Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
News / Re: Sony moving up
« Last post by Jeff Behm on May 26, 2017, 04:32:09 PM »
Yeah, I have a newer photographer I'm kind of helping along, and she asked me today if she should dump Nikon for Canon.  Being a Canon guy, I know what I wanted to say, because I do like Canon better, especially the 5D3, 7D2 and 6D.  But I'm equally concerned about telling her to stay with her minimal Nikon kit, simply for the reasons Joe outlined above and HG posted in the OP.  Bottom line, I suggested she get ahold of some Canon gear and some Sony gear and play with them a bit in a store or borrow from friends.  A half hour of fiddling with them should be revealing, because its about whether the work flow and ergonomics make sense to us more than it is about image quality.  The top stuff in all the major lines is remarkable.  Sony lags significantly behind on glass; however, word is they're getting on top of that.  I don't really see Nikon going away, away, but that slowing in new releases isn't for no reason. 
2
News / Re: Sony moving up
« Last post by Jenny Gavin-Wear on May 26, 2017, 12:29:44 PM »
Interesting read.

I'm still using a couple of 5D2s.  I'm just about exclusively shooting headshots in the studio now and they have plenty of resolution for that.  For fun I'm doing landscape and the 5D2 is great for that too.  I've toyed with the 5D3, but it doesn't add enough benefit for me to spend the extra cash.

What I do lust over is the Pentax 645D/Z.  I just love the resolution, the silkiness, dynamic range and the large image size for landscape.  Can't justify the expense right now, but who knows, one day!

I've picked up a few mirrorless cameras and they don't feel right.  Fiddly controls and I like the balance of a DSLR.   I gather the EVF's are a lot better, but still not up to the OVF.



3
General Discussion / Re: Let's kick off a discussion.
« Last post by Houston George on May 23, 2017, 09:34:17 PM »
Hrm...  I'm all about the last part, but I don't understand why "telephone" needs to be in there... as if a relationship can't occur via email, websites, social media, text, or face-to-face contact.

Your comment is so pertinent to me right now. Today, and for the second time in 2 months, I booked a wedding entirely through FB messenger without any audible communication whatsoever. This particular client messaged me 3 weeks ago while "shopping" around and today contacted me to commit. It's still strange for me because it doesn't quite feel "real" when no vocal exchanges occur. I must admit, even as old school as I am, it's kind of nice!
4
General Discussion / Re: Let's kick off a discussion.
« Last post by Duck on May 23, 2017, 08:31:35 PM »
...We got rid of likes/dislikes/karma because people lost their shit when they got a negative reaction and acted like little whiney babies just because someone thought their post wasn't valuable.  (can you tell I'm still bitter about how we couldn't act like adults? hah)
I can see that happening. Unfortunately I probably wouldn't have helped the cause since I would probably blast negative karma to the whiners on purpose. *evil grin*
5
General Discussion / Re: Let's kick off a discussion.
« Last post by Joe Federer on May 23, 2017, 01:47:01 PM »
Quote
4)  Stop thinking a website and social media is the road to success in photography.  Telephone and personal contact are essential; it's all about relationships.
Hrm...  I'm all about the last part, but I don't understand why "telephone" needs to be in there... as if a relationship can't occur via email, websites, social media, text, or face-to-face contact.  I've built a pretty successful business over the past 10 years (wow, this is my 10th 'official' year... holy buckets) and have spent, quite literally, zero dollars on traditional marketing.  All of my success has come from building relationships and getting referrals...  and the number of times I've talked to any of my clients on the phone, combined, can be counted on one hand. (and only one of those lasted longer than 30 seconds -- we did the initial 'face to face' meeting over the phone because they were traveling and had a short timeframe)

Quote
+1 Duck, since we don't have FB likes here (on purpose by the way.  They became a competition)
We got rid of likes/dislikes/karma because people lost their shit when they got a negative reaction and acted like little whiney babies just because someone thought their post wasn't valuable.  (can you tell I'm still bitter about how we couldn't act like adults? hah)
6
Technical / Re: Vinyl vs fabric backdrops...
« Last post by Nanette Reid on May 20, 2017, 12:44:09 AM »
I've used velvet or velveteen in the past for dead blacks, but storage and the presence of lint and/or dust can be a major pain. Was great for still life stuff when I needed nothing but deep black too.

Other than that I had a charcoal grey Colorama (and a few other coloured rolls) that were attached to a far wall using the Manfrotto wall system. Used with rim lighting in a similar situation as above it went dead black, plus it looked great with some light thrown onto it for commercial portraits. As it wasn't dead black, it stood out from the usual H&S shots being shot at the time (as did the Copper coloured roll).

For white, same, if any of them got dirty or damaged, they got trimmed - used a cyclorama in a studio I assisted at and I was forever having to go in the day prior to a shoot to repaint it. It was a matt finish that was supposed to be great at repelling scuffs, but it was easier to just repaint to ensure it was clean white. Eventually, for some smaller shoots, they decided to get a Colorama roll - was sooo much easier especially considering it was a share-studio, and that pristine cyc could get tatty if we were booked a little later in the day, or really only needed 3/4 length shots.
7
Technical / Re: Vinyl vs fabric backdrops...
« Last post by Houston George on May 19, 2017, 04:31:25 PM »
ok, gotcha. I was thinking it was image related.
8
Technical / Re: Vinyl vs fabric backdrops...
« Last post by Joe Federer on May 19, 2017, 11:07:04 AM »
Unless you're subject-to-BG distance is really short, I can't imagine lint or dog hair actually being visible in a low key setup.
No, not in a low key setup with proper lighting, but when you have clients coming in and see a lint riddled, dusty, foot print cover backdrop it's a bit embarrassing.

Bingo.  It's more about appearances than the final product.... particularly with newborns and maternity people, it can't look (or be) dirty.
9
Technical / Re: Vinyl vs fabric backdrops...
« Last post by Duck on May 19, 2017, 02:13:03 AM »
Unless you're subject-to-BG distance is really short, I can't imagine lint or dog hair actually being visible in a low key setup.
No, not in a low key setup with proper lighting, but when you have clients coming in and see a lint riddled, dusty, foot print cover backdrop it's a bit embarrassing.


Non low key setups and smaller sets have their own issues too.
10
Technical / Re: Vinyl vs fabric backdrops...
« Last post by Houston George on May 18, 2017, 07:38:05 PM »
Unless you're subject-to-BG distance is really short, I can't imagine lint or dog hair actually being visible in a low key setup.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10