photo people

[youngluc]

alright so im in the process of buying a camera really really soon. like within a week probably. heres what im looking at getting as of right now, any thoughts/opinions/suggestions would be much appreciated. thanks.

canon 30d
canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
canon 50mm f/1.8
canon 580ex speedlite & off-camera shoe cord
standard bullshit - batterys, uv filters/polarizers, compact flash

[Carl]

everything looks good except for the zoom.

learn to use your 50 first.

[youngluc]

everything looks good except for the zoom.

learn to use your 50 first.

haha yeah, well the only reason im getting that is cause i wanted something real wide to work with. i thought about going with the 17-40 f/4L but i don't plan on going full frame any time soon, and when i eventually do i'll hopefully have the funds to not worry about lenses i already bought and shit.everything i read about the 10-22 was pretty good, i was with aperture was lower but for something to just fuck around with it seemed alright.

edit: plus the money i have right now is specifically for this so instead of holding off on getting another lens i figured i'd better find one now and get it before i get frustrated with only a 50 and have no way of getting another haha

[Carl]

the best money spent on camera gear should be spent on glass.

get a 50 1.4 and a 24 2.8

[youngluc]

i hadn't even thought about the 24 2.8, good point thanks. is there a big step up from the 1.8 to the 1.4 besides the obvious haha

[ayn]

forget about the zoom, get the 50/1.4 and learn how to compose with a prime lens first...

[Tiranis]

forget about the zoom, get the 50/1.4 and learn how to compose with a prime lens first...

QFT (nothing more to add :) )

[canice]

the best money spent on camera gear should be spent on glass.

get a 50 1.4 and a 24 2.8

ditto. both great lenses to start with.

i'm itching for a 24-70 f/2.8 L right now. i have the money, but it's that or a new bike.

luc, if you are interested, i have a tokina 12-24mm digital lens, canon mount for sale. super cheap (i want to get rid of this thing and get aforementioned L lens).

[youngluc]

ditto. both great lenses to start with.

i'm itching for a 24-70 f/2.8 L right now. i have the money, but it's that or a new bike.

luc, if you are interested, i have a tokina 12-24mm digital lens, canon mount for sale. super cheap (i want to get rid of this thing and get aforementioned L lens).

if you want PM me what you're looking to get for it and i'll let you know asap. i figure having something that wide will be fun to just fuck around with here and there.

[masuerte]

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/1002/1165481626835zq1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[airfrogusmc]

alright so im in the process of buying a camera really really soon. like within a week probably. heres what im looking at getting as of right now, any thoughts/opinions/suggestions would be much appreciated. thanks.

canon 30d
canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
canon 50mm f/1.8
canon 580ex speedlite & off-camera shoe cord
standard bullshit - batterys, uv filters/polarizers, compact flash

Fuck the zooms and get a Canon EOS5D and 24 1.4L 35 1.4L and an 85 1.2L and your good to go. 5D has a full frame sensor so you don't loose your wide angles.

[Carl]

Fuck the zooms and get a Canon EOS5D and 24 1.4L 35 1.4L and an 85 1.2L and your good to go. 5D has a full frame sensor so you don't loose your wide angles.

Suuuuure, get that if youve got a cool 7 or 8 grand lying around just buring a hole in your pocket.

*rolls eyes*

[nairb49]

alright carl, your stupid influence (;)) has convinced me. I bought coldrice's rebel xt off him so i'm going to be bothering you for tips etc.

[Carl]

Sounds good nairb.

I gotta get hap to move this to my baby.

[airfrogusmc]

The good stuff is never cheap. My advice is always get the best you can afford.

[sidneylo]

The 70-200mm f/2.8 is a sexy beast too. Worth every penny, and tack sharp.

I'm just happy I finally can say I have one of those pretty white lenses. Chea.

The good stuff is never cheap. My advice is always get the best you can afford.

Quoted for truthiness.

Fuck the zooms and get a Canon EOS5D

Quoted again for more truthiness.

[airfrogusmc]

Its simple physics every time you add a piece of glass you add another problem.

I can tell you if you use a 35 1.4L or and 851.2L you will see a difference in sharpness. And the 24 1.4 L is super. The distortion is very slight for such a wide lens. Way better than any zoom. Worth every nickel.

But the real benefit is the 5Ds full frame sensor. And the noise is so much less at high iso than the D20. And when I shoot at 50 iso a can get sharpness that equals medium format film.

[Carl]

The stuff hes talking about buying adds up to around 2000, give or take.

What you suggested is gonna hit 8000.

Hmmmmm.

Sure, money on glass is money well spent, but if he's just starting to get into photography whats the point of dropping a nice used car on gear? Doesnt make any sense to me.

And as good as your 5D may look at 1600 i bet you couldnt tell the difference between those and my 20d pictures at 1600 with noise ninja. And i saved a shit load of money :D

[airfrogusmc]

The stuff hes talking about buying adds up to around 2000, give or take.

What you suggested is gonna hit 8000.

Hmmmmm.

Sure, money on glass is money well spent, but if he's just starting to get into photography whats the point of dropping a nice used car on gear? Doesnt make any sense to me.

And as good as your 5D may look at 1600 i bet you couldnt tell the difference between those and my 20d pictures at 1600 with noise ninja. And i saved a shit load of money :D


Actually I can at 1600 and can really at 3200 and the most important part so can my clients. I have a 20D also.

[drapygo]

Haha, me too, I'm going to buy a DSLR soon, after I save up money after I buy turntables. For me, I looked through and did a Canon vs. Nikon. And I ended up going for Nikon.

Nikon has beginner, middle, pro, lenses, and Canon has beginner, pro lenses. So Canon is more expensive in lenses. From what I see online, Canon has cheaper body, but more expensive lenses and Nikon is the other way around. But it all depends. I think Canon is better for shooting stuff like Sports, fast movement things. Nikon is good all around. Canon is also good all around but probably especially good in fast moveing stuff.

For me, I'm aiming for a Nikon D80 kit. With whatever lenses the give me, and stick with that until I know my camera better. As for the flash, I'm aiming for a 'Nikon SB-600.'

Well, good luck making up your mind. lol

[Carl]

Actually I can at 1600 and can really at 3200 and the most important part so can my clients. I have a 20D also.

Only a fool would shoot at 3200. But im sure you know that.

And at 1600 with noise ninja i seriously doubt you could tell the difference.

[airfrogusmc]

One thing that is important to me is a full frame sensor because I don't want my 35mm lens to become a 58mm lens and Canon is the only digital camera with a full frame sensor. The EOS1DS Mark II and the EOS5D are the only ones.

[airfrogusmc]

I guess I'm a fool cause I shoot all the time at 3200 and get beautiful 8X10s without allot of noise with the 5D. Can't do it with the 20 D though. Its great shooting candids without a flash. You become quite invisable. Here ya go 3200 shot with room light custom white ballance 1/100 of a sec 85mm lens at f 1.2. Not bad huh?
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/Santalamplowjpg.jpg

[Carl]

I guess I'm a fool cause I shoot all the time at 3200 and get beautiful 8X10s without allot of noise with the 5D. Can't do it with the 20 D though. Its great shooting candids without a flash. You become quite invisable. Here ya go 3200 shot with room light custom white ballance 1/100 of a sec 85mm lens at f 1.2. Not bad huh?
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/Santalamplowjpg.jpg

Ummm. I didnt want to do this but...ouch:

Date: 12/18/05
Time: 8:20:14 AM
Model: Canon EOS 5D
Serial #:
Firmware: Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Frame #:
Lens (mm): 85
ISO: 200
Aperture: 1.2
Shutter: 1/125
Exp. Comp.: 0.0
Flash Comp.:
Program: Manual
Focus Mode:
White Bal.:
ICC Profile: sRGB IEC61966-2.1 (embedded)
Contrast:
Sharpening:
Quality:



Not that i dont believe you. Ive used a 5d at 3200 and enjoy the results. I just think the differences are miniscule.

[airfrogusmc]

OOPPPS sorry try these
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/FromMacNealdinner1-062.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/FromMacNealdinner1-066.jpg

[airfrogusmc]

And a couple more
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/IMG_3690.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/04candidfromCDH2-11.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/05candidfromCDH2-11.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/10Guzman.jpg

[lentes]

Only a fool would shoot at 3200.

Carl, do you mind explaining why?

[drapygo]

Wow, those images look like they are from a movie. Pretty nice stuff.

[airfrogusmc]

Thanks. See you can shoot at 3200 if you have the right stuff.

[Carl]

Carl, do you mind explaining why?

Image quality. Skin tone looks horrible. Image noise. If your going to use 3200 either learn to hand hold a longer exposure at 1600 or learn to use bounce flash.


airfrog - I noticed you shot alot of those at 1/100 f1.6 at 3200. Why not just shoot at 1/80th f1.2 at 1600?

[simcoo]

For me, I'm aiming for a Nikon D80 kit. With whatever lenses the give me, and stick with that until I know my camera better. As for the flash, I'm aiming for a 'Nikon SB-600.'

Well, good luck making up your mind. lol


I would say, go for the sb800 if you can, its a long term investment, wth the cls and higher powers

[sidneylo]

For me, I looked through and did a Canon vs. Nikon. And I ended up going for Nikon.

Nikon has beginner, middle, pro, lenses, and Canon has beginner, pro lenses. So Canon is more expensive in lenses. From what I see online, Canon has cheaper body, but more expensive lenses and Nikon is the other way around. But it all depends. I think Canon is better for shooting stuff like Sports, fast movement things. Nikon is good all around. Canon is also good all around but probably especially good in fast moveing stuff.

Mmmm the infamous Canon vs. Nikon debate... :cool:

[RAISED BY WOLVES]

nothing...., and I mean NOTHING, pleases me more than seeing Carl get on his photography high horse. 'Till the blood sheds and the guts spill.

[airfrogusmc]

Well heres another one for Carl. Taken at night on the streets in Key West a month or so ago. Remember these are all very low res JPGS. Nothing anywhere near what a client would receive.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/IMG_5683-1.jpg

Its all in the sensor and the glass. Spend the $$$ and you'll never regret it. I would never get results like this from my 20D.

[airfrogusmc]

Image quality. Skin tone looks horrible. Image noise. If your going to use 3200 either learn to hand hold a longer exposure at 1600 or learn to use bounce flash.


airfrog - I noticed you shot alot of those at 1/100 f1.6 at 3200. Why not just shoot at 1/80th f1.2 at 1600?

Skin tones and noise are horrible? I prefer these to bounced flash as do my clients. They have a more real fell to them don't you think. Flash is such an unnatural light source even bounced.

[Carl]

nothing...., and I mean NOTHING, pleases me more than seeing Carl get on his photography high horse. 'Till the blood sheds and the guts spill.

Oh piss off. You know its gonna happen so why complain about it. All im doing here is trying to save people from spending an exorbent amount of money and explain to Airfrog that his so called technical limitations are really horse shit.

Case in point, the last picture he posted from key west. 1/125 F2.0 at 3200 using a 85mm 1.2

Why not, for the sake of picture quality because that is what we are talking about here, just shoot it at 1/125 F1.2 at 1600? Just out of simple curiosity? Hell, its over exposed by almost a good stop anyway, you could take that shit down to 800iso. This could easily be acheived with a 20d.

And bounce flash gets crappy results? Not if you know how to use it properly. Throw two amber filters on your flash, dial that shit down to 1/16th, and dont stand next to walls. Viola!

And arifrog, do you shoot weddings? Post some of your stuff in the official photography thread, id love to see it.

[airfrogusmc]

No weddings only corporate work. I shoot manually and over exposed? Your talking to an large fomat zone system guy and you no better than to judge an image on a screen cause they're are way to many variables.

Because I'm shooting things as they happen I don't have the luxury of changing my ISO with every shot. I, like any other guy worth his wait will find the low point in the room (exposure speaking) and work up from there.

And if you going to qoute me oh photo guru quote me right.
"They have a more real fell to them don't you think. Flash is such an unnatural light source even bounced." is what I said. I didn't say crappy. I've shot more rolls of both medium format and 35mm format than you bought in your lifetime using bounce light and what I said is it does't look natural. When you look at people in a room your eye see them in the artificial light of that room. A flash is suddenly the same light for every image which is not not the case with the ambient light which to me is far more interesting and the way your eye sees it but be careful my photo God friend it takes allot more skill than setting your camera on auto and letting her go.

[Dick Danger]

I don't know what the fuck you guys are talking about, and I'm not sure I care. I just want a cam that will take pics that don't make my butt look big.


And the M8, cos it looks cool.

[insidertrading]

fucking nikon D70 broke down after no more than two years usage and i didn't buy an extended warranty... what the shit?

if it costs too much to repair, i might end up switching over canon side and pick me up an EOS-5D. contemplating still, but the 5D's lookin mighty tempting.

[airfrogusmc]

fucking nikon D70 broke down after no more than two years usage and i didn't buy an extended warranty... what the shit?

if it costs too much to repair, i might end up switching over canon side and pick me up an EOS-5D. contemplating still, but the 5D's lookin mighty tempting.

Seems like my post disappeared into the void. If it double posts I apologize in advance.
I have a good friend that works for Calumet and about a year and a half ago I was getting ready to pull the trigger on the EOS1Ds MarkII and she told me Canon was about to introduce the 5D and I should hold off. It had all the things that were important to me and it was half the price of the EOS1Ds MarkII. Spot meter and full frame chip were two features that were deal closers. I'd say if you can swing it you will not be disappointed.

Dick noth'n like a Leica rangefinder.

[airfrogusmc]

Oh piss off. You know its gonna happen so why complain about it. All im doing here is trying to save people from spending an exorbent amount of money and explain to Airfrog that his so called technical limitations are really horse shit.

Case in point, the last picture he posted from key west. 1/125 F2.0 at 3200 using a 85mm 1.2

Why not, for the sake of picture quality because that is what we are talking about here, just shoot it at 1/125 F1.2 at 1600? Just out of simple curiosity? Hell, its over exposed by almost a good stop anyway, you could take that shit down to 800iso. This could easily be acheived with a 20d.

And bounce flash gets crappy results? Not if you know how to use it properly. Throw two amber filters on your flash, dial that shit down to 1/16th, and dont stand next to walls. Viola!

And arifrog, do you shoot weddings? Post some of your stuff in the official photography thread, id love to see it.


Hey Carl I posted.

Would you like to continue pointing out my technical limitations?

[Carl]

Hey Carl I posted.

Would you like to continue pointing out my technical limitations?

Hmmm, i was gonna let this one go and let you sit around with your dry corporate work but since your being a prick about it, why not?

Lets see, you posted 6 pictures in this thread. One out of every three are overexposed:

His shirt, her name tag
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/FromMacNealdinner1-062.jpg

And most of the left side of the frame
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/10Guzman.jpg


What i stated about the other pictures, changing your ISO and shooting on the corresponding exposure, is not rocket science and to a "Professional" photographer should be something that you are thinking about constantly and at the same time, not at all. Technical photography should never hold someone back, but at the same time it should be something accomplished effortlessly and with the highest quality results as the end product. Thus, as you are a professional photographer, you and i both know that shooting at 1600 compared to 3200 makes a difference. Doesnt matter if its corporate work or personal work (speaking of which, post some of this, as you apparently work in a semi-documentary way).

By all means, use the zone system metering and apply it to b/w film. Its certainly the way to use it. But when using digital (just like slide), if your not directly exposing for the high light, then 95% of the time your going to overexpose some part of your picture. So called "variables" should not come into issue when showing your work on the computer. I agree with you too, you probably have bought more film in your lifetime. Ive only been shooting for two years and by no means know everything there is to know about photography, but i understand digital photography and how to make it look good on the computer.

And once again with there are ways of making lit pictures look natural. Look at Lauren Greenfield or Jodi Cobb's work. Both use flash in simple but effective ways.

This whole thing got started on an innocent, but obviously ill advised, comment on how someone should most likely save there money and purchase a 20d, which i still think they should. And from looking at most of your posts in other photography threads they lead me to believe you are quite the gear head. Which is all well and good, but it is certainly the photographer that produces the work, not the gear...no?

[airfrogusmc]

Carl when you are a pro you should never have to think about technology. It should all be second nature. You should be responding to the subject and not to your equipment. Also a photographer should never be limited by his equipment. By looking at your images you certainly have allot about learn about using your flash.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/sy8p42.jpg
Whats up with all those funky shadows on the guys face in the back and the kid on the right?
If you had any real knowledge of the zone system you would also know that knowing exposure and how the film/sensor is responding to light is just another control and the principles do work with digital color. It allows you to make decisions about whats important to the image. Man you got allot to learn. You are far to green to be so arrogant.

A little quote by Edward Steichen.
"Destructive loss of freedom comes from an overflow of egoism, when it spills over and expresses itself as conceit."

[Carl]

Un-toned photo. No flash used. The shadow is being cast over his face by the 16 year old in the fronts hat/head. It is lighted by a bare bulb light source to the lower left side of the frame. Here is the properly toned photo:

http://i14.tinypic.com/2u5c2th.jpg


Honestly, dont know much about the zone system. I understand the basic principles of it. I shoot almost all digital now, its pretty much how photojournalism is run these days. As such, i understand one of the key basic principles of digital capture, expose for the highlight.

And as far as being green and argonant...yep, ill admit it, I am. I could use a bit more modesty, but ive also accomoplished a great bit in a short period of time.

[Analog]

Sorry to jump in like this, but I have a genuine question for those who have posted in this thread so far : do any of you make money from your equipment? I mean, are you professionally paid photographers? Airfrog has mentioned "clients" so I assume he is - how about the rest of you?

[Dick Danger]

but ive also accomoplished a great bit in a short period of time


When you have to go around telling people how good you are, you aren't as good as you think you are.

[masuerte]

nice... like we need anymore truisms that do not contribute to this board.

Carl and froggie, love your banter but we are far far from helping out the OP by this third page.

....

but then again, alot of help was already offered on the first page. This thread reminds me of the dior/apc fits threads now ^_^

[Dick Danger]

I'll take your word for it, I never click on those threads. Well, I had to post in the APC thread once, you know, to keep up appearances.

[sidneylo]

I just read this little discussion here... and it just gave me a hard on--in a techy photography kind of way, of course...

[Carl]

When you have to go around telling people how good you are, you aren't as good as you think you are.

I understand it appears this way, but please believe me when i tell you that in person this couldnt be farther from the truth, i was merely replying to his green comment.

Sorry to jump in like this, but I have a genuine question for those who have posted in this thread so far : do any of you make money from your equipment? I mean, are you professionally paid photographers? Airfrog has mentioned "clients" so I assume he is - how about the rest of you?

I wouldnt call myself a "professional" but i just finished up 6 months worth of internships at two newspapers. I made peanuts compared to what im guessing most people make on this board. I love photography in almost undescribeable way. The joy i get from being able to explore an region/town/city/home is unmatched. I get up every day more excited to go to work then the day before.

And mas, his question was answered already...im just being a dick:D

Plus we at least have an understanding audience of one, albeit with a technical boner, haha

[airfrogusmc]

Alright Carl keep at it Grasshopper you show some promise if you could ever get over yourself but as you should know NEVER judge an image on a computer screen. Both of those images you called out had plenty of detail on the raw images. The one posted are VERY LOW res JPGS. I also took her name off her tag in photoshop.

A couple of books to check out if you are really interested in improving your tech skills. (Zone system)
Ansel Adams books
The Camera
The Negative
The Print
all are good but the negative is probably the most important in regards to understanding exposure.
Photographers to check out
Bruce Davidson and a book called "Subway"
Walker Evans the book "America" or any of the other FSA photographers
Robert Franks book "The Americans"
Ansel Adams book "Yosemite and the Range of Light"
Henri Cartier-Bresson
Edward Weston

Also the main reason I thought you had a flash off camera and low and to your left is you saw those shadows and still shot the image? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. With the flash you wouldn't have been able to see the shadows before you shot. Also it was such a harsh light source. The newspapers are not known for giving photographers good solid tech backgrounds. They are more about just get the image not about quality of the image. One of my professors always said "photojournalism ain't art it just getting the photo".

[nairb49]

Phew. I'm in waaaaaay over my head reading these posts.

Someday, I'll come back here and understand some of it....

[sidneylo]

Skin tones and noise are horrible? I prefer these to bounced flash as do my clients. They have a more real fell to them don't you think. Flash is such an unnatural light source even bounced.

Yeah, I think sometimes bounce flash can be a bit overdone... I wonder, since most of my technique is self-taught--is there an alternative use to the bounce flash to create a balance between natural tones and easy, effective lighting with a bounce flash?

First thing that comes to mind is compensating with a longer exposure and dialing back on the bounce flash by half or a full stop? Smeh--I'm no good at sexy photo talk. I just do it.

Here's a bouncy flash picture. I might have had a tiny strobe lightbulb too... I forget. But for the most part, flash and store lighting.

http://www.sidneylophoto.com/images/portfolio/01.jpg

[airfrogusmc]

Sydney thats stuff rocks. The biggest achievement in my opinion is when the first reaction of people looking at a portrait that you've taken is man that really looks like the person. Its when you can capture that intangible, that thing that separates a good portrait from a great one. When you capture a truth about your subject and also a truth about yourself as a photographer. An honesty if you will.
Heres a quote from Ansel Adams that sums it all up.
"A great photograph is a full expression of what one feels about what is being photographed in the deepest sense, and is, thereby, a true expression of what one feels about life in its entirety."
That pretty much sums up most art forms.

[Carl]

Alright Carl keep at it Grasshopper you show some promise if you could ever get over yourself but as you should know NEVER judge an image on a computer screen. Both of those images you called out had plenty of detail on the raw images. The one posted are VERY LOW res JPGS. I also took her name off her tag in photoshop.

A couple of books to check out if you are really interested in improving your tech skills. (Zone system)
Ansel Adams books
The Camera
The Negative
The Print
all are good but the negative is probably the most important in regards to understanding exposure.
Photographers to check out
Bruce Davidson and a book called "Subway"
Walker Evans the book "America" or any of the other FSA photographers
Robert Franks book "The Americans"
Ansel Adams book "Yosemite and the Range of Light"
Henri Cartier-Bresson
Edward Weston

Also the main reason I thought you had a flash off camera and low and to your left is you saw those shadows and still shot the image? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. With the flash you wouldn't have been able to see the shadows before you shot. Also it was such a harsh light source. The newspapers are not known for giving photographers good solid tech backgrounds. They are more about just get the image not about quality of the image. One of my professors always said "photojournalism ain't art it just getting the photo".

Boy id love to have a long and heated discussion with whoever your prof was, haha.

I believe that without a doubt photojournalism to be not only the most important art form but also a myriad of other things. The recording of history, the telling of a story through photographs, unearthing social and economic injustice (Salgados brazilian mine photos immediately come to mind), and at many times the truest form of human expression. In an unaltered a 1/250th of a second the best photojournalists are able to capture pictures that run the gaunlet of emotion, symbolism, and narative. Teachers are the only profession in the world I hold in higher regards then photojournalists.

In a just world James Nachtwey would be mentioned in the same breath as Picasso and Da Vinci.

As far as "technical" photography goes i do agree with you that probably 95% of all newspaper photographers lack basic technical skills. I prefer to shoot outdoors in sunlight which results in one standard exposure for the entire day, save about 20 minutes. Even flourescent light indoors results in a fairly standard exposure (1/60th 2.8 at 400).

Besides the three Adams books (ive paged through the negative) i either own or have extensively looked at every book and/or photographer you mentioned. I ask you then to search out and look at some of these:

Antonin Kratochvil - Broken Dream
Alex Webb - From The Sunshine State
James Nachtwey - Inferno
David Alan Harvey - Cuba
Alex Majoli - Leros
Constantine Manos - American Color
Sebastio Salgado - Migrations (and if youve seent his please agree with me that this thing needs some serious editing work...but fuck if you cut out half the pictures this would be damn near a photo Bible)

You obviously know your photography. Please post more of your work in the Official Photo post.


Sid - When shooting "documentary" work...dial it down by at least a stop and put two amber filters over your flash. It hasnt failed me yet, granted that set-up comes out about once in a blue moon.

[nairb49]

Terrific stuff guys. quick noob question, do you most of you guys shoot all your stuff in RAW, then adjust white balance etc. in photoshop afterwards?

[Carl]

Terrific stuff guys. quick noob question, do you most of you guys shoot all your stuff in RAW, then adjust white balance etc. in photoshop afterwards?

Yep. RAW is really the only way to shoot. Much more latitude in tonign then a jpeg file. If you have the storage space and PS with the RAW converter plug-in, then RAW is the way to go.

[Dick Danger]

What about cams that store RAW+JPEG at the same time?

[Carl]

What about cams that store RAW+JPEG at the same time?

Thats what I shoot with when Im on an internship. The newspaper only needs the jpeg file and i store the RAW for my personal use. Its the best of both worlds.

[airfrogusmc]

Boy id love to have a long and heated discussion with whoever your prof was, haha.

I believe that without a doubt photojournalism to be not only the most important art form but also a myriad of other things. The recording of history, the telling of a story through photographs, unearthing social and economic injustice (Salgados brazilian mine photos immediately come to mind), and at many times the truest form of human expression. In an unaltered a 1/250th of a second the best photojournalists are able to capture pictures that run the gaunlet of emotion, symbolism, and narative. Teachers are the only profession in the world I hold in higher regards then photojournalists.

In a just world James Nachtwey would be mentioned in the same breath as Picasso and Da Vinci.

As far as "technical" photography goes i do agree with you that probably 95% of all newspaper photographers lack basic technical skills. I prefer to shoot outdoors in sunlight which results in one standard exposure for the entire day, save about 20 minutes. Even flourescent light indoors results in a fairly standard exposure (1/60th 2.8 at 400).

Besides the three Adams books (ive paged through the negative) i either own or have extensively looked at every book and/or photographer you mentioned. I ask you then to search out and look at some of these:

Antonin Kratochvil - Broken Dream
Alex Webb - From The Sunshine State
James Nachtwey - Inferno
David Alan Harvey - Cuba
Alex Majoli - Leros
Constantine Manos - American Color
Sebastio Salgado - Migrations (and if youve seent his please agree with me that this thing needs some serious editing work...but fuck if you cut out half the pictures this would be damn near a photo Bible)

You obviously know your photography. Please post more of your work in the Official Photo post.


Sid - When shooting "documentary" work...dial it down by at least a stop and put two amber filters over your flash. It hasnt failed me yet, granted that set-up comes out about once in a blue moon.

I'm not sure I would put photojournalists and documentary photographers in the same category. Usually photojournalists live and die on one shot while documentary photographers work on bodies of work. Some of my favorites are Dorothea Lange, Walker Evans, (all the FSA stuff) Robert Frank, Diane Arbus shit this list could go on all night.

One photojournalist that was an artist in my opinion was Arthur Fellig. Some of the war photographers like Capa and w.Eugene Smith though that later more a documentary photographer.

I shoot mostly raw also but that depends on what the client needs but all of my personal work is shot raw. I always custom white balance and refine the image in photoshop. CS 2 lets you import raw directly.

I put some of my B&W images in the Photography post Vol 2. I have some fairly recent stuff I'll try and post in the next few days.

[airfrogusmc]

Carl after looking at some more of your images I really feel you are doing yourself a disservice by not getting a 1DsMarkII or a 5D. With all the wide angle suff you shoot you would really benifit from a full frame sensor and a 35 1.4L and a 24 1.4L. I have both the 20D and 5D and have shot with the 1DsMarkII and the sensor in those cameras does make a big difference.

[sidneylo]

Carl after looking at some more of your images I really feel you are doing yourself a disservice by not getting a 1DsMarkII or a 5D. With all the wide angle suff you shoot you would really benifit from a full frame sensor and a 35 1.4L and a 24 1.4L. I have both the 20D and 5D and have shot with the 1DsMarkII and the sensor in those cameras does make a big difference.

Yeah... I would second that statement with the fact that I was never really satisfied with my 17-40L on my 20D until I got to shoot it FF with my 5D. That shit is WIDE--vignetting and all. It's made more use out of my shorter lenses.

I always thought I was in a weird position with my short lenses + the 1.5x crop.

[Servo2000]

This thread is confusing, frightening, and for some strange reason extremely exciting.

[Carl]

I'm not sure I would put photojournalists and documentary photographers in the same category. Usually photojournalists live and die on one shot while documentary photographers work on bodies of work. Some of my favorites are Dorothea Lange, Walker Evans, (all the FSA stuff) Robert Frank, Diane Arbus shit this list could go on all night.

One photojournalist that was an artist in my opinion was Arthur Fellig. Some of the war photographers like Capa and w.Eugene Smith though that later more a documentary photographer.

Yeah, i guess my personal distinction between photojournalists and documentarians is quite small. I almost use the two words interchangeably. I believe both can and do achieve what the other sets out to do.

I wouldnt even classify what i do as either/or. I hold up to a photojournalists set of ethics and a documentary photographers sense of the "long term project", but like many photographers of humanity i prefer to be called just simply a photographer.

Carl after looking at some more of your images I really feel you are doing yourself a disservice by not getting a 1DsMarkII or a 5D. With all the wide angle suff you shoot you would really benifit from a full frame sensor and a 35 1.4L and a 24 1.4L. I have both the 20D and 5D and have shot with the 1DsMarkII and the sensor in those cameras does make a big difference.

If only i wernt a poor, starving college student...

Id love to have a cool four grand for a 5D and a 35 1.4, but with student loans fast approaching and a crippling addiction to ebay its just not in the cards.

As much as I dream for that set-up my 20d and 20 2.8 is working just fine for me. Gotta find someone to loan me 300 dollars so i can get the 85 1.8.

I am also a firm beliver that zoom lenses make lazy photographers, take that for what you will.

[poly800rock]

nothing...., and I mean NOTHING, pleases me more than seeing Carl get on his photography high horse. 'Till the blood sheds and the guts spill.

hahahahha...it's funny how everything seems pedestrian to photojournalism.

[Carl]

hahahahha...it's funny how everything seems pedestrian to photojournalism.

You know what poly? I think when you compare it to work such as this...it really is.

http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/07/12/nyregion/12ask.slide6.jpg


Just my opinion though.

[sidneylo]

I am also a firm beliver that zoom lenses make lazy photographers, take that for what you will.

Agreed.

Although I will say that there is justifiable reasoning for purchasing a zoom--if you're interested in fashion type stuff, portraits with longer zooms like the 70-200mm 2.8L I bought create a nice effect with the compression of the background in relation to the subject. :)

[poly800rock]

You know what poly? I think when you compare it to work such as this...it really is.

http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/07/12/nyregion/12ask.slide6.jpg


Just my opinion though.

photography is arguably the most significant art form in the past 150 years, you would be hard pressed to find someone to argue that point. but the differentiation between documentary and photojournalism while small is vastly different. i guess i have more of a problem with taking things serious that try and make you "feel" art as opposed to just giving you the statement. my opinion though. sure others have differing opinions.

[airfrogusmc]

Yeah, i guess my personal distinction between photojournalists and documentarians is quite small. I almost use the two words interchangeably. I believe both can and do achieve what the other sets out to do.

It is a fine line.

I wouldnt even classify what i do as either/or. I hold up to a photojournalists set of ethics and a documentary photographers sense of the "long term project", but like many photographers of humanity i prefer to be called just simply a photographer.

Classifactions are for the left brain world to try and understand what most creatives don't need words for.



If only i wernt a poor, starving college student...

Id love to have a cool four grand for a 5D and a 35 1.4, but with student loans fast approaching and a crippling addiction to ebay its just not in the cards.

As much as I dream for that set-up my 20d and 20 2.8 is working just fine for me. Gotta find someone to loan me 300 dollars so i can get the 85 1.8.

I am also a firm beliver that zoom lenses make lazy photographers, take that for what you will.

Zooms "make lazy photographers" is so true. I do not own one.