^PM Sent.

2/13/2013 12:50:25 PM

I was updating some portfolio stuff tonight and found these:
This was from the original Krispy Kreme Challenge, when only like 8 guys ran it. The next year they turned it into a tradition and 150 or so ran it.


And I just like this image:

2/13/2013 10:40:07 PM

Postin' them frogs.

2/13/2013 10:58:47 PM

So I think I may by my first digital camera

I'm having a lot fun getting back into photography, but I've been using my cellphone to do it. I've got a great app that lets me adjust settings, but the tiny sensor size is really limiting what I can do.

Should I go entry-level DSLR or mirrorless? Looking around online, the Sony NEX seems to be well-reviewed and is often editors choice and some of the models have comparable cost to entry DSLR. Should I get an entry DSLR or mirrorless?

(Canon T3i vs Sony NEX-F3 or NEX-C3)

2/17/2013 3:12:06 PM

It's called rack focus, bud. it's an actual style with DSLR's, and big boy camera equipment like a Canon 5D Mark II and 16-35mm 2.8 EF-L lens. Lay off the haterade.



[Edited on February 17, 2013 at 5:17 PM. Reason : rack focus]

2/17/2013 5:15:51 PM

^NOT SURE IF SERIOUS

^^i would suggest going the t3i way over the two Sonys you have listed, for the following reasons:

1) compatible with pro lenses, new ones which you can rent when you want to try out something new without spending a lot of money and decades of old manual lenses you can buy really cheap (more applicable to video)
2) most of nicer lenses that you DO invest in can be used with higher-end bodies if you decide to get really serious about it
3) T3i will have a full-size hotshoe that will allow you to work with off-camera lighting, while these sonys, and a lot of other mirrorless cameras either lack a hotshoe or use a proprietary one. Ability to sculpt light is the key to professional photography, and there is only so much you can do with the natural light.

2/17/2013 5:35:49 PM

those are good points

guess i'll start looking around for deals

2/17/2013 5:40:51 PM

^^^ yeah dude, I realize every thread in chit chat is open to trolling, but there's no need for that shit in here. Not to mention that pic is fairly incriminating and there are several LEOs on this board.

Get that shit outta here.

[Edited on February 17, 2013 at 5:43 PM. Reason : ]

2/17/2013 5:43:00 PM

lololololololol

GG bronco

2/19/2013 5:54:19 PM

Salamanders n shit.


Eurycea cirrigera


Ambystoma talpoideum


Plethodon variolatus

2/28/2013 6:41:26 PM

our sweet girl a couple of days before we had to put her down recently... not the greatest, but one of the best we ever got of her... miss her like crazy



[Edited on March 5, 2013 at 8:14 AM. Reason : ]

3/5/2013 8:14:17 AM

^Nice, but sorry to hear about having to put her down. Thanks for bumping this though as I was just looking for the thread.

Sorry I have not posted shots in here in forever. Been busy shooting, but not really stuff I wanted to, so much as I had to. However I did get a new lens, as my wife has gotten interested in photography, but she is really afraid to try using my D7000. So she has been using my D40, which unfortunately will not auto-focus with any of my prime lenses. So I picked up a used 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX lens. Sharp, fast, quiet, and will auto-focus on the D40 for her. Additionally it gives me something for lower light situations that my 17-35 2.8 lens can't handle easily. I also got a battery grip, battery, and a Tamron 70-300 lens for Christmas, and just purchased a 5-in-1 42" reflector kit.

I am looking at two more things now, and need your help/advice. I am considering getting a monitor calibration tool. I have really started noticing color issues with my main monitor on my home computer, which became more apparent when I added a secondary monitor. So do any of ya'll use or have a recommendation on a monitor calibration system (i1, Spyder, etc). Also, do ya'll find the X-Rite Color Passport helpful when shooting to get exact white balance, or a waste of time/money? Thanks for your help!

[Edited on March 5, 2013 at 8:35 AM. Reason : ]

3/5/2013 8:35:07 AM

And since I haven't posted a shot in forever, here is one I found when I was scanning through some shots from last year. Got this at Oceana last September, and cropped it to use as my background.



[Edited on March 5, 2013 at 8:43 AM. Reason : ]

3/5/2013 8:43:02 AM

I just use a WhiBal card for shooting. For editing at home, I have 24" Dell UltraSharp monitors using calibrated profiles I found online. I also use the Spyder system and run their configuration utility about once a month. Spyder also has an iPad app which allows you to calibrate the iPad using their equipment. Not that you would use an iPad for editing, but it could help if you ever wanted to use it as a display, or to do simple adjustments on your iPhone pics. I'm sure there's better (more expensive) methods, but I print all my images through WHCC and have never seen any difference in color accuracy.

3/5/2013 8:52:10 AM

I hate to be the "dont do that, do this" guy, but it has really helped me to learn color correction by the numbers. I started correcting for the Agromeck this way in college since we had no calibrated monitors, and no dedicated workstation. I'd float from 5 different computers for editing, all with different color profiles and monitor types. Once you've done it a bit, you begin to understand color values for everything from skin tones, to blue sky, to grass. Photoshop and Lightroom will give you RGB values for whereever your cursor hovers over under the histogram. You can even change it to the various color outputs like LAB or CMYK.

Quote :

"I just use a WhiBal card for shooting"

I just recently started using cards to and it has made the biggest difference. I went to Southeastern and bought a set of 3 8x10 foamcore cards, white, grey and black as well as a small pocket color card (red, blue, yellow, 5 shades of grey, etc.). They're only a few bucks a peice. I can use the white card to set a custom white balance throughout the assignment and the grey card and color card for portraiture and such to make calibrations when I get home.

And just because I always found it to be really cool, I'll share this:
In the really early days of digital, when we would shoot assignments that had lots of press photographers, like football or basketball games, we'd see some of our Idols in the professional pool from N&O, AP, etc. shooting, then correcting for color on old black and white laptops before transmitting it back to their offices. They were seasoned enough to be able to rattle out known RGB values for various subject matter they would find.

3/5/2013 10:00:58 AM

^Yea my problem is, I added the second monitor and now for some reason Photoshop looks like ass on my Samsung widescreen monitor. I don't know if its a profile that has gotten wonky or what. Previously it has not been a problem, and I have done more like you've said. I manually calibrated them before with test patterns and I think I got it to a fairly calibrated setup. I had no time to get on my computer yesterday either, as my wife was trying her hand at photo-editing. Another thought I had was maybe she altered the profile for that monitor, or went with the default or something and changed it without knowing. I did a quick test last night and had her drag an image opened in PS from the main screen to the Dell on the left. I noticed that when the image was dragged about halfway onto the screen, it would literally shift. Not just the dragging from one screen so it looks a little different, but when you got it halfway over, it would go from reddish to blue. I think something has gotten fubar'd in the profile. Hopefully tonight I can take a crack at it.

[Edited on March 5, 2013 at 10:49 AM. Reason : ]

3/5/2013 10:48:35 AM

the only way to fix that is to get a Spyder or other color calibrator. I have two Dell monitors, one TN and on IPS ultrasharp, and I must say that the TN panel looks truer with just the standard profiles. It took me quite a while to get the red tint out of the ultrasharp. Spyder can get them to match pretty closely, but they are still just slightly different on color reproduction.

I love Mac displays, including iPad. Colors look unbiased and vibrant out of the box and across the board.

Also, if you have a shoot where you are really really concerned with correct color profiles, you can use target card/software solution such as X-Rite Passport http://xritephoto.com/ph_product_overview.aspx?id=1257

[Edited on March 5, 2013 at 12:50 PM. Reason : .]

3/5/2013 12:45:31 PM

^Haha Igor, that is exactly what I was posting about originally. I am looking at a calibrator and wanted to know if anybody uses the X-Rite Passport or something similar for their color correction card.

And I must confess, I used my iPad as the deciding factor on what was balanced. I uploaded the photos to Skydrive and viewed it on my iPad to see which one looks closest to that. I know its not perfect, but it is probably closer to calibrated than my monitor.

[Edited on March 5, 2013 at 1:03 PM. Reason : ]

3/5/2013 1:01:25 PM

I have the x-rite passport, but I rarely use it to be honest. I imagine if I was shooting for print campaigns or other color-critical commercial jobs, I'd use it more often.

3/5/2013 3:44:14 PM

I'm gearing up for a personal project involving some environmental portraits focusing on family-life issues. I've been using myself as a guinea pig to figure out how I want to approach the shots.

3/5/2013 6:41:13 PM

I think I settled on what I'm looking for. I want 2 shots of each subject. 1 environmental, 1 simple portrait.

3/7/2013 6:27:16 PM

Near the end of a birthday party, just having fun.

3/10/2013 7:26:58 PM

Rolling through Columbia Heights earlier...



[Edited on March 10, 2013 at 7:45 PM. Reason : J]

3/10/2013 7:44:24 PM

I am constantly finding new shit at work, or rediscovering old/ancient stuff. Anyways, Nikon shooters, do you have any thoughts on the following lenses that I have uncovered:

Nikkor-H Auto 2.8cm f/3.5
Zoom-Nikkor 35-105 f/3.5-4.5
Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8
AF Zoom-Nikkor 35-135mm f/3.5-4.5

I realize that only the 35-135 will AF, and am fine with that. Would like to try and force myself to not rely on AF as much. Either way, thoughts on whether these are worthwhile lenses to carry around or not?

3/13/2013 11:15:39 AM

3/25/2013 1:16:12 PM

^"when you see it, you'll shit your pants"

[Edited on March 25, 2013 at 5:31 PM. Reason : Took me a minute]

Mtan Man214 for environmental portraits, I suggest isolating the subject via neutral background, selective focus, or use if light (making the subject lighter than the background, most often). In the last one you posted, everything blends in a bit too much IMHO. The first two are much better in that regard.

Also try to make sure your subjects are not tense. I am saying this because I'm terrible about being shot and always end up with a emotionless expression on my face. Great portraits in my opinion are almost more about making people feel comfortable as they are about creatively lighting the person or using nice glass. Here is a great project from someone I know that illustrates that concept: http://www.akolodnerphotography.com/sources/ipad/#portfolios/12/0 (if iPad edition doesn't look right on your computer, just google GayFace Ashley Kolodner)


[Edited on March 25, 2013 at 5:51 PM. Reason : .]

3/25/2013 5:30:32 PM

That's the beautiful thing about photography, there are no wrong ways to approach a subject.


(Unless you're Kiwi, or you're thinking "HDR seems like a good bet.")

3/25/2013 5:55:20 PM

Thanks for the critique Igor. This one:


Is pretty close to what I'm looking for. It's not about creating stunning photographs, but telling a story about the group of men I'm working with by capturing them in their home environment. You're example is wonderful, but maybe too abstract for my goals.

My self portrait was the test shot. I picked that location and that crop because it's where I spend the majority of my day, cooking, cleaning, repeat. It's about me in my environment, and that environment will tell more about the person. I'm messy and disorganized, and thats what I saw in that photo and why I liked it.

I really like your advice on isolating the subject, especially with the use of light. I don't think I can move to neutral backgrounds or selective focus since the location is so important. I'm trying to stick to natural lighting for the environmental and may try to work a time of day when I can catch some direct sunlight as a spot, or if I can't do that, a little dodge & burn may be implored to separate the subject and the background a bit.

I also want to keep the portraits pretty simple and uniform across each subject.

Here's my first non-self portrait test with a friend:

3/25/2013 6:38:22 PM

umop-apisdn ... dude .... how can you even spot those guys to shoot them?

3/25/2013 6:42:48 PM

You get used to finding them, but occasionally they'll leave you wondering where the hell they went. Also, they are captives, so it's not like I'm roaming the wilds for them (as much as I'd like to).

3/25/2013 7:34:25 PM

^^^well I meant alternating backgrounds for that first shot you were going to do of each subject, the "simple portrait" one. As opposed to just having them all on white background. Just a thought.

For the the environmental portraits, I feel like you can have the same environment and still have the person stand out a little bit more. Even on that first portrait in the same kitchen, you stand out quite bit more than on the second one, not sure if it was due to desaturation or if the light in that instance was more direct, and I think that makes the photo more of a "portrait" than a "snapshot". You could try it with dodgin and burnign, but better way to do it would be by controlling the subject placement and light direction/intensity

I agree with Ronny in the sense that there is no "wrong" way to do anything as photography is subjective and SOMEONE will like it, no matter what you do. Even over-the-top HDR. Hell, especially over-the-top HDR. I see photos all the time on FB that are poor taste as I see it, and there is still quite number of people "liking" them. I sometimes come across work that I think is wonderful, but when I share it with friends I sometimes don't see them vibe with same excitement. But I do think that our job as photographers is to present the subject in the most compelling way, in a way that will make people want to pause and take a second look. A variety of factors go into a making a photograph that does that, there is no single formula. All that said, in my humble opinion, something else needs to be added to those two test portraits to really make them a little more compelling.

Here is a good series of portraits that share a common thread with your test shots. As you can see, there is no wild technical gimmicks, any supplemental lighting used is very subtle, sometimes they appear in very visually busy environment, and yet somehow they are still differing but consistent, simple yet compelling, contextual yet subject-centered: http://www.amusingplanet.com/2011/05/bureaucrats-around-world-photo-series.html

3/26/2013 12:15:44 PM

^Yeah the picture of me at the table is my favorite of the shots I've set up for this project so far. It's just one I don't like for it's relation to the project. I think my biggest problem for the initial stages of this project is that it is a subject matter I'm personally involved with and my first subjects for portraits are guys I've known for a while. Its also the same reason I chose this project, its something I can use to get my feet wet while still carrying out my day to day duties without the need for travel, additional equipment, or time to seek out, find, and vet subjects.

And great link. That's actually one of a handful of projects I looked at when trying to figure out the direction to take this project. For my subject matter it's style was very close to what I wanted. I hate to say I want to copy the work, but it's definitely a project I'd like to emulate. And since at the heart of it, my project is nothing but practice, I don't have any hangups with trying to emulate another piece of work. I'm hoping to come out of this with some more recent experience of the creative process in developing a project.

3/26/2013 3:23:06 PM

#geckobling #moneyaintathang #youaintgotswaggalikeme

3/26/2013 4:08:35 PM

3/26/2013 4:11:48 PM

dafuq, I guess I broke my link.

3/26/2013 5:59:57 PM

finally ready to upgrade from the kit to a better walk-around lens.

I'm on a Canon crop body (XSi) and torn between Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and Canon 24-105 F4 L IS

they're pretty much the same price.

the 17-55 is faster and has a wider angle

the 24-105 is a little slower, but it's an L, and by all accounts an amazing lens and a bit more range. I also wonder if i'll miss the 18-24 range when shooting.

halp me choose! (or if you have other ideas, fire away)

3/28/2013 5:10:26 PM

^My only lens right now is a 28-70 f/2.8 L and it does 90% of what I need. For that reason of the 2 you've listed I would go with the 24-105, you also will be much happier with the quality and lifespan of the L series.

That said. I'd recommend going with a 24-70 f/2.8 L. For the price range you're looking at you'll need to buy it used, but you can get a used one the same cost as the 24-105. The 2.8 lenses are so expensive compared to their f/4 counterparts because those extra aperture stops are invaluable.

And L lenses are workhorses that will last (almost) forever so the only thing you lose by buying it used is the advantages of whatever it's current generation has on the market.

I bought mine in 2004. It was used and had been used by a professional photojournalist as a daily lens for about 3 or 4 years before that (I think...it may have been more). I used it daily for 4 years while shooting for the paper, agromeck and freelance jobs in school. Since then I was shooting several times a week with it and it still works as well today as it did when I bought it. It's been repaired once by canon (I dropped it and broke the back piece off), otherwise it's never had issues.

3/28/2013 5:29:10 PM

the lack of IS on the 24-70 is a dealbreaker for me, unfortunately.

that said, i'm definitely leaning towards the 24-105 L. part of it is that it's hard to stomach dropping nearly a grand on a non-L lens that's only compatible with a crop body.

3/28/2013 5:44:11 PM

I like the 24-105mm a lot.

I'd prefer it to the 28-70mm even if the former didn't have IS.

3/28/2013 5:57:35 PM

i use the 17-55 as my daily and love it - i'd still go with the 24-105

3/29/2013 9:14:23 AM

So I'd like to finally take the plunge into DSLR, but I'm trying to do it on a tight budget. I don't want to go over $400 if I can at all avoid it. Obviously, this means used. At that price point it looks like my options are basically going to be older models. In the compact realm I've been a fan of Canon (owned four, frequently used two others) and I've shot some with a friend's 20D so planning on staying Cancon.

From the limited looking around I've done, it seems like what I might be able to pick up in that neighborhood will be an XSi, 30D, or if I can find a really good deal, T1i or 40D. Which series would be the better option--XSi/T1i (newer, better specs, but more entry-level) or 30D/40D (older, but metal body and perhaps better built)? Opinions please and thanks.

3/29/2013 2:17:39 PM

I have a 40D that I'd be willing to part with.

I prefer the 30D/40D to the smaller entry level cameras for form factor alone. Sure, they might not shoot video or have as many megapixels (which is pretty much meaningless anyway), but the other things like AF, metering, etc. will likely be better on the "prosumer" bodies. Switching settings is much harder on the smaller cameras (that are designed for entry level users). Plus, the shutter on those just sounds terrible, like a toy.

3/29/2013 8:43:28 PM

^^

http://richmond.craigslist.org/ele/3713852324.html


in other news,


picked up the 24-105L tonight.

haven't had much time to play with it, but compared to what i had, so far i'm all like



[Edited on March 31, 2013 at 10:55 PM. Reason : .]

3/31/2013 10:53:17 PM

stitched some shots of some street art together.



higher res: http://i.imgur.com/uf2y2ea.jpg

perspective is balls'd :\


[Edited on April 3, 2013 at 4:16 AM. Reason : .]

4/3/2013 4:09:06 AM

I'm probably going to be picking up a DSLR package soon and am torn between a couple of cameras. I've used both Canon and Nikon in the past so I don't really have a preference between the two as far as the brands are concerned. I'm looking at either a Nikon D5200 package (w/ 18-55 & 55-300 lenses) for $1,050 or a Canon T3i package (w/ 18-55 & 55-250 lenses) for $830.

It will mostly be used for travel, kids, pets, etc. (typical family use). I've heard/read that the D5200 is a little better for action shots (kids/dogs) but is it so much better as to justify the extra $220?

4/10/2013 10:52:48 AM

Quote :

"I don't want to go over $400 if I can at all avoid it. Obviously, this means used"

i got a factory refurbished Nikon D5100 with kit lens for $419 on adorama

[Edited on April 10, 2013 at 10:55 AM. Reason : and lens]

4/10/2013 10:55:04 AM

I just got irresponsible and bought some VSCO presets.

Damn they're sexy.

4/12/2013 3:31:09 AM

Earlier in the day:

4/12/2013 4:51:23 AM

Is that first one Queen's Bath?

4/12/2013 7:37:10 AM

Can someone recommend a really long camera strap, and one that will allow the camera and lense to point down instead of out? I'm really tall, so the regular strap is not long enough to wear across my chest, and because of the way the strap is the camera rests pointing out instead of down. It makes walking with it very annoying.

4/17/2013 10:11:44 PM