Any Photographers On The Site?

[logs]

Speak for yourself - I am thinking about Zones when I am filming - those waveform metering method in digital cinematography is overkill

Not sure why anyone would object to using a waveform. It's just a tool that shows what's clipping. If you're arguing contemporary cinematography is crap because it doesn't use the zone system... well I don't even know what to say about that other than Hollywood seems to be getting by just fine without it.

 

[warren]

Story is simple. Right place, at the right time (warm, evening light) and waiting until three pair of eyes were looking at me. Sow was across a small creek, in the brush, huffing and puffing to keep the kids, 2 cinnamon and the black, up the tree. Oddly enough I had the right camera and right lens in my hand. A rare situiation for a wildlife shooter unless at a predetermined site.

 

[americaman]

I'm interested in the suggestion that a beginner use celluloid film and cameras. What film is available and where, and who processes it? I have a hard time feeling involved in the process with digital photography.

Film made a comeback around 2014 and is still going strong. Today’s film is better than what was available back in the day, barring some legendary stuff like Kodachrome, and photo labs are still around, and some new ones have popped up. Look up The Find Lab, Richard Photo Lab, and Carmencita Lab for some of the higher-end examples of film labs.

There are a few reasons for this:

Some people got into film because of the unique look it gives (myself), and others got into film because of the “hipster” trend of using old stuff to connect with the past. Either way, a lot of people moved to film a few years ago, or became “hybrid” photographers (which means you shoot a mixture of film and digital). Usually the digital camera is used at night, due to film’s limited capabilities in low light.

The best, and most expensive, wedding photographers use film due to the soft, classic images it produces. Newer, younger photographers started catching on to this, because the look of film just cannot be replicated. For many, film is the ideal look for wedding photos.

I would say the third reason people are picking up film again is how inexpensive the cameras and lenses are when compared to digital. For about $400 to $500 total you can have a body and lens that will blow away most digital cameras. Some of those old lenses are incredible, and because most people just go for digital these old lenses and camera bodies can be had for cheap. You can get a film camera setup for $50, but it might not be at the level of those $400 to $500 setups. However, certain film cameras are actually overpriced now because the word got out that well known photographers use them.

Now it seems like you see the popularization of film in an even younger group of kids. Stores like Target and Forever 21 started making Polaroid and Kodak t-shirts because it’s trendy. Maybe these kids want to be different, maybe they want to connect with what their parents used, maybe they don’t even shoot film and just wear the t-shirts for the retro fonts.

 

[olkofri]

View attachment 33075View attachment 33075

Is that 'find the 10 differences'?

 

[olkofri]

Going digital, you definitely want a functional bit of software to process the digital "negs", especially that can handle working with Camera RAW files. Adobe Lightroom seems to be quite popular for those who don't want to go the full Photoshop route.

And that's just one more reason to go the brand new camera route: the camera will come with Canon's own RAW processing software which furnishes the beginners with all they need to start 'developing' their images and learning about RAW processing, without the need to pony up for a third party RAW processor or getting chained to Assobe's subscription model.

 

[Sloopjohnbee]

Not sure why anyone would object to using a waveform. It's just a tool that shows what's clipping. If you're arguing contemporary cinematography is crap because it doesn't use the zone system... well I don't even know what to say about that other than Hollywood seems to be getting by just fine without it.

logs, I'm just sayin' that there are directors I know of using the Zone - In Hollywood. They use the wave meters as well - as we all do - even in stills - you use 'em I use 'em correct? No you don't NEED the Zone system but it is a very well thought out system and some swear by it and as AA mentions in the book some gave him hell about it - called it psuedoscience

 

[warren]

They use "zone" when managing light. This is not the same as Adams' "Zone Method" which was negative manipulation to broaden the contrast spectrum as much as possible, limited to the amount of "information" on the negative. Cinematographers/vidiographers on the other hand work hard to keep contrast within the limits of the medium being used, film, tape, digital and the projection method. This is done with artificial lighting, reflectors and a bunch of other light modifiers. Again, two entirely different subjects.

Third party image manipulation products often lag behind a camera manufacturers latest technology. Not a problem usually with used, older cameras. I strongly recommend using the manufacturer's software. The basics are all there. Unless you want to do something "Lightroom" specific or such there is little need for buying third party software. You should be able to "download" Canon's software if you buy a used camera unaccompanied by the disk. But, just make sure the disk is included, load the it into your computer, download any upgrades and you are good to go.

The best, and most expensive, wedding photographers use film due to the soft, classic images it produces.

I am acquainted with a few wedding photographers, they all have my sympathy, and none use film. The only reason I can think of for shooting film is, the shooter uses such as a selling point to upscale clients who can be convinced to pay extra for the ... I don't know what. The beauty being the client can't tell the difference as they don't spend hours inspecting comparing media. Most young people getting married these days have never seen a photo made from a negative. Hell, most haven't seen anything shot with other than phone on a "selfie stick."

 

[americaman]

I am acquainted with a few wedding photographers, they all have my sympathy, and none use film. The only reason I can think of for shooting film is, the shooter uses such as a selling point to upscale clients who can be convinced to pay extra for the ... I don't know what. The beauty being the client can't tell the difference as they don't spend hours inspecting comparing media. Most young people getting married these days have never seen a photo made from a negative. Hell, most haven't seen anything shot with other than phone on a "selfie stick."

The most expensive wedding photographers are in a genre called “Fine Art” Wedding Photography. We are talking $10,000 to $25,000. They use medium format film because it gives a look that no software can replicate. And yes, the film + development is going to cost $500 to $1,000 so there is an added cost because of that. Jose Villa, the man who is credited with starting the genre of fine art, has recently branched out to hybrid photography where he is now doing some digital images and creating his own film emulation software. But if you are keen to photography you can tell the difference immediately. Same with other film emulation software, like Mastin Labs. In most cases you can tell that it is not film. Digital is sharper, whereas film is softer.

Many clients that are into high end weddings want a fine art photographer, and are willing to pay for the best. Some digital photographers have now tried to copy the fine art photographers, but it doesn’t look the same. However, like you said, the majority of people can’t tell the difference or don’t even care about how good the photographer is. I think many of the people that want fine art photographers don’t even realize that the best photographers are using film, they just want the best images possible.

 

[warren]

And, I'm in the business where "sharper is better", is the rule.

Those photographers have the same type of target market as the vendors of really expensive pipes. Severely limited but, you don't have to sell many to make a living. And, yes, Barnum was correct. An opinion only, simply an observation.

 

[Tommy Boy]

Story is simple. Right place, at the right time (warm, evening light) and waiting until three pair of eyes were looking at me. Sow was across a small creek, in the brush, huffing and puffing to keep the kids, 2 cinnamon and the black, up the tree. Oddly enough I had the right camera and right lens in my hand. A rare situiation for a wildlife shooter unless at a predetermined site.

My daughter said the cubs were very cute and thought you did a good job framing them. She wanted to know how far away you were and if you were worried about the momma bear?

 

[warren]

Fifteen to twenty feet. One eye in the viewfinder and one eye on momma. Worried? Yes. Respectful also. I retreated as soon as I thought I had the shot, no point in unduly stressing momma. Some wil;dlife photographers pay no attention to what's best for the animals when in search of a shot. I was that way starting out but, I now realize up here they have but a short summer to feed before winter. The cubs are with mom for two summers. It's interesting to watch momma try and run them off at the end of the second. The cubs are often resistant to leave the easy life. Just like our teens. So I'll skip a shot if I feel I'm encroaching too much and stressing the critters.

 

[jpmcwjr]

<< Snipped bits out >>
I am acquainted with a few wedding photographers, they all have my sympathy, and none use film. The only reason I can think of for shooting film is, the shooter uses such as a selling point to upscale clients who can be convinced to pay extra for the ... I don't know what.

I shot two weddings, both at the begging of friends. Never again! It would have been worse being ordered about by various and sundry, but particularly the loud mouth, bossy half-drunk mother of the bride. (Not that anyone's m.i.l. here is like that!)

 

[jpmcwjr]

I put "film is better" along with turntables and 1960 Fords are better.
Or muskets vs. modern weaponry or hunting guns.

And with PS and even Lightroom, you can make your RAW image look as "filmy" as you wish.

 

[Epip Oc'Cabot]

I'm a Pentax shooter, so I'm no help there. But I can recommend that with digital, make the setting to save each exposure in both RAW and jpeg formats. Use the largest memory card that the camera can address to.

Pentax for me too. Seems sadly to be a dying breed though. Everything seems to be Cannon and Nikon now.

 

[cshubhra]

There was a time I was in to photography. IMO techniques are easy to learn and a modern SLR will have a lot of aids to help you. Composition and creativity is art and after some time I realized that at best my compositions are mediocre amateur - at that point I started losing interest. I would recommend looking at lots of great photos and trying to recreate similar compositions.
While with inexpensive gear a little touch up in a photo editor is inevitable, I prefer most of the work to be done on camera.

 

[olkofri]

I shot two weddings, both at the begging of friends. Never again! It would have been worse being ordered about by various and sundry, but particularly the loud mouth, bossy half-drunk mother of the bride. (Not that anyone's m.i.l. here is like that!)

Heh, I still have this on my website's FAQ:

Will you shoot my wedding?
No.

 

[warren]

I worked now and then for a friend who owned a photo shop. The big selling point for Pentax was and still is quality lenses and gear is usually the lightest in its class. Olympus was quite the same.

Today, if a person wants quality gear and light weight due to age or as a travel camera I'd strongly recommend something mirror-less. The only reasons to go "pro" gear are: 1) usually dust and water resistant, 2) titanium or steel bodies are virtually indestructible, the innards are tough also, 3) repairs are expedited, 4) holds value for resale when moving to newer models, the list goes on but, the bottom line is: It's what goes on between the photographer's ears that make or break a shot, no matter the camera setup. See the light, imagine the shot, take it, compare with what you imagined and screw around until you get the shot you want.

Wanna have some time well wasted? Grab a camera and anything, a can of Pledge, jewelry, a flower, anything. Set up on a table, kids are welcome to assist or take their own shots, imagine the shot you want, grab a lamp, maybe a piece of nappy cloth ( bath towels are great), and try to get the shot you imagined. A piece of white paper or art board makes a great reflector. Shoot it. Evaluate it. Reset and shoot again. Great for getting the creative juices flowing and reintroducing yourself to the kids.

 

[warren]

Re: Wedding Shooting

Talk about pressure! There's a list of shots required, wrangling the wedding party, minimum of two cameras (One will fail, trust me.), two flash units with light modifiers, and then you get back to the office and find one of your media cards was bad. Or, for you enthusiasts of film, find it didn't advance or some other malfunction. Try explaining that to the newly weds! You better have great insurance.

I've done it! More pressure than trying to talk a guy off a ledge or into dropping his weapon. It takes a special mental set to enjoy shooting weddings.

 

[jpmcwjr]

Do real men chimp? I dunno, but I sure did on some shots. Particularly in crowded areas. You've framed the perfect shot, timed it just right, only to find a hand blocking something important.

 

[logs]

logs, I'm just sayin' that there are directors I know of using the Zone - In Hollywood. They use the wave meters as well - as we all do - even in stills - you use 'em I use 'em correct? No you don't NEED the Zone system but it is a very well thought out system and some swear by it and as AA mentions in the book some gave him hell about it - called it psuedoscience

For what it's worth, I loved using the zone system back in the days when I was shooting b/w and working in a darkroom. Can you recommend any resources or web sites to look at about how it gets used with digital cinema cameras? Off the top of my head I don't see any advantages but now you have me curious.