GKPE: Serious Photography Thread

Mediation wrote in post #5372034
Cheers guys. Im back from tonight event in the museum. I met the official photographer of the Auckland Museum. He takes photos of everything to do with the museum and has got heaps of books out. 16 years for the museum. I watched him do studio portrait shots. The museum has this awesome photography office with all this cool equipment.

He shoots with a Canon 1dsmk2 and is going to get a 1dsmk3. He taught me some little things. Showed me heaps of photographs and around. He also loves pro-gear And yeah.. Was a fantastic experience. He said the next time I see him he will show me around the museum

So how did your photos come out?

weka2000 wrote in post #5372039
So how did your photos come out?

meh, it was very formal. Ill see what is good.

Mark Vuleta wrote in post #5372016
Hi Chris
Couple of things before people get sick of this discussion:

Your lightroom example is out because your trying to adjust a "blown" out (for want of a better word) "colour" (and again for the want of a better word) with the values of 0,0,0.

This actually doesn't have any colour information in it & therefor can not be adjusted. Try it again with anything other than values of no colour information.

I also did a practical test with both a white card & a 18% grey card, setting CWB for each and the results were identical, both gave more or less perfect adjusted final results! Go figure?

I did try to find Canon's white paper on their white balance system to see exactly how they operate it but I couldn't find it.

lol --- yes they will be getting sick of it but hey its not talking about cars or hd tvs.....

that was the point of using white in the experiment... it limits your ability to adjust the image... by using a positive colour say r1 g1 b1 it would be very easy to blow this out and cause a perfect white... - you would also be looking to 'white balance' a colour that is not white so you will get a colour inconsistence. this is why the standard is as 19% grey card to which you can accurately calibrate too.. however as i said yesterday there is no reason why you cant use any colour... as long as you have a correct reference to calibrate to.... I think the key is to get it as close to the way the photographer saw it on the day... and therefore this can only be used as a bench mark and not the rule...

speaking of calibration - i need to do my screen so i will hopefully pick up a tool tomorrow to do this - and i will have a sneaky play with the 1dsmk3..

Mediation wrote in post #5372063
meh, it was very formal. Ill see what is good.

this is good - but also look at what did not work and post an example here.... then try to work out what went wrong with it and how you could get it better..

This would be a much more fulfilling exercise to do... however post your good stuff too as i personally would like to see how you handling the 1ds in different conditions..

Nzshrimper wrote in post #5372064
speaking of calibration - i need to do my screen so i will hopefully pick up a tool tomorrow to do this - and i will have a sneaky play with the 1dsmk3..

That will be $50 bucks & a case of Baileys please

Nzshrimper wrote in post #5372064
that was the point of using white in the experiment... it limits your ability to adjust the image... by using a positive colour say r1 g1 b1 it would be very easy to blow this out and cause a perfect white... -

Yep, that was the reason I was trying to find Canon's White Paper on the subject as when you do the CWB, it doesn't convert your subject to pure white, its somewhat below that, which does give you a bit of lea-way. Just how much I can't find out at present.

I dont know if im allowed to share them. Well. Im not. But yeee. Shh

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

So Matt - how would you have liked to improve them... ?
and what do you think now you could have done to improve them ?

Nzshrimper wrote in post #5372140
So Matt - how would you have liked to improve them... ?
and what do you think now you could have done to improve them ?

I would have liked to be able to just go right upto them and take a photo. But it was not like that. You had to keep your distance.

I wish I could get more stuck in. But the lighting was just so bad. I think I could have improved them if I could get closer to people without feeling invasive. If I could get closer Then I could have used a better apeture and concentrate on the face and subject.

Event photography is bloody difficult. You get thrown into the most awkward situation in the worsest photographic lighting. But really. I didnt really take many shots because I knew they were just turning out too dark.

I looked at my histograms and I got a "half hill", meaning the light side of the graph was way down. Meh. Many excuses.

ok - a flash is one thing that would have helped here a lot....
you also shot the portrait shot at f3.5 - any reason for this ? your lens is f1.8. (DOF maybe ?)
yep they are dark but no flash you were always going to fighting up hill.

but its an experience that you will learn from and develop - next time you will not be so awkward and more relaxed. This will also show in your images.

But you have a grasp of the basics and in your second post you have highlighted the issues that you have... to me then that says you have already learned from the experience and this is great..

I do think in a couple of months you should get some better glass and a flash - but thats in the future..

Also good on you for posting them. yes they are not perfect but you know that and also know how to improve them, hopefully others here will have a few more tips too...

Nzshrimper wrote in post #5372178
ok - a flash is one thing that would have helped here a lot....
you also shot the portrait shot at f3.5 - any reason for this ? your lens is f1.8. (DOF maybe ?)

At F3.5 the DOF is already getting a little shallow, at F1.8 it would have been far to shallow.


Matt, I think it is a nice photo if you look at how the light illustrates the subject.
The problem is the subject. The hardest part of this sort of photography is not catching people in odd poses, positions of facial expressions, and showing.
In this case it looks like he is polishing something with his hanky that he really should not do at a public event.

I used F3.5 because the 50mm DOF is so thin. Yeah its a good experience. Having the right tools is a handy sort of thing.

In terms of equipment. I sort of miss wide but I also want to explore prime. I really wanted to get the 17-40mm F4L. But now I would like to explore another prime lens perhaps. But wider. I want a versitile, fast prime. 24mm,28mm F1.8 USM, 35mm. Hmm.

Not sure really. I want something that is wide but also a fast prime. Best option ive seen so far is the Canon EF 28mm F1.8.

Mediation wrote in post #5372286
I used F3.5 because the 50mm DOF is so thin. Yeah its a good experience. Having the right tools is a handy sort of thing.

In terms of equipment. I sort of miss wide but I also want to explore prime. I really wanted to get the 17-40mm F4L. But now I would like to explore another prime lens perhaps. But wider. I want a versitile, fast prime. 24mm,28mm F1.8 USM, 35mm. Hmm.

Not sure really. I want something that is wide but also a fast prime. Best option ive seen so far is the Canon EF 28mm F1.8.

In my needs now I am wanting the 35L prime. very nice lens I want to use it for indoor kind of thing or landscapes etc. I like that lens..


Photo before I go to bed

EDIT- cropped almost 100%. 70-200+ 2x. at 385mm.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Matt,

Just been on your photo blog excellent pictures. Top Work mate!.

40D + bigma, as shot except for resize...

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.