Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
fstopper89
ParticipantAwhile back my friend linked me to that guy from Alaska with the outrageous prices. Who’s to say he wouldn’t just print it again and claim it’s one of a kind? Get real… lol. The swan pic isn’t horrible, but he has a theme it seems of dead animals. Some of his pics are of pine trees with blue-tinted snow due to his snobbery about “not editing at all.”
A few years ago I got a DeviantART account to post some photos, but deleted my account due to animated emoticons flying all over the place and the fact that every page of images was full of stupid emo kids posting photos of their striped knee socks or them making a duck face in their bathroom mirror. Flickr is much nicer, I’ve found several amazing photogs there and it’s much more of an art-oriented community.
ParticipantI have a Rebel T2i, a 40D, and recently (finally!) got a 5D Mark II. I’m assuming full-frame is out of your price range, from what you said, so that may be out of the question. The 40D I believe is now about 6 or maybe 7 years old. It’s 10 megapixels, and from what I hear you can still make a pretty large print. When I zoom in to edit those images though I feel I have less to work with as far as pixels. The 40D (and 50D, 60D) you can change the ISO in smaller increments, where the Rebel is 100, 200, 300, 400, etc. so you have a little less wiggle room. I believe the 40D has better sensors than the Rebel. The Rebel takes an SD card instead of the CF card, and SD cards are noticeably slower at saving images (so, when you do some continuous shooting, you have to pause briefly to let the images save to the card, it can be pretty annoying). SD cards do cost less than their CF counterparts. The Rebel t2i is a great little camera and 18 megapixels, which is quite nice. The Rebel is lighter weight but less durable because of that. Personally having both I cannot really tell you which is better of the two, as each as its advantages.
Brownie is right though, if you know what you’re doing you can get great images regardless of what camera you use. Full-frame naturally will allow for some better images though, but an idiot still can own a 5D and take horrible photos with it. I’ve seen stunning work done on a Rebel and personally I’ve gotten a lot of wonderful images with mine.
December 3, 2012 at 10:16 pm in reply to: Will someone please go tell this woman she is a fauxtog? #5076ParticipantVanmira, that last image is pretty bad, but when I glanced at her page, the images I saw (literally, just glanced, didn’t look through the albums) the images looked much nicer. If she had that one terrible image she should have not posted it on her portfolio, it’s a horrible example and should have been immediately trashed.
@Anna- Wait, what? The OP contacted you? Why? Ashley has no way to have you charged with slander. She’d have to prove that you said something that caused her business to lose clients. The only thing that would cause that to happen in people realizing her work is bad. Lol she’s not contacting the BBB. She sounds like she’s desperately trying to scare people. She’s not very smart and neither are her friends.
ParticipantI understand what you mean by equating amateur vs professional with bad vs. good. The reason I said for myself that I consider myself semi-pro is because while I do some hobby work, I also make SOME money from it. Getty has chosen a handful of my non-portrait work off of Flickr and I’ve licensed those through them, though I have yet to make money with that.
With the junk out there it just puts more pressure (which in this sense, a good thing) for photographers to really strive to do the best work they can so that they are remarkably better than shoot-and-burn fauxtographers.
I know a few people who got a camera as a gift and then made their facebook page- lol. When I was in college I had a crappy DSLR but it still did the job for my class. The first class I took I had to buy an old film SLR, it was good to learn the basics on and I still enjoy shooting some in film occasionally.
December 3, 2012 at 6:35 pm in reply to: Back Focus in the 50mm 1.2 and how to correct technique in order to prevent it #5066ParticipantCameraclicker, I love your edit of that image. It looks very seamless, and it’s very difficult in some occasions to remove a flare like that. I was kind of pondering to myself “how would I remove that flare?” if it were on my photo. The background bokeh make it easier to hide the seams too. I’ve fudged a few things out of the background of several of my images and was able to do so easily due to the bokeh present. Usually I try to move so that these items aren’t there in the first place, but there have been situations in shooting where I couldn’t avoid them and knew if I shot it a certain way I could get rid of it in post (think power poles, occasional trees, etc.) The flare does cause a decrease in contrast. I should also start using my lens hoods, which is probably the reason I’ve gotten flares. Sometimes the flare appears more like a rainbow-colored ring (which in some shots, I find attractive, though it can be a matter of opinion) but a lot of you are right that in a portrait it can often be distracting.
ParticipantI beg to differ. It COULD be a matter of opinion, but upon quick research online many sites define a semi-pro (not just in photography) as one who derives some income but not enough to make a living off of, but is not an amateur.
Though this term can be used loosely I suppose, since a person could have the nicest camera, lenses, and software, but shoot 10 horrible sessions a week (with the camera on auto, out of focus, underexposed, etc) at $50 a pop and burn a disk with horribly edited jpegs and possibly make a “living” off of it, thus calling themselves a professional, even though they aren’t producing quality work. There’s about two dozen people in my town alone doing just that.
ParticipantHa. Here’s some remarkably average images for you then. And no, I’m not only a hobbyist. Do I have some things to improve on? Of course. I’ll never stop improving.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/roxanne_elise_photography/7708031532/in/set-72157630891250414
http://www.flickr.com/photos/roxanne_elise_photography/8225598305/in/set-72157629137424389
December 3, 2012 at 12:32 am in reply to: Will someone please go tell this woman she is a fauxtog? #5041ParticipantI do find that psychologist’s analysis of dutch angles interesting. I never thought of it as creating uneasiness or duress like she explained, in contrast, I always thought it seemed to make an image more dynamic and imply motion. But I can see that. Just the other night after reading that post, I happened to be watching an 80’s movie that had a theme of infidelity- and in one scene the husband was in the bedroom consoling his alcoholic wife as she lay in bed going through liquor withdrawal symptomsand they had a constant and almost dizzying use of dutch angle on film. It fit the mood of the scene well. Myabe the reason I feel it does not create uneasiness in my images is because the people are typically smiling. One thing I learned in college photography and art courses was that angled lines tend to draw the eyes inward to the subject which is also a reason I’ve used tilt.
Ashley probably just made her page private. She was also kidding about selling her camera, she was trying to get attention with that post.
ParticipantThat is awful- complete lack of any technical knowledge. Their marketing strategy must be pretty strong if they are getting that many likes!
ParticipantSemi-pro: Not doing it full-time. That’s what I’m referring to. I think realitycheck has some kind of personal vendetta against me, likes to instigate drama or something, since I call myself a semi-pro. Because at this time I don’t do photography full-time. Again, no one has ever thought my images were that of a “fauxtographer,” and clearly my work is not crap. Go ahead and had “anyone” my equipment, see if they would have any clue how to use it. (Still thinking you’re confusing me with someone else…) Where’s your portfolio, realitycheck?
ParticipantNo, though he definitely seems to over-edit a lot of the shots. But, that certainly doesn’t mean he doesn’t also have “clean” edits he has presented the clients with, and maybe just posted the ones with more effects on them. Some look overexposed. I think he has some technical stuff to work on, (a couple looked too soft and the coloring of some looked off) but he has a pretty consistent style, and what I feel is a good understanding of his lenses/equpiment. He does a lot of very wide-angle shots, some maybe with a fisheye lense (?) and I see A LOT of great emotion conveyed in the images. He seems to catch the moment well.
I used to post more of the photos I had done extra effects to and a friend of mine suggested I also post the clean edits, so that clients can see that I do consistent normal editing and not just the more wild effects, so I started doing that more. Often clients love the fun stuff to use on their Facebook profile pics, etc, but every client is going to want all the photos from their session to look consistent also.
November 29, 2012 at 11:03 pm in reply to: Back Focus in the 50mm 1.2 and how to correct technique in order to prevent it #4971ParticipantYour images look pretty solid and good. They are sharp, and pretty well exposed. I especially like the photos of the couple, they show great emotion. Once you are able to get Photoshop, use it to brighten the faces and color correct a bit, but it looks like you started in the right direction, not relying on photoshop to make your photo, instead, working at getting good images from the start.
November 29, 2012 at 5:58 pm in reply to: Will someone please go tell this woman she is a fauxtog? #4958ParticipantWoops- here’s the fire truck one. http://www.flickr.com/photos/roxanne_elise_photography/8081636980/in/set-72157631755861571
ParticipantOh! No I didn’t see Pictures by Chell before I just read your comment. I searched her page, if it’s the one in Ohio, yuck. I mean, she’s got some sharp images, and some are good. But most are ruined by tacky spot-color, superimposing, or picnik-esque edits. A couple of a senior for her yearbook shot was poorly cut-and-pasted onto some plain background. I think with some work she could get a lot better. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=286240248094108&set=a.249062191811914.86154.129605440424257&type=1&theater
Participant@reality check: Still thinking you’re confusing me with someone else, because you’re the only one on here who is saying I’m producing bad work. Lol. really? I’m charging as a semi-pro. I am not still learning the basics. I certainly know the basics. The things I’m learning are things I’m building on the basics. I have college and job experience in photography as well as personal experience on my own after that. You’re actually quite offensive saying I know minimal myself. Are you the one who said on here somewhere that you’re just a hobbyist? (I could be wrong, correct me if I am). I already shoot much better images than a local pro in my town who’s been in business for 35 years. And I’m not the only one who thinks that. Yes, he has more experience and knowledge running a business than I do, certainly! Photography is not a full-time job for me as I can’t yet support myself on it. My goal is to get there someday but I’m not going to be a shoot-and-burn fauxtog like the dozens in my town who are actually paying all their bills doing just that.
-
AuthorPosts