with the 600mm that can get me to 1200mm if I ever want to?

The question you should be asking is 600 f4 vs 800 f5.6.

What you get will probably depend on how much light you get where you live; I'm in the UK so compromising on focal length to get that f4 aperture is probably worth it... but 600 is still pretty short if you're a birder.

You mentioned that 300mm is perfect for the sports cars. That may be but who needs f2.8 when you're panning? For freezing-the-action head-on shots f4 and 600 (or f5.6 and 800) will still give you sufficient shutter speed on a bright day and the steeper drop off you get from in-focus to out of focus areas you get from the longer focal lengths will help the cars 'pop'.

Don't listen to me though; my longest lens is a 300 f4.

18
I love this thread! I need to get to a low fly zone someday. Are schedules of flights taking place in these in the UK posted? Or is it luck/knowing personnel from an airbase?

Search for "mach loop". It's in Wales. RAF low flying route that draws in aircraft from all over the country. They've got other routes elsewhere in the country but the beauty of this one is that there are 'pinch points' that force the aircraft close to the valley sides (how close? close enough that a 300mm lens is fine), along with easy access for the likes of us to hike up and get level with, or even above, the aircraft.

The two points that most recommend going to are The Bwlch (good visability means plenty of warning of approaching aircraft) and Cad West (shots of aircraft banking onto their side). Both are easy to get to with nearby carparking.

They publish schedules. These bear no relation at all to what happens. Useless. Ignore them. Weather, maintenance, the whim of whoever is in charge... who knows. Note that they only fly these routes on weekdays.

This summer I unknowingly rented a lovely holiday cottage right underneath it. Hawks, Typhoons, Tornadoes and F-15s roaring over us at 250ft throughout the week. Best was the Hercules, banked at near 90 degrees 250ft above me. Absolutely awesome. Luckily the baby wasn't bothered at all by the noise.

Was a family holiday (with a new baby) so I had little chance to get any shots - spent one day up on a mountainside (with three other poor photogs) but that was the one day that nothing went up the valley  ::)

19
Street & City / Re: Impressions of the weekend, feedback appreciated
« on: December 09, 2013, 08:34:28 AM »
These are great. I'm just thinking out loud with the following:

I could definetly  up my game in the nightclub photography area and gain some experience with color gels and off-camera flash.

- The white flash looks out of place so gels would make it look more 'natural', as if you weren't using a flash.
- The white flash does really well at separating the subject from the colourful mish-mash of lights and objects that would otherwise distract my eye and 'hide' the subject.

Reckon go for gels for that 'wow you got lucky with the light/how did you do that without flash' look, and 'bare' flash for busy shots where the subject would otherwise be a little too well camouflaged.

An off-camera flash placed behind your subject (well, behind as in behind relative to the camera) would also help separate the subject from the rest of the photo, so if you wanted to get away from the bare flash look experiment with that.

The lens I used was a Tokina 12-24mm for APS-C sized sensors. The results when using long exposures, zooming and using multiple flashes are pretty interesting, especially in the range where the image circle can't cover the hole sensor of my 5D, it's almost like the light trails are coming out of the picture.

These look great - the vignetting  really focuses my attention and the light trails coming out of the picture adds a sense of depth. I was wondering how you managed to prevent the light hitting what I thought was a black wall in around the DJ's booth - last thing I expected was using the 'wrong' lens :-)

Other things to experiment with are leading lines, interesting viewpoints (i.e. up high and down low), shots with something small in foreground real close to camera that 'links' in some way with whats in the background (e.g. ticket stub/flyer - whatever).

20
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Off Brand: Nikon Announces the Df
« on: November 05, 2013, 10:27:11 AM »
A true test would be for CaNikon  to sell say the 6D and D610 each in a video-enabled" "v"-version and a "p"- pure photography version with absolutely everything equal, including outer design, except video-capture/video out [not firmware hackable]. "p" version being sold at USD/€ 1500  and the "v" version at 2500.  One grand more is still dirt cheap compared to purchase of both a video and a stills camera. THAT way, we would see, whether videographers are just cheapskates piggybacking on stills shooter's DSLRs or whether they are willing to pay at least for a portion of their desired dual-use cameras.

How can you miss the point? I'll put it simply:

Selling in volume reduces costs per camera. By a lot.

Thus if having video features increases sales a lot then that camera is /cheaper/ than if it didn't include video (and sold a lot less).

When you say the stills version should cost less you are being ignorant; a stills version would cost more than the 'dual use' version we have now simply because it wouldn't take advantage of the economies of scale in both manufacturing, distribution and retail.

The video guys aren't piggybacking on you; you're piggybacking on them!

21
Any fellow croppers get a cheap 5D (CLASSIC) as a second body? Is it worthwhile to just get a taste of full frame goodness?

I got a 5D mark I to blur out the background a bit better for snapshots of my baby (i.e. use longer lenses for the same framing) and take full advantage of a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 that I was finding wasn't wide enough on the crop. IQ is good but a few niggles: rear LCD screen isn't a good guide to exposure so you need to use the histogram; it tends to underexpose so I dial in some compensation most of the time; resolution is limiting if cropping; low resolution of rear LCD screen means you may get home and find you've not quite nailed the focus; high ISO performance isn't great.

I'd say it's worth buying if you're going to be shooting around f2.8 or lower and wish to use the wider end of your zooms/wide angle primes.

22
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Outed?
« on: October 13, 2013, 11:30:30 AM »
NOTE: there is a shiny silver "A" on the side of the lens in the picture, meaning this is their "Art" line of lenses - the same breed as the 35/1.4 that has blown away many many people.

It's also proof positive that the pic is a fake. IIRC the Art designation is for lenses with a large maximum aperture.

23
I found really strange that Canon, that's producing both Camera and Sensors is not working on something similar.

A full frame sensor is by far the most expensive component in a camera body. There is little advantage, once you've taken into account the downsides, of a system that has an interchangeable sensor - you'd be better off buying two bodies, each with a different sensor. It would probably work out cheaper, too.

24
Agree.

Could we now please, pretty please, have new sensor technology in a Canon camera that we can actually buy?

Sorry Dekker: "This footage was shot using the 35mm full frame CMOS sensor announced by Canon in March 2013 which was developed by the company exclusively for Full HD video capture. Through continued technological development, Canon aims to expand the realm of photographic possibilities while cultivating the world of visual expression."

Looks like it's ready for video (duh) but that they're still to incorporate it into a sensor intended for stills as well as video. Hopefully won't be long

25
Lenses / Re: Why pick 70-200mm f/4l IS over 70-300mm f/4-5.6l IS?
« on: August 25, 2013, 03:41:54 AM »
Also, while the 70-200mm is f/4 constant, again my understanding is the 70-300mm is f/4 up to 200mm.

Sadly this doesn't appear to be true:
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS L USM Lens   
f/4.0   70-103mm
f/4.5   104-154mm
f/5.0   155-228mm
f/5.6  229-300mm

(taken from http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx )

26
Lenses / Re: Should I get a clear filter for my lens?
« on: August 15, 2013, 12:56:44 PM »
[adding a filter means you don't have to worry about] your lens got [getting] hit with water, dust or rocks.

This kinda attitude is the reason why the topic is a can of worms.

27
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Adobe Lightroom 5 $99 Shipped
« on: August 11, 2013, 03:43:14 PM »
Paying shipping costs (which are as high as the coupon savings) for software makes as little sense as renting it.
What's the matter with sane ways of software distribution?

Just checked the link and it says free shipping.

28
Street & City / Re: Your friend's advice was excellent
« on: August 10, 2013, 10:02:19 AM »
Quote
I'm not muslim, but I have muslim friends and I vaguely remember one of them saying that they don't take pictures. In general, go to their homes, you won't see any family pictures, nothing. It has something to do with what the Qu'ran says... I think one of them told me that it reduces their lifespan by so many years.

Heh, he's joking about the lifespan thing but it's true that Muslims are not permitted pictures (especially drawings) of people or animals. It's actually considered quite a serious transgression. Many Muslims do take photographs but these must not contain people or animals. Plants and inanimate objects are fine, so Muslim photographers are essentially all landscapers.

Some claim that the camera is recording light and the photographer hasn't created anything. Most religious scholars disagree with that interpretation.

Most (all?) of my Muslim acquaintances have lots of pictures of themselves. I can only assume that they're mere 'cultural' Muslims, even if they attend mosque, and deep down know it's all make-believe.

I think you should be very careful of labeling anyone's belief system as "make believe", Christian, Buddist, Catholic, Zao, Islam....with that kind of attitude, one could easily point a finger at you as a bigot.

"...believe it's all make believe" would have been more polite to any Muslims reading but I think it's safe to say they will have all handled my lack of agnosticism about their religion pretty well - they think it about all the others after all (as do Christians, including Catholics, Buddhists and a host of others).

29
Street & City / Re: Your friend's advice was excellent
« on: August 10, 2013, 02:22:25 AM »
Quote
I'm not muslim, but I have muslim friends and I vaguely remember one of them saying that they don't take pictures. In general, go to their homes, you won't see any family pictures, nothing. It has something to do with what the Qu'ran says... I think one of them told me that it reduces their lifespan by so many years.

Heh, he's joking about the lifespan thing but it's true that Muslims are not permitted pictures (especially drawings) of people or animals. It's actually considered quite a serious transgression. Many Muslims do take photographs but these must not contain people or animals. Plants and inanimate objects are fine, so Muslim photographers are essentially all landscapers.

Some claim that the camera is recording light and the photographer hasn't created anything. Most religious scholars disagree with that interpretation.

Most (all?) of my Muslim acquaintances have lots of pictures of themselves. I can only assume that they're mere 'cultural' Muslims, even if they attend mosque, and deep down know it's all make-believe.

30
Street & City / Your friend's advice was excellent
« on: August 09, 2013, 10:50:15 AM »

When I showed it to my expat host, he said that I should be careful and not publicise this photo since, ‘Here, we are not free to do things as you would do in the West’.  This seemed rather odd.  I have travelled extensively and I think I am culturally sensitive.

Oh how naive you are! I find it best to be very respectful of a country's laws and social norms - I leave pushing the boundaries to the locals. This is kinda what culturally sensitive means.

From the Dubai Code of Conduct, written by the Dubai Executive Council and linked to on the official Dubai web portal (scroll to bottom of page) http://dubai.ae/en/Lists/Articles/DispForm.aspx?ID=147

4.5. Photography:

Photos of people - and especially photos of women and families - in public places shall not be taken without their permission. Taking photos of people is a sensitive issue in Dubai's local culture.


So you've got a photo of a woman wearing sexy shoes and showing her ankles & taken without her permission. Your only defence is "it doesn't show her face/she's not identifiable".

Your friend's advice was excellent.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7