[Bill]

Ahh, thank goodness. I was starting to wonder if the site had fallen on hard times and was kicked to the curb.

Just a curiousity, what is involved in being a mod, just wondering.

[Bill]

Ditto, here.

I have been stalking for the last few months, popping in every once in awhile just to see if the the site moderators (if there are any) have gotten a handle on the trash post from spammers and the like, but no.
I can only “assume” that the site is not a big revenue generator for the owners, but more of a passion project, like I say, I “assume”.

I’m sure many of the “fauxs” out there that have been outed on this site have done their best to disrupt the site in any way they can, that would make up for probably half of the garbage posts on here, the others are most likely spambots or similar annoyances.

I used to maintain a wordpress site for a period of time and no sooner I published a page, it was like a big welcome mat for the spammers. Luckily for me, I had verification processes in places to minimize unwanted posts and replies to the blog/forum section.

Anyway, I still like the idea of the site and hope it cleans up and becomes useful again.

[Bill]

I usually don’t post other photog’s links on here, but I had to do this as an exception.

It’s not just one photog, it is a series that I thought was very interesting.  I love cars, trucks and heavy metal machines, so this fits right in with my type of genre.

If you look beyond the basic faux photos that are mostly just, meh, most of these photos lack one key thing, the proper set-up when using props.

Now this web site is basically just girls working on cars the wrong way, but in almost every photo, there is one underlying element that the photographer missed, the props and what the model is doing with them.

Goes to show, that you really need to do a little research before just shooting away on beautiful girls.

Anyway, here is the link, below,  Have Fun

 

http://girlsnotworkingoncars.tumblr.com/page/5

 

[Bill]

I think I have the same reasons as picstop and CC is also on the money [as usual].

If I was a person looking to hire a  photographer and basing my decision on their portfolio, it may not be a total deal breaker for me if I had noticed several spelling and grammatical errors on their website.  But, with that saying, I would investigate further if I felt that their work was decent enough for my standards to hire.

There really os no reason for spelling mistakes with all the available technology for word processing.  I think that many, including myself, are sometimes too quick to get content online before really proofreading it thoroughly.  I typically find that I may type into something, like this forum, then copy and paste the text into an app for checking before posting, but not always.  The good thing about this forum, at least in my browser, it supports spell-check as you type.

My reasonings for checking out ones work if it appears decent enough for hire is that there are several photographers that outsource their work to re-touching services and they themselves will mitigate the online content.  I know several couples that are a photographer/re-toucher team, it works, but if you are the one uploading the content to your website, then you really should check the spelling and most important, READ it to see if what you typed, makes sense.

So in a sense, they may not be as good as you think they are as a photographer, may be great re-touching services and they really suck at spelling and grammar.

So I ask this question Sharra – What do you do if you find that your photographer that you are going to hire is not as good as you thought they were, but the re-toucher appears to be a miracle worker?   I mean there has to be some good content to re-touch, right?  Just a question, just looking for opinions, no smart ass-ness intended.

[Bill]

No worries EyeDoc, I was having some adult beverages so I may have easily missed (and obviously did) the part where you said they were beautiful.

The only other issue when reading forums like this is all the context is lost in typing.

I did think that is was kind of strange that you would be blasting someone, just does not seem like your character, that should have been my 1st clue. ha ha jokes on me..  Now let me go into the garage and bang some sense into my head, I think 3 lumps should do.

 

[Bill]

Wow EyeDoc, sounds like you woke up on the wrong side of the bed.  Never seen/read a post from you really blasting somebody.

Is this the evil side of EyeDoc?  You didn’t let Ebi’s post get to you I hope.  He has a good eye and knows his stuff, but for some, his version of truthful criticism hits a little too hard, but like I say, he knows his stuff.

 

 

[Bill]

For a beginner just starting out in manual mode, not too bad.

Some of your animal shots are not as sharp as they can be and I know the reason.  Your shutter speed seems to be too low for the subjects that you are shooting.  Anytime you are shooting live animals, kids and so on, you want you shutter speed to be as high as it can be to “freeze” any action or movement unless you are going for a blur effect.

The very 1st photo of the green snake, your shutter speed is 1/15″, way too slow, even for a snake that probably doesn’t move much, but you do.  Remember, the camera captures both your subject moving as well as your movements and 1/15″ is open way too long for a clear sharp shot unless you are using a tripod.

A quick rule to use is to keep your shutter speed at the same rate or higher than your focal length.  It’s just a rule, not a law.

So, I see you are using a 55-200mm lens.  If you are shooting at a focal length of 150mm, then your shutter speed should be no less than 1/160″, since there is no 1/15o” or higher.  You’ll obviously have to adjust your other 2 settings according to your lighting conditions.  This will ensure that your subject appears still, even while slightly moving.

A good example using your own photos is compare the green snake photo (the 1st on your photo-stream) to the gorilla (7th on your stream).  You shot the snake at 1/15″ at 165mm and the gorilla at 1/200″ at 200mm.  Notice how much sharper and clearer the image of the gorilla looks compared to the green snake.  They were taken with almost the same aperture 5.3 and 5.6.

The only other thing and it takes so time to learn and get used to is using your focal points for sharper images.  You have a Nikon D5200, so learn to use the 39 focus points to help better the sharpness of your subjects (like the eyes for portraits).  The different focus drives are a big help as well, depending on your subject and shooting conditions.

Besides that, it looks like you are doing well, Keep Shooting and never stop learning.

[Bill]

Believe or not Nesgran and Spanghew the 70-200 2.8 will give you some surprising results on a crop sensor, I would suggest renting or borrowing one to give it a try. The 85 is really nice though, IMO it is one of the best primes that Canon makes.
I have a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 and it works very well on my 7D and my old trusty rebel T3i. Though many people think it magnifies the focal length, it does not, it “appears” that way due to the 1.6 crop but no actual zoom factor is taking place. If anything, your getting the crisper cleaner image in the center with a crop sensor camera.

[Bill]

No matter how good they are, when people refer themselves in the 3rd person, even on a web page, I won’t check out their work just out of spite.

 

[Bill]

@EyeDoc, it did come out after a trip to my local EyeDoc.  I tried everything, flushing with drops, in the shower and so on.  I was afraid that I had made it worse and it was starting to embed into the eye tissue from all my efforts to remove said debris.  After everything, he was able to get it after some work, a stupid micron spec of dust that felt like a lava rock in my eye.   Okay, maybe a little too much drama there.

 

EyeDoc, when using LR 5, make sure that you use the 2012 version of processing, it allows you to do spot temperature adjustments for when you have mixed lighting situations.  You can do it in earlier process versions but it isn’t as clear cut.

I saw a tutorial about recovering shadows in LR and it also talks about the process versions just in case.
http://petapixel.com/2015/02/16/use-lightroom-secret-slider-trick-extreme-shadow-recovery/

[Bill]

All I can say is that she spends money on good glass

L series

[Bill]

Forgive me if my setting sound off a little or my lack of science is not quite right, long day and relaxing at the computer before diving into work again.

 

[Bill]

Hey EyeDoc, yes, normally you would want to keep your ISO as low as you could possibly go, to keep any possibility of noise being generated by the sensor.  But let’s just use the dark church scenario as the example.

Most churches are subject to  mixed lighting scenarios which create havoc on most photographers.  I remember shooting a wedding and I counted at least 5 different light sources, ambient light from the windows (bright sunlight, no clouds), ambient light through stained glass, candle lighting, fluorescent lighting, tungsten lights from stage lighting and of course other peoples flashes.  I know that was 6, but you get the idea.

Controlling the light in a setting like this is almost near impossible, working with it is achievable with the right settings and it also helps to always shoot in RAW to adjust the mixed lighting scenes accordingly in post, but that’s another topic.

The catch light is nice, it adds a little depth to your subjects eyes and doesn’t make them look lifeless or evil, good idea.

Now the ISO setting can be a 2-way street.  It can help with capturing the details in the shadows but, like you stated, it can also create some unwanted artifacts that we all call noise.  The thing you have to remember though, it’s not just the ISO setting, the shutter speed also plays a part with noise as well.

If you have a dark(er) setting and the ISO cranked up to let’s say 6400 but your shutter speed is @3200, the ISO is compensating for the fast exposure of the shutter.  With this setting, the shutter opens and closes so quickly, that the sensor does not have enough exposure to “burn” in the image fully, so ISO is doing all the work, sort of.  I’m not including aperture, because I am assuming your are shooting with a DOF in mind, but let’s just say it is a f/2.8 lens to be safe and you are shooting at f/2.8.

With that setting, you can’t go any lower than the widest aperture of 2.8, so your only 2 adjustments left are ISO and shutter speed.  See if you decrease the aperture, the more light is needed so again more ISO and slower shutter speed.  This is why so many fauxs fail at proper lighting for darker venues.  They either cannot grasp the concept of the manual adjustments or they do not realize when they are in need of supplemental lighting for proper exposure, either constant or flash (strobe) lighting.  Now most churches don’t really want big flashes from strobes going off during the ceremony, it is better to know what your camera can be adjusted for before the ceremony starts.  The wedding I did, I was shooting with 2 lenses, a 24-70 and a 70-200, both f/2.8’s and I don’t think that I went any higher than 7.1 for the aperture, 800, maybe 1600 on the ISO and 250 or 320 for the shutter with no flash.  After the ceremony, 2 strobes, lower ISO, and 250 on the shutter due to flash sync.

For non-portrait shots, the highest I have shot with no significant NR was 51200, but again, it was an inanimate object and long exposure to overcome the noise.

BTW Doc, could have used you this weekend as I got a fine grain of particulate (dust) wedged in my eye and could not get it out to save my life.  A few days of feeling like there was a boulder in my eye was enough for me.

[Bill]

I wouldn’t change a thing, stay true to who you are.  I get looks or people telling me that I was too forward or direct at times.  How the hell am I supposed to be?  I don’t criticize to hurt, but hopefully to help.  If they can’t take an honest critique, then they need to really grow up and get a pair.

Went on a group photo trip last weekend and took a fellow friend photographer for the ride and to help him get some different shots to fill his portfolio.  We talked on the way, and there was one thing I said to him that he said was the best advice anyone has ever told him.

I said:

You got to have a thick skin in this business and any business.  In photography, everyone is going to tell you how they would have composed the shot you took and offer their advice to “make it better.”  Listen to their advice, don’t listen to their advice, it’s up to you.   Learn to filter out what is noise and what is actually truly helpful advice.  Don’t get too full of yourself, don’t be a douchebag, but especially don’t let people beat you down, prove them wrong by doing better.

There was more but I don’t want to bore you guys, it was a 2 hour drive to our destination.

I Love Fauxtography, I mean IHF, it sounds like you’re venting and that’s cool, but don’t change.  I like seeing the regulars like you dish out some true helpful advice instead of fluff praise you get everywhere else.

I mean truly, how does one improve when everyone tells them their stuff is awesome or great when it is anything but?

 

[Bill]

Noise?  And shooting 12 frames a second is somehow going to reduce the noise. I would love to see that technology in action.  EyeDoc, I think this guy from what you explain is just a gear-hound and uses that rapid fire technique to drum up conversation so he can “talk” about his gear.  And when I say “talk” I mean show it off.  From what you are stating, it sounds like he doesn’t know much about his camera except that it has a lot of features that do nothing for the final result.  Maybe, if he lowered his shutter speed, bumped up the ISO and maybe, just maybe used a flash, his shots wouldn’t be so noisy, even shooting above 6 fps and in low light.  Full frame is fine, I’m all for it, hell why not bring out the medium format Hasselblad.

I get the shooting fast for “catching the action” but rapid firing shots of little girls in the park for a Chinese New Year Event, sounds just plain stupid to me.  Sports or fast moving action shots, okay sure, but in low light, without high speed sync flash, not going to work.

When I do my surfing shots, I typically use my big lens and I get the looks.  The whole setup looks like porn on a tripod, but I don’t go out there with it just to draw up a conversation about it.  Besides, if I am talking about it, I’m not shooting, so I am most likely missing the shots I need:

I use the gimbal for a couple of reasons, smooth shots and I don’t have to try to hold the lens while shooting, kind of going with what CC stated.

 LOL!  Well, that may be.  The difference between my Rebel, flash and a couple of lenses, a 10-20, 18-250 and a 50, plus batteries and other miscellaneous stuff compared to a 1Dx with flash, 16-35, 28-300 and an 85 plus batteries and other miscellaneous stuff is about 8 pounds.  At my age, carrying that extra weight when I don’t need to is wearing.

CC, I do the same thing, when just shooting around town, I’ll bring my smaller bodies out for use, it’s just easier on the wrist.  My Rebel T3i has pretty much the same sensor as my 7D minus a lot of speed and other useful features, but it is so lightweight, it is practically a P&S.  And it fits with all my lenses, so perfect.  I think I get funny looks sometimes when I am walking around with my T3i and have expensive glass attached to it.

[Author]

Posts