I am a professional photographer... ask me anything - Page 5 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

sketchyt · 10-09-2012, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neeper

But with my experience, I bring a calming influence for the couple as well, which I think helps everyone involved.

This is so critical for weddings. The ones I've shot, I feel like I greatly accelerated the greying hair process.

Here's a question for you. I've got a D3 with the usual FX lenses. However, I've got a D300 with DX lenses from way, way back that was initially intended to be a backup camera but has lasted all the way to the FX era.

I still use it as a back up or secondary camera mostly with a 17-55 2.8 or a 12-24 for grit & grin type shots. It still has its use but I'm really pushing it now.

Sell it (proceeds won't be enough for a D800) or keep it?

DuffMan · 10-09-2012, 02:53 PM

Here's some of my work. Do you think I could become a wedding photographer professionally?

Regulator75 · 10-09-2012, 02:58 PM

Well, it is hosted from youarenotaphotographer.com - so, I'll say no. lol

DuffMan · 10-09-2012, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regulator75

Well, it is hosted from youarenotaphotographer.com - so, I'll say no. lol

Yeah, that was an easy one.

TheGrimm · 10-09-2012, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Here's some of my work. Do you think I could become a wedding photographer professionally?

My favorite part is the demon summoning circle on the door.

Neeper · 10-09-2012, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sketchyt

This is so critical for weddings. The ones I've shot, I feel like I greatly accelerated the greying hair process.

Here's a question for you. I've got a D3 with the usual FX lenses. However, I've got a D300 with DX lenses from way, way back that was initially intended to be a backup camera but has lasted all the way to the FX era.

I still use it as a back up or secondary camera mostly with a 17-55 2.8 or a 12-24 for grit & grin type shots. It still has its use but I'm really pushing it now.

Sell it (proceeds won't be enough for a D800) or keep it?

Sell it and get some more glass! Do you need 2 bodies?

Neeper · 10-09-2012, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Here's some of my work. Do you think I could become a wedding photographer professionally?

I would watch the shadows under the eyes. Easy fix would be to ask her to tilt her face up a bit to fill in the shadows.

I would also be aware of your surroundings too, like the Satanic star behind her! Other than that, you're on your way haha.

SebC · 10-09-2012, 03:55 PM

Why do I find it so damn hard to get my .NEFs to looks at least as good as my SooC .JPGs?

DownhillGoat · 10-09-2012, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SebC

Why do I find it so damn hard to get my .NEFs to looks at least as good as my SooC .JPGs?

Seconded. I have a heck of a time getting my raws not to look grainy.

Neeper · 10-09-2012, 04:05 PM

Some Nikon gear porn...

I also have an 85mm 1.4 lens that I bought after this photo was taken. I don't know how after all these years I did not have an 85mm 1.4. It's my new money lens.

This is the Nikon stuff in my bag. I also use a Quantum TD5r and radio poppers to fire them all.

Neeper · 10-09-2012, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SebC

Why do I find it so damn hard to get my .NEFs to looks at least as good as my SooC .JPGs?

Really????? Man, I have no idea. I have never had an issue with my raws looking bad, unless it was bad SOOC (straight out of camera) to being with.

Neeper · 10-09-2012, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

Seconded. I have a heck of a time getting my raws not to look grainy.

That's really interesting. Is it always grainy no matter what ISO you shoot at?

SebC · 10-09-2012, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neeper

Really????? Man, I have no idea. I have never had an issue with my raws looking bad, unless it was bad SOOC (straight out of camera) to being with.

A few specific issues I've run into:
- can't get the chromatic aberration correction as good as it is in jpg
- colour and contrast curves look more natural in the jpg defaults
- in-camera sharpening is pretty good, difficult to find a sweet spot in LR that doesn't look over-sharpened or soft

bizaro86 · 10-09-2012, 04:38 PM

I have an Olympus E-510, which is a four thirds sensor camera. I'm looking at getting a new lens for shooting real estate shots. Anyone have any thoughts on how wide I need to go to get a whole room nicely? Especially interested in comments from the person upthread who shoots architecture.

I would prefer not to get a new body, because I already have a few telephoto lenses for this camera that I bought when I went on safari...

Neeper · 10-09-2012, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SebC

A few specific issues I've run into:
- can't get the chromatic aberration correction as good as it is in jpg
- colour and contrast curves look more natural in the jpg defaults
- in-camera sharpening is pretty good, difficult to find a sweet spot in LR that doesn't look over-sharpened or soft

What kind of settings do you have on your camera in the settings menu? Do you have stuff like contrast bumped, custom curves, in camera sharpening, d-lighting turned on? For me, I basically put everything at zero. I shoot only raw, in fact, I haven't shot jpg for many years. I prefer to do it stuff in post than SOOC. Maybe the jpgs, once all compressed down, looks less "RAW" because the camera finished the image? And the RAW looks really raw because its not compressed?

Getting the exposure dead on or close to it would really help as well. How are your exposures SOOC?

DownhillGoat · 10-09-2012, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neeper

That's really interesting. Is it always grainy no matter what ISO you shoot at?

100 ISO in bright daylight is still grainy. One lens I have seems worse for it, but they all do to some degree. Same as SebC mentioned. Tough to find a point that doesn't look over-sharpened or soft. Whereas the jpg version (I have the camera set up in raw + jpeg mode) doesn't look grainy.

Here's an example:

JPEG:

RAW: (Default sharpening/noise reduction settings, Photoshop CS5)
(blues and vibrant greens seem to be the worst culprits)

If I crank up the noise reduction (luminance) it helps, but at sacrifice of clarity.

SebC · 10-09-2012, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neeper

What kind of settings do you have on your camera in the settings menu? Do you have stuff like contrast bumped, custom curves, in camera sharpening, d-lighting turned on? For me, I basically put everything at zero. I shoot only raw, in fact, I haven't shot jpg for many years. I prefer to do it stuff in post than SOOC. Maybe the jpgs, once all compressed down, looks less "RAW" because the camera finished the image? And the RAW looks really raw because its not compressed?

Getting the exposure dead on or close to it would really help as well. How are your exposures SOOC?

I use the dpreveiw.com recommendations for the D90: sharpening is bumped up, everything else is default. d-lighting is typically on auto, though I do set it manually sometimes as well.

I understand that the the jpegs should look better than an unprocessed raw because the camera is doing the processing (and it does a pretty good job), my problem is that the jpegs often look better than the processed raws (either because I'm not very good at processing, or because Nikon has better engineers than Adobe).

As far as exposure goes... when I botch the exposure, that's when the RAWs tend to look better than the JPEGs. It's when I don't that the camera seems to do a better job than anything I can do in Lightroom.

Regulator75 · 10-09-2012, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I have an Olympus E-510, which is a four thirds sensor camera. I'm looking at getting a new lens for shooting real estate shots. Anyone have any thoughts on how wide I need to go to get a whole room nicely? Especially interested in comments from the person upthread who shoots architecture.

I would prefer not to get a new body, because I already have a few telephoto lenses for this camera that I bought when I went on safari...

I've shot a few open houses and I found that the Nikkor 20mm (D800 FX) was perfectly wide, without looking all fish eye with horribly stretched and distorted images.
Also, a few of my outdoor architectural shots have been published and those were with a D90 and Tokina 11-16mm.

I would look at the widest Olympus lens (minus fish eye) and maybe rent it from the camera store (or your local shop).

Found these two.
http://www.vistek.ca/store/CameraLen...zoom-lens.aspx

http://www.vistek.ca/store/CameraLen...zoom-lens.aspx

Allos · 10-09-2012, 05:27 PM

Do pros edit their photos? Do pros crop their pictures?

What kind of cameras take photographs in National Geographic?

Do you take 5kg of equipments with you when you are on vacation (especially traveling aboard with kids)?

badradio · 10-09-2012, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

100 ISO in bright daylight is still grainy. One lens I have seems worse for it, but they all do to some degree. Same as SebC mentioned. Tough to find a point that doesn't look over-sharpened or soft. Whereas the jpg version (I have the camera set up in raw + jpeg mode) doesn't look grainy.

Here's an example:

JPEG:

RAW: (Default sharpening/noise reduction settings, Photoshop CS5)
(blues and vibrant greens seem to be the worst culprits)

If I crank up the noise reduction (luminance) it helps, but at sacrifice of clarity.

Luminance isn't noise reduction, it bring backs the detail in your highlights... that maybe why you're getting artifacting...