The Official Photography Thread - Vol. 3

[bjamez20]

old, but seems relevant



nice gear certainly helps, but its not a prerequisite for good photography. as far as professional photogs go though, that's a little different

 

[elderwatsondiggs]

[COLOR=#red]It's all relative.

[/COLOR]

I for one applaud his desire to get into real photography. Yes, I just said it, silver halide based photography is real photography. So many people who have never used film, especially including processing and printing it themselves, do not have nearly as good a grounding in the process and some of the basics of photography. I see it all the time. There is a whole different mentality shooting between shooting film and "shooting" dgital. For one, no film cameras have a instant preview LCD (so there are no instant "do-overs") and you don't have essentially limited image supply. Film forces you to slow down and think a lot more about what you are doing. The ultimate expression of this concept is the view camera.

[COLOR=#red]Now that's real photography.[/COLOR]

 

[yanky]

Dope shot Ksteezy. What kind of hardware are you using?

 

[7th Chamber]

 

[ksteezy]

[COLOR=#red]

Photo snobbery is real ain't that serious bro...you take good pictures and you make money...that's cool and all but not exactly groundbreaking.

If you are a pro photographer then it makes sense to spend a lot for a full frame camera or two and a myriad of lenses since the work you do will pay for the camera and equipment many times over.

If not then it doesn't matter as much since there are many great choices that are more than capable without paying the full frame premium and their accompanying lenses.

But photography is full of snobbery, and your post is merely an illustration of it, which illustrates my post even more...where photography is becoming more about the photographer and gear than photography itself. Don't act like my sentiment is not shared by many.

And while we on "real" photographers, it's funny how the new age digital photographers are acting all snobby when back in the day ISO was determined by the film in your camera and couldn't be switched with the push of a button...you had to literally change the film and you had to use dark rooms into order to produce images.

[/COLOR]

you got it twisted, im not a photography snob, im extremely humble amongst a zestpool of people who are not, so please dont group me with them.

I love the art of photography and admire humble/honest photographers, its sickening to me when i see individuals with a great marketing scheme charge unaware couples thousands of dollars for mediocre work shot with nothing more than an entry level DSLR and a kit lense and worst of all on AUTO....thats where your motto of "is the photographer, not the gear" is flawed in my opinion...years back when photography was alot more challenging to achieve because it wasnt just a push of a button, you actualy had to know what you where doing and thought every shot through prior to snapping as opposed to simply doing the ol' spray and pray technique....id agree with you, gear was far less important back then to be competitive in the "pro" world....so like i said if you just want to fool around and take pictures of street signs and kicks with a little spice to them you can live by your motto no problem, but if you venture into the part where you are charging for your art, with the way things are now with technology, you better be up to par with the gear.

just giving people the other side of the coin bro, im not trying to get into a silly debate over this.

 

[benssick]

ksteezy, I wouldn't mind seeing you edit your raw files. Your photos look so clean

 

[ksteezy]

[COLOR=#red]It's all relative.

[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#red]Now that's real photography.[/COLOR]

times have change bro, digital photography has given many people the opportunity to teach themselves and become AMAZING photographers....Ive come accross plenty of photographers who are amazing at what they do, were self taught and have never rolled film in their life, props to those photographers who posses that skill, i would never discredit them, but with the technology available you will find very few if any photographers who would put down a 5d, 1d or any pro body for a film camera to shoot, say a wedding.

 

[7th Chamber]

Dope shot Ksteezy. What kind of hardware are you using?

Don't mean to answer for the guy, but I know he uses the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM Wide Angle Lens. I think most people agree that it's Canon's best 24mm lens by far.

 

[Fong$tarr]

I agree digital is not film by any means. This whole new wave of photography is just treated different. It's not even the fact that anyone can pick up a camera but just the shear fact that we are dealing with pixels rather than film. It's literally two different mediums. The logic is the same same in regards to aperture, shutter speed, lighting, etc but the end product produces relatively different things, even though they are photos. I mean I feel like I know how to shoot digital but I just got a Polaroid Land Camera and I have been fudging like crazy. It's like you have to be spot on and set the camera perfect in order to get a decent photo. But I do appreciate it more than digital and find it rather fun to shoot that one perfect shot rather then shooting over and over again with no real worry in the world.

Anyways.....the film vs digital thing is really irrelevant to things. It's like saying painters are better then pencil drawers. They are just different and you just have to appreciate both of it.



Just want to add this as well. Just bought this print from someone for $400. Pretty damn expensive for the most part but love it and more so cause was done by film. Like one shot one kill! Just makes it more important that everything was set right.

On the other hand, I would never hire a film photographer to do a wedding. To many hit or misses and for something like that, you have to be spot on all the time.

 

[7th Chamber]

Can't decide on which edit I like better.

Harry Potter anyone?

I like the 1st edit

 

[7th Chamber]

You can't compare a zoom lense to a prime bro, so don't feel bad man...the 24-105 is good in its own terms.

I try not to shoot wide open, so off the top of my head I shot this at I say 1.8 I don't use any off camera lighting, all I do is bounce flash...depending on the venue and ambient lighting this technique had been clutch to me in order to capture some good ambient and get the subjects well exposed.

I totally forgot to ask man, but is there a reason why you don't shoot wide open? Does the lens lose some sharpness at 1.4?

 

[ksteezy]

Dope shot Ksteezy. What kind of hardware are you using?

i dont have much, i really believe in minimal baggage...so as of now

2 5dmkiii
24L ts
24L ii
35L
50L
70-200L ii
two flash units.

 

[7th Chamber]

Just want to add this as well. Just bought this print from someone for $400. Pretty damn expensive for the most part but love it and more so cause was done by film. Like one shot one kill! Just makes it more important that everything was set right.

That print is sweet man. Not sure I could dish out $400 for it, but I wouldn't mind having it

Haven't you purchased prints before and posted them on here?

 

[ecruteakcityboy]

Can anybody post links to bad wedding photographers?

It's a damn shame that some of these "photographers" would charge high when they are just using a entry level camera and a kit lens :x

I'm sure there are plenty of soon to be the newly weds who are gullible to "pros" .

 

[ksteezy]

ksteezy, I wouldn't mind seeing you edit your raw files. Your photos look so clean

if i knew how to make a workflow video i would....lol

unless i do something extra with filters ive gotten down to editing a sinlge picture in less than 30 seconds, using both lightroom and then PS, I created some actions on photoshop which have made my life a ton easier...lol

 

[ksteezy]

I totally forgot to ask man, but is there a reason why you don't shoot wide open? Does the lens lose some sharpness at 1.4?

shooting wideopen is risky, once again if you have time to think about a shot and compose it, its not bad, but when you depend on capturing a certain key moment that you cant really repeat, you are risking it since the DOF will be so shallow that you might just miss your mark...all primes have a sweet spot as is, which generally speaking is not at their widest....so if you have something like a 50L is best to shoot @ 1.8 than at @1.2 is much safer and your shot will still have that nice bokeh everyone loves from primes.

 

[Fong$tarr]

That print is sweet man. Not sure I could dish out $400 for it, but I wouldn't mind having it

Haven't you purchased prints before and posted them on here?

First photo print for the most part. I am a collector of all things from shoes, art prints, skateboards, toys....I mean just tons of crap. Never wanted photos before but knew if I did, it would be nothing but skate photos. It's a style of photography that I wish I could get into but just don't have the means to buy everything, let alone know skaters that are down to wreck themselves. My only disappointment is I couldn't get an even bigger print. I look at these as art investments for my future house/condo. I wanted to get a 30 X40 print but just couldn't stomach up spending $600 for it.

Not sure if people are interested in prints but there are some budget prints for $50 for an 11X14 photos: http://store.43magazine.com

Here's a video of the whole 43 Mag. Started via Kickstarter by Allen Ying. There last issue which was the NYC issue was praised by Vice as "This is what a skate mag should look like" (http://www.vice.com/read/this-is-what-a-skate-magazine-should-look-like-43-magazine-allen-ying)

 

[ratxaxtat]

First photo print for the most part. I am a collector of all things from shoes, art prints, skateboards, toys....I mean just tons of crap. Never wanted photos before but knew if I did, it would be nothing but skate photos. It's a style of photography that I wish I could get into but just don't have the means to buy everything, let alone know skaters that are down to wreck themselves. My only disappointment is I couldn't get an even bigger print. I look at these as art investments for my future house/condo. I wanted to get a 30 X40 print but just couldn't stomach up spending $600 for it.

Did it include framing too or just the print alone?

 

[ksteezy]

that print is beautiful Fong

 

[benssick]

if i knew how to make a workflow video i would....lol

unless i do something extra with filters ive gotten down to editing a sinlge picture in less than 30 seconds, using both lightroom and then PS, I created some actions on photoshop which have made my life a ton easier...lol

lol
damm

How different do your photos look before you edit them?

 

[Fong$tarr]

Did it include framing too or just the print alone?

Unfortunately no but I got a frame from Arron Bros for 40% off and got it for like $20. The print was about $380 shipped (they got me for $20 shipping when the tube I got the print in had a shipping price of $4) so I say $400 just to round it up altogether.


On another note, I think it would be so sick if we could conduct some sort of art show with our photos. We have enough photographers for it but would be hard to find a venue to have it at where all of us could go. Would be a neat project to do though. Just get a beer sponsor, some giveaways and just have folks from the forum come through and get drunk and look at photos and have some DJ spin music.

 

[ksteezy]

Unfortunately no but I got a frame from Arron Bros for 40% off and got it for like $20. The print was about $380 shipped (they got me for $20 shipping when the tube I got the print in had a shipping price of $4) so I say $400 just to round it up altogether.


On another note, I think it would be so sick if we could conduct some sort of art show with our photos. We have enough photographers for it but would be hard to find a venue to have it at where all of us could go. Would be a neat project to do though. Just get a beer sponsor, some giveaways and just have folks from the forum come through and get drunk and look at photos and have some DJ spin music.

that'll be beautiful, so many different styles, it can definately be inspiring to many, id fly to the west coast if something like this was to be organized.

anyways B here is a before and after, this is prior to taking it to PS for the final step

 

[yallayalla]

Deftones by james bringas, on Flickr

Deftones by james bringas, on Flickr

Deftones by james bringas, on Flickr

Deftones by james bringas, on Flickr

some photos from sunday, Deftones Koi No Yokan Tour: Live in Manila photos i took.. more at the blog

 

[snaggykicks]

This was my first time really using my camera(d3100) I took a million pictures at the porsche museum and at the festival and etc ill be in europe the next 3 years so tryna get better all advice is welcomed. These were the best pictures in my eyes I did some editing like cropping etc in lightroom and did one black and white conversion.

Also one of the photos of the break dancing how do i take pics to freeze the motion so there is no blur?

Also shot all photos raw im guessin the program converted them anyway in advance thanks for the improvement tips niketalk



http://www.flickr.com/photos/96649838@N07/ MY FLICKR

 

[ratxaxtat]

Unfortunately no but I got a frame from Arron Bros for 40% off and got it for like $20. The print was about $380 shipped (they got me for $20 shipping when the tube I got the print in had a shipping price of $4) so I say $400 just to round it up altogether.


On another note, I think it would be so sick if we could conduct some sort of art show with our photos. We have enough photographers for it but would be hard to find a venue to have it at where all of us could go. Would be a neat project to do though. Just get a beer sponsor, some giveaways and just have folks from the forum come through and get drunk and look at photos and have some DJ spin music.

What size is the print? That price doesn't seem too bad when you factor in time, cost of film, cost to develop film, and cost of printing. That stuff adds up fairly quickly.