Shyheels Posted January 29, 2018 Report Share Posted January 29, 2018 I see Annie Leibovitz is offering courses in Photography https://www.masterclass.com/classes/annie-leibovitz-teaches-photography?utm_source=Paid&utm_medium=GDN&utm_term=Aq-Prospecting&utm_content=Image&utm_campaign=AL I am wondering if she'll be teaching the novel techniques she used in Vanity Fair this month to give Reese Witherspoon three legs and Oprah Winfrey three hands.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted January 29, 2018 Report Share Posted January 29, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Shyheels said: I am wondering if she'll be teaching the novel techniques she used in Vanity Fair this month to give Reese Witherspoon three legs and Oprah Winfrey three hands.... Annie was the first woman to be named chief photographer at Rolling Stone and the last person to take a portrait of John Lennon. In her first online class, Annie shows us that what makes a picture stunning isn’t the gear or technology—it’s the story. Annie teaches you her philosophy on photography—how to develop concepts, work with subjects, shoot with natural light, and bring images to life in post-production. See the world through her eyes. Bit poor when the most recent claim to fame must have taken place more than 37 years ago. "Bring images to life" - by growing extra limbs? Edited January 29, 2018 by FastFreddy2 Grammar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted January 29, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2018 (edited) See the world through her eyes? No thanks! Scary eyes if she's seeing Oprah with three hands and Reese Witherspoon with three legs. I think I'll stick with my own peasant view of the world, thank you very much! Edited January 29, 2018 by Shyheels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted February 4, 2018 Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 I unexpectedly found myself with some "me" time this afternoon. Not long ago, I had tried to take some pictures on a digital camera, using an adapter and my old (Nikon) film lenses. The first try didn't go very well, and a second attempt was in order. The conclusion from the first try, was that image quality might be an issue, though shooting through a glass window with my reflection on it was unlikely to be helping. The second attempt today, didn't go much better, though switching everything on the camera to 'manual' helped with the (previous) exposure problems. My eyesight isn't helping the cause, which wouldn't have been a problem 30 years ago the first time around I got enthusiastic. Focus 'peaking' has helped (objects in focus get tinged with blue in the electronic viewfinder) but I'm not wholly convinced it works as well with 'adapted' lenses. Anyway .... I'm not totally over the moon with the results, but that might be because I don't have anything to directly compare my results to. I am on the point of spending £200 on a portrait lens, but my 50mm Nikkor f1.4 prime might do the job well enough. Ultimately, I'm aware that a 16 megapixel image may not provide the image quality I'm hoping for. Thing is, in every other respect the camera does everything I want it to. There's a 20 megapixel version of the camera (at well over twice the money), but at the moment I'm not sure that 20 is enough either. I really need to get someone in front of the camera, and enlarge a picture on printed media. If the 16 m/p output works okay on A3, I'll be happy. The other thing I need to try, is (as previously suggested) to take some pictures and store them in RAW format. One of the tips seen in a You Tube video supported that very notion. "How to get an instant upgrade to your image quality? Shoot in RAW". I had tried before, but it may be I hadn't been using the right method to compare it against JPG. Looking at getting an a mirrorless APS-C camera with a 24 m/p sensor for comparison purposes, I stumbled across remarks made by two Canon owners, who said the image quality isn't always well reported by the camera's LCD or electronic viewfinder. Consequently, I really need to test the Nikkor 50mm f1.4 with a human model, store the images in RAW, and then actually print the results to draw a conclusion. I may also need to upgrade my 15 year old editing software as it doesn't like RAW images..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted February 4, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 I'm not sure what sort of image quality you are after but as far as resolution goes, 16MB should be ample. Other characteristics - eg: shadow details, noise - will depend upon sensor technology, quality and size - both of the pixels and of the sensor itself. RAW simply gives you an opportunity to, essentially, retake the shot since it stores all of the data collected at the instant of shutter release and gives it to you to manipulate at your leisure. And no, your 15 year old software will most certainly not recognise RAW files from modern cameras. RAW files vary not only from camera maker to camera maker but between models as well which is why there are constant updates to Lightroom so it can recognise the latest RAW files from the latest model cameras. Taking pictures in RAW is just sensible. Why discard all that lovely usable data just to save space on your card? Gigabytes are cheap. Keep the data and use it if you need to 'retake' the shot to get light, shadow, white balance correct. Your Nikkor 1.4 portrait lens should do the job nicely. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted February 4, 2018 Report Share Posted February 4, 2018 20 minutes ago, Shyheels said: I'm not sure what sort of image quality you are after but as far as resolution goes, 16MB should be ample. Other characteristics - eg: shadow details, noise - will depend upon sensor technology, quality and size - both of the pixels and of the sensor itself. RAW simply gives you an opportunity to, essentially, retake the shot since it stores all of the data collected at the instant of shutter release and gives it to you to manipulate at your leisure. And no, your 15 year old software will most certainly not recognise RAW files from modern cameras. RAW files vary not only from camera maker to camera maker but between models as well which is why there are constant updates to Lightroom so it can recognise the latest RAW files from the latest model cameras. Taking pictures in RAW is just sensible. Why discard all that lovely usable data just to save space on your card? Gigabytes are cheap. Keep the data and use it if you need to 'retake' the shot to get light, shadow, white balance correct. Your Nikkor 1.4 portrait lens should do the job nicely. I think I need to find a better editor before I even begin any longterm 'test' regime. After writing my post, it did occur to me even the JPG files had produced better image quality than I was seeing in the EVF. It hadn't dawned on me I was seeing 'edited' down versions of the original image. (ref comments from Canon users.) I've already changed my camera settings to store both RAW and JPG. (I had done this before, but stopped doing so because there was no identifiable benefit - at that time.) Plainly, I need a better editor. And then develop the skills to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted February 5, 2018 Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 I think I've worked out why I haven't upgraded before .... My preference is for free software (or 'donations') because every time I have spent money on software, it becomes obsolete much too quickly. Nor do I want to have software on a subscription basis unless I already have a (pertinent) income that supports it. Two free ones under consideration: GIMP and LightZone. I think I can get a legal copy of Paintshop Pro ver 7 for £3/£4. I tried to find the original RAW files from my previous attempt at using them. Several (many) fruitless searches, cost me almost an hour trawling through archives. Eventually, a reference on a review site, reminded me the file type I was looking for was; RW2. not .RAW (Duh). Files found within seconds .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted February 5, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2018 I have the subscription based Lightroom and resent it. I do not like the whole concept at all, and on many fronts. Unfortunately, in my circumstances, I need it - I will happily drop it when something as good comes along. Adobe has made no friends with me with its move to the subscription based marketing platform. Gla to hear you found your files! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted February 7, 2018 Report Share Posted February 7, 2018 (edited) My first attempt with RAW has come care of RAW Therapee ver. 5.3 It's slow, and looks fairly basic, but suits me at this time. The original files I made in RW2 (Pana RAW) were woefully underexposed images of my long cowboy boots. I must have taken the pictures when light levels were poor, as the lens was wide open and I used ISO 800 which in itself tells me I was struggling for light. I almost never use anything above ISO 400, and historically, not used anything (film) over 100. While I may have managed to get away with these images by a significant reduction in image size before posting here, for any other form of publishing they would be considered unusable. I need some new source files/images. Any budding models out there want to volunteer? My cat is getting very fed up with me pointing a camera at him, and while I could photograph the 'lovely' Mrs Freddy, she is still at the top of my shyte list due to an incident 4 or 5 years ago. She complained the image I published (elsewhere) gave her cause to consider legal action since the image portrayed her in a way she believed would "cast her in a poor light". Despite some immediate and favourable responses from family members, it caused (me) quite a problem. Afterwards I vowed (to myself) I would never record her image again, which I've pretty much kept to. While the images were in no way improper in any way, I deleted them all. Shame, because they really did make her look extraordinarily glamorous. She has since said she over-reacted (probably since those who saw the images really liked them) but the damage has been done. I will (grudgingly) accept criticism over just about anything I do, but not the images I create. They are how I see people, and if they don't like how I perceive them, they can do the other thing and I won't bother any longer.... It's not like I give people 3 hands or 3 legs ... Edited February 7, 2018 by FastFreddy2 Grammar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted February 7, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2018 One of many nice things about the Canon 5D3 is that you can shoot in ISO3200 and still get totally useable images - useable professionally. I seldom shoot at 3200 unless maybe the inside of cathedrals (discretely) but 800 I use quite often. No noise or grain at all. Lovely. It took getting used to the idea that 800 is the new ISO100, but with a high-end full-frame camera that is pretty much the case. A pity Mrs Freddy didn't appreciate your artistic endeavours - although it sounds as though your family and friends did. And yes, I'm sure you didn't give her three hands or three legs. You have to be Annie Leibovitz or Vanity Fair to do that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 12 hours ago, Shyheels said: One of many nice things about the Canon 5D3 is that you can shoot in ISO3200 and still get totally useable images - useable professionally. I seldom shoot at 3200 unless maybe the inside of cathedrals (discretely) but 800 I use quite often. No noise or grain at all. Lovely. It took getting used to the idea that 800 is the new ISO100, but with a high-end full-frame camera that is pretty much the case. I have watched one of the many You Tube tutorials that suggest how camera manufacturers get to the ISO rating for their sensors, and it's the last thing they arrive at after light transmission (focal length x aperture) combination is measured. The suggestion is, not all camera ISO settings are equal. Nor are the processors ... The Canon EOS 5D Mark III is the world's best digital SLR because it easily lets us create smooth, clean, beautiful and colorful images in any sort of light. It handles much better my cheaper Nikon D800 and D800E; my 5D Mark III handles and sounds smoother, quieter, feels better and makes better-looking images than my Nikon D800E. The Canon 5DS and 5DS R are newer and have more pixels, but cost more and run more slowly, so it's a toss-up between them. The 5D Mark III also has the best LCD ever put in a DSLR, while the LCD on my Nikon D800E is smaller in actual use, and most importantly, the Nikon's LCD isn't color-accurate. My 5D Mark III LCD is big, bold, bright, sharp, clear, colorful and accurate, and automatically varies its brightness brilliantly for use in any light. (My D800E also has auto LCD brightness control, but doesn't work well enough to want to use it.) ...... Pixels impress amateurs, while guys like me who shoot every day for a living are more impressed at how my 5D Mark III lets me get more of the right pixels faster, not just more of the wrong ones. The 5D Mark III is Canon's first full-frame camera to correct lens color fringes. That's the biggest reason I replaced my old 5D Mark II with the new 5D Mark III; because my new Mark III automatically can correct many lens flaws, especially lateral color fringes, so my old lightweight plastic lenses on my new Mark III now often outperform my best L lenses on my old Mark II! If those big old L lenses, like the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II, had any lateral color fringes, the older cameras were powerless to correct it. Unlike most of the fluff reviewers spew out, lateral color fringes are very visible in real prints. My Mark III makes them go away, so long as I have an appropriate lens profile loaded. From >> here << which just happened to be from a name I recognise when I did a Google search on the camera. There are some outstanding photo's on the site taken with that camera too. I would agree that file size is immaterial if the image quality is not very good, and I would also agree 20mp should be large enough for any image unless it's to be a 30' x 10' billboard, though at normal viewing distances .... Image quality is the key, and having a little flexibility for cropping - if necessary. There can be no doubt, the sensor/processor combination on your camera is outstanding. A couple of weeks ago I watched a video from a pro photographer who likes to rant. ("Roger the Ranter" or something like it.) He has produced some good work and is successful. (Dunno I like his attitude though.) Anyway, he begins by starting to talk about equipment, and mentions most of his viewers will be amateurs. He then goes on to (rightly) say, "don't get unhinged on equipment, as anything you currently own will almost certainly outperform your ability." Which, I tend to agree with - and certainly is the case with me at the moment. I didn't watch much more. Americans like giving you a message, then repeat it 30 times to make sure you heard it the first time.... So I'm aware that, at the moment at least, I don't have the skills to get the most from my camera. But I also know (from bitter experience) that if you don't get some success early on, you give up. 30 years ago, this was quite straight forward. Where I worked there was a number of good looking girls (and some not so good) who I would ask to sit, and who sat for me. Now, I would almost certainly be perceived as a 'dirty old man' if I approached the same people, now I am twice the age I was. Not sure what the answer is. Go on a charm+charisma course? Join a photographic club - no I don't think I like that idea, though it might not be full of older men talking equipment all the time .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted February 8, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 The photo club would indeed be full of older men talking equipment all the time. A good thing to avoid. One of the nice things about writing is that there are no clubs full of would-be writers who talk of nothing but their laptops and word processing software! I see your point about the portraiture - perhaps a new field? Or new style? Editorial? Seek magazine assignments? If you had kept up with your early start 30 years ago you would be totally established, with license to continue and not be considered a dirty old man. restarting though is tricky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted February 9, 2018 Report Share Posted February 9, 2018 9 hours ago, Shyheels said: I see your point about the portraiture - perhaps a new field? Or new style? Editorial? Seek magazine assignments? If you had kept up with your early start 30 years ago you would be totally established, with license to continue and not be considered a dirty old man. restarting though is tricky. I will have to find some entry into current markets, or create new markets. While people have access camera phones, and can create their own images, they will of course be loathe to pay for anything else. There are times when that might be different, and I've touched on times when they were. In my film days, I got invited to a couple of parties on the strength of my portrait (ability) status. These were not your everyday parties, but 'well to do' bashes where amongst others, millionaires were present (and at least one sat for me.) At the time, my work was 'gratis' as I was working my way through the challenge of 'meet/greet/photograph' complete strangers. It wasn't my usual fare of getting to know someone (even on a cursory level) and create an image that reflected what I perceived as their personality, or what could be their personality. It didn't go badly, because I had skills - often used skills, and I looked the part. Just getting back to that position is going to be a challenge. For about 5 years, I ate, drank and slept photography. I haven't forgotten it, I've just been left behind by the new technology. Back then (as I've mentioned before) I made a conscious decision not to chase a career in photography, and it's still not something I would want to do because I had to. (To earn a living.) I'll be more than happy if it could pay for itself, and I get pleasure out of doing it. I've had some ideas, initially sitting on photographing people (women) at special occasions. Not boudoir photography, but at special nights with people they like. Photographs worth printing and framing, not candid snaps taken with a good or bad camera phone. The editorial work could be a starter. I did get those photo's published in November, and I think the newspaper was quite happy with them. I'm sure they would take more, it's whether they would pay .... I'm a while off that yet. I need to 'hone' my digital skills first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted February 9, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2018 Yes, there is a big emotional difference between doing something for pleasure and doing it to earn a living, no matter how much you might enjoy it to start with. That said, I do enjoy shooting professionally - although enjoyment in the field doesn’t begin until I have at least a few useable images in the can. It is a high stress job. If somebody has sprung for business class airfares, ground transport, hotels, per diems and your daily rate, they don’t want to hear how the light was crap, the weather bad, the story not really there. You really are under the gym to create your luck and come home with something cool, worth the money, no matter what the conditions. They can be very challenging sometimes, and very stressful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted February 10, 2018 Report Share Posted February 10, 2018 6 hours ago, Shyheels said: Yes, there is a big emotional difference between doing something for pleasure and doing it to earn a living, no matter how much you might enjoy it to start with. .... can be very challenging sometimes, and very stressful. Yes, that about sums up how I saw it. I can't over emphasise how much effort I put in to getting proficient, and just how proficient I became. I could and did turn plain looking girls into images they often didn't believe. They would take away prints to show friends, always with favourable remarks. At the time I had a hairdresser in the house, and knew my way around makeup. I always applied the lipstick .... It wasn't unusual for me to work, then spend 6 hours in a darkroom. I remember spending a week (spare time) trying to replicate a 6x4 machine print onto 10x8 paper by hand. As hard as I tried, I just couldn't get a proper match. It took that long for me to realise, the machine print was on Fuji paper - which I learnt carries a magenta tint, and the enlargement was done on Kodak paper - with no colour shift. I like to think I wasn't so much stupid, as blind to my own competency. The 20-25 hours I worked on the enlargement, I assumed I had been making the error, rather than an inherent 'fault' in the consumables (media). Ho-hum. The second wedding I did, I was slightly pressured into using the grooms own digital kit. An enthusiast with money, he had everything. I used one body, one lens, and a flaky camera mounted flash. It went well, despite the misgivings of the bride who didn't want any photographs. They were both in their 60's and she didn't want (nasty) reminders. I didn't mind the pressure second time around, as I didn't have to second guess what I actually got on film, nor wait 4 hours to process and print.The task was much more straight-forward, with no exposure limit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted February 10, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2018 A friend of mine used to do very high end weddings - was flown to exotic locations where these extremely costly weddings were taking place and he turned out some stunning images, artistic, imaginative, and very lucrative. But he finally gave it up - the stress was just more than he wanted, even with the big paycheques. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted February 21, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 Off to London today. I’ll have a few hours of wandering around on my own and so I shall bring my camera bag and do a little shooting, get my eye in ahead of some important assignments I have coming up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted February 21, 2018 Report Share Posted February 21, 2018 47 minutes ago, Shyheels said: Off to London today. I'm available for coffee anytime after 1pm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted February 23, 2018 Report Share Posted February 23, 2018 Tomorrow, Saturday, I'm doing some family portraits tomorrow, and not just my family. Unusually, I shall have to use natural light, and a single reflector. I've told all those involved (me plus 5 others) I'm testing out a lens (Nikon 50mm on MFT giving me a 100mm eqiv length). That's not a lie, but it only represents about 33% of what I hope to achieve. I've two images in mind, and I'd much rather be using strobes to achieve them. Trouble is, my digital camera is completely incompatible with the mono bloc I own. I've priced a replacement kit, but it's not been bought. (Can't decide what to buy at the moment.) Natural light will have to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted February 23, 2018 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2018 I always much prefer natural light. If you’ve got a reflector you ought to be fine. Won’t be much you can’t do. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted February 23, 2018 Report Share Posted February 23, 2018 I hope you are right. In these situations, I'm usually given a square metre of space in some dark corner. There is a conservatory, but it's more of a greenhouse really, and unheated. I have visions of teeth chattering, and skin tones gradually turning bluer - including mine. Worst case scenario, I have to do them again when it's warmer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puffer Posted February 24, 2018 Report Share Posted February 24, 2018 10 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said: I hope you are right. In these situations, I'm usually given a square metre of space in some dark corner. There is a conservatory, but it's more of a greenhouse really, and unheated. I have visions of teeth chattering, and skin tones gradually turning bluer - including mine. Worst case scenario, I have to do them again when it's warmer. I believe your skin looks green to most people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted February 24, 2018 Report Share Posted February 24, 2018 Rumours about me being a lizard (care of David Icke) are completely unfounded ..... 'croak'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now