Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 195 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Let's Talk Copyright for Retouching Fauxtographs #3278
    stef
    Participant

    In all seriousness, internet forums are a very poor place to get legal advice.

    Just like hiring a cut-rate photographer for crappy pictures, free internet legal advice is worth every penny you spent.

     

    I spoke with R and she explained that she couldn’t get a photographer to shoot her wedding because anyone she contacted wouldn’t call her back.

    My guess is because she offered them $100. I wouldn’t call her back, either.

     

    In any case, if R has a shared copyright, you don’t even have to list credit. But if R doesn’t have the copyright or rights to create derivative works, then technically you’re not allowed to edit them. If all she has are print rights, you are fucked. My guess is that R (not you) should make a written agreement that it’s a shared copyright, and agree that any copies/edits will credit “Photo by ###” and no more. You can add Edit by ### or not, or whatever. If the photographer wanted to mess with you and you don’t have this in writing, she can make things difficult, but it would cost her a lot more than the $100 she made; and because she values her work so little, one could argue that the liability should be tiny. Even if she doesn’t file a federal lawsuit, the bad PR and enemy you’re making isn’t worth it. Just get her to sign over the copyright in writing, and you’ll agree to add “Photo by her” on any albums or the image directly, and be done with it.

     

    And you should actually consider talking to an IP lawyer. More and more are cropping up these days, and they’re giving good prices.

    in reply to: So… #3220
    stef
    Participant

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=204832619558327&set=a.204530886255167.48461.148985465143043&type=3&theater

     

    Ugh.

     

    In any case, yes doisuck, you do suck for posting someone else’s pictures.

    in reply to: here #3219
    stef
    Participant

    If you don’t try to sell your pictures, it’s a lot harder to bash you for being a fauxtographer. Some of your event shots were okay, and concerts and such are difficult enough to shoot and get position if you don’t have a guaranteed press spot that you get a pass on those.

     

    So I checked your portraits album, and you need a lot of practice posing people. The album with Kimberly Dawn was sub-par mostly due to poor posing and poor composition. The first dozen shots are primarily watermarked nostrils and armpits. The thing is, even with a couple good shots in there, I can’t get past your watermark. For instance, is this shot too close and heavily distorting her nose, or is it just the watermark making her nose stick out? http://t3heavyshop.smugmug.com/Portraits/Kimberly-Dawn/i-QWzd7DN/1/M/IMG2117-M.jpg Unwatermarked, that looks like a good shot. A 2/3 mask with butterfly lighting is very becoming on that girl. Even the tonality looks good. But I can’t be sure because it’s too distracting.

     

    A better idea is to use a less obtrusive watermark and just limit the filesize that can be viewed. There’s no reason anyone would want a 5000 pixel wide image with a huge watermark anyway, so why make that available? Another way is to use a watermark that has no obvious curves, unlike letters. The brain can filter out lines that cut across it, and it’ll only be as annoying as a telephone wire.

     

    I liked some of your landscapes, but it was hit or miss, again due to composition. For the most part, you need to learn to actively look at the image and consciously think “where is my eye drawn with this composition?” It’s clear you’re starting to think about composition, and I urge you to actually get a book on it. Many used bookstores carry old college photography textbooks, and you could really use a beginning one right about now before you start going down the dark paths of HDR and florabella. Right now, your photography has a basic honesty to it, but it’s missing good composition.

    One of your compositions was pretty good, and even more notable because it also ignored the “rule of thirds”. http://t3heavyshop.smugmug.com/Nature/Garden-of-the-Gods/i-4Z6jKj3/1/M/IMG0750-M.jpg

     

    If you were charging for this, then I’d vote fauxtographer. But since you’re just doing it for fun, then I think you should keep on having fun and get a book, and when someone asks you to shoot a wedding, tell them “No, please hire a pro.”

    in reply to: Feedback plz #3152
    stef
    Participant

    Doesn’t seem to be working, either… you sure you made it public?

     

    in reply to: I am terrified of you people! Here goes nothing. #3068
    stef
    Participant

    Although, I’m not sure what you’re talking about when you say you’re looking at my “portfolio” album as none of them are named “portfolio”. All of my albums are named for the subjects. I can only assume that you misread “profile pictures”.  Thank you for your detailed descriptions of how each shot could be improved.

    Yes, I misread.

     

    As I said, I drink a lot before giving CC! 🙂

    I hope it somewhat valuable.

     

     

    IHF: Yes, this one has very flat lighting. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=286209438127338&set=a.286207998127482.66918.135543696527247&type=3&theater

    Photography takes a 3D object and turns it into 2D from a single perspective. You can make 2D objects look much more 3D by using shadows. Flat lighting has very few shadows to give subtle 3D information that you can incorporate. This is especially important on portraits, but a lot of fashion photography does use somewhat flat lighting.

    in reply to: I am terrified of you people! Here goes nothing. #3031
    stef
    Participant

    So, I’m only looking at your album marked Portfolio. Remember, this album is supposed to be the best of the best of your photography. It is what defines you as a photographer. There are no excuses for anything in any album marked as your “portfolio”.

    Based on that, here are the problems I see.

     

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=304430642971884&set=a.135543886527228.35211.135543696527247&type=3&theater has 4 girls in it. It’s shot a little low, so everyone is chinny. One other girl is looking on… why? Because you didn’t pose them correctly. The 5th wheel looking over a shoulder is not good. I’m ignoring the processing… this is still a snapshot.

     

    You have some issues with skin tones. This might be because you’re sending things through filters, but this one could be a nice image if you fix the skin tones: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=299551900126425&set=a.135543886527228.35211.135543696527247&type=3&theater It’s really flat lighting, but that can be overlooked because it’s a great pose. But I’m not a big fan of your overuse of post processing filters.

     

    This shot seriously scared me. I literally recoiled in my chair. Was I looking at a murder? SIDS? THE EYES ARE BLACK. When you get a shot like this, don’t try to save it. DELETE IT, and whatever you do, do not put it in a folder marked “portfolio”. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=249553735126242&set=a.135543886527228.35211.135543696527247&type=3&theater

     

    This one is cute and it tells a story, but you should’ve used a smaller aperture. The girl in back is not in focus. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=169569626457987&set=a.135543886527228.35211.135543696527247&type=3&theater This is one of your better shots… and it has too small DOF.

     

    Another thing you’re doing is you think extreme close-up shots need YOU to be there using the minimum focus distance on your lens. THIS IS WRONG.  You get a much better perspective zooming in from a bit farther back. When you get in close, physically, your subjects get horrible distortion. Here are examples: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=166602893421327&set=a.135543886527228.35211.135543696527247&type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=259202060828076&set=a.135543886527228.35211.135543696527247&type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=232578616823754&set=a.135543886527228.35211.135543696527247&type=3&theater

    The last one is distorted, but is a good use of the close-up distortion. The others are not. Do you see why? One is a kid being a kid and it emphasizes the personality of that baby. The others are not so good… with huge foreheads and such. I guess I don’t hate them all, but getting in too close and distorting your subjects is a theme of yours, and only one out of several look good distorted.

     

    The crop on this is too tight. It needs to be a touch wider. It’s a decent shot, from a low angle, but that’s okay. But cutting someone’s head off at the middle of the ear is bad cropping. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=228895110525438&set=a.135543886527228.35211.135543696527247&type=3&theater

     

    4 of your 25 images are worthy of being in anything marked portfolio. That’s not a very good number.

     

    Here’s what you need to do to improve your photography.

    Remove everything from your album marked “portfolio” and add only those things that are your best work. The majority is not worthy of that title… and it’s better to have a small number of great shots, than a large number of mediocre shots diluting your good shots.

    Watch your exposures, especially in sunlight. You blew out some big portions of skin and dress on at least two shots. Either get a scrim and have someone hold it for you, or shoot in the shade.

    Stand back a little farther to avoid distortion, especially when you think “Oh, I want a nice close up”. Get a longer lens for that instead. Stay at least 3 feet away except occasionally when shooting kids.

    Work on getting a really good exposure and pose. Make sure everyone is in focus. Make a nice portrait without any goofy aged filters and such. Feel free to also add those filters, but only AFTER you do it normally. Repeat.

     

    Some of your photos are good. I really did like several. The processing was getting a little old, but even ignoring that, there were some compositional issues that simply could not be surmounted.

     

    You’re close, but right now you are a fauxtographer.

     

    in reply to: So, Am I a fauxtog? #3030
    stef
    Participant

    I use a browser that supports color spaces, but you should save for web using sRGB and DO NOT embed the color profile. The purpose is to produce images for browsers that don’t use color profiles, so don’t embed it because the old browsers won’t use it anyway, and modern ones will default to it.

     

    As far as using dual key softboxes, it’s a not-so-common technique for headshots. There’s one famous celebrity photographer that uses it, although I cannot remember his name. It tends to create some very flat, bright lighting, so you have to feather the boxes well so the ears are not overexposed, and pose the person well (generally looking like a mug shot). Doing this causes some cool eye effects, much like cat eyes.

     

    in reply to: I really hope I'm not… #2994
    stef
    Participant

    At least we can agree, JJ. It is definitely not in your capacity to say the right things.

     

    You: “shoot raw. new equipment eliminates the need for old light modifiers with great dynamic range.”

    Me: “uhm, no, idiot. new equipment has barely reached that of film, and those modifiers are for film as it is.”

     

    You’re the only one getting your panties in a knot trying to prove the unprovable by being an ass. Nobody else is having hysterical fits but you.

    Watching you squirm like you have a load in your diaper is entertaining for about 2 seconds, but now you’re just boring and pathetic. Not only do you demonstrate little technical knowledge in your posts, but I don’t think anyone here cares what you say. In the course of 3 days, you’ve already blown your credibility.

     

    Time for a new handle, troll.

     

    in reply to: Yet another … #2985
    stef
    Participant

    Lol now I don’t want o look. And generally I’m reasonably nice, just really blunt.

     

    I want people to be good shooters. I’ll check this later tonight.

     

    in reply to: I really hope I'm not… #2964
    stef
    Participant

    Sensors have barely caught up to film as far as dynamic range, with the best pulling in 14 stops (Nikon D800), released only this year.

    Film has had 14 stops for ages. Even if sensors were 2 stops wider, you’re still ignorant. What’s that going to buy you? Do you really think one stop in each direction means you’ll never blow out whites or mud darks again? You’re an idiot JJ. You talk an awful lot for saying a lot of nothing.

    in reply to: my introduction #2945
    stef
    Participant

    lol

     

    Right now, it’s a double of Makers.

    in reply to: would it be ? #2944
    stef
    Participant

    No good will come from posting someone else’s stuff. It’s not your job to help someone who doesn’t want it.

     

    in reply to: I really hope I'm not… #2943
    stef
    Participant

    Heh, do you really think shooting raw obsoletes old equipment and proper exposure?

    Whatevah.

     

    OP: As long as there’s no wind, you can easily use a lightstand and some clamps as a reflector stand. If there is wind, use a fill flash.

     

    in reply to: So, Am I a fauxtog? #2907
    stef
    Participant

    I think she’s overexposed a bit. Teeth and pants are blown.

    But she is stunning.

     

    in reply to: Horror of all horrors #2905
    stef
    Participant

    Make sure whatever you color is the subject.

    Make sure the edges are good.

    Instead of desaturating the rest of the image completely, just mute it. If you do feel a need to desaturate it all, convert to b/w and adjust color channels for a decent b/w image, then add the color layer back in. At least you can always fall back on the b/w image.

    Don’t post it in your portfolio.

     

    Not all selective color is horrible… just the vast majority of it. You could refuse, too, saying something like “I want to create images you can enjoy for many years, and selective color is too gimmicky and won’t stand the test of time.”

     

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 195 total)