|
It's a friend of family whom I don't know well, so I'd feel less bad about ruining the thing, but still bad. How would you suggest getting involved as an assistant? Just find some local companies and ask em?
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
RizieN posted:It's a friend of family whom I don't know well, so I'd feel less bad about ruining the thing, but still bad. How would you suggest getting involved as an assistant? Just find some local companies and ask em? Yeah, most of them probably already have assistants but it's like any other job, there's a turnover, so it's a question of finding that one studio that recently had someone quit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 19:16
|
|
|
Based on the number of lovely wedding photographs I've seen on here and locally, combined with the fact that pretty much everyone who posts here seems to be much more self-aware about the quality of their work and isn't just trying to join in on a flickr circlejerk or dupe people into giving them a bunch of money, I'd say go for it. I was recently propositioned with a similar offer, and I'm doing it. There is a very, very high chance that the photos will not be up to your standards, but then you have to remember that pretty much anyone who hasn't used a professional camera before thinks that anything that isn't blurry and is sharper than a P&S is amazing. As long as you don't horrendously gently caress up by doing something like totally blowing the lighting or missing an integral moment because your battery died, I think you'll be okay. Especially if they're saving a ton of money by having you do the photos. My basic plan for the person who asked me to do theirs was to ask them if I could scope out the location for prior, around the time of day their wedding will be at, and figure out where the light will be, backdrops for posed shots, best spots to stand for good angles, where I can set up lights, etc. I think if you prepare and don't go into it with the attitude that you can't possibly take bad photos (which you obviously don't have) then you'll be able to do some solid work. It's not going to compete with the work of a $5000 photographer, but then if they wanted that they would have spent more money. As long as you're completely honest about your level of experience and they're still willing to work with you, don't feel bad about anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 19:40
|
|
|
So I took some volleyball pictures for a sports league in the DC area and they liked my pictures enough that they would like me to do some for other leagues (to pay me). What would be a reasonable amount to charge? Should I charge per image used? A flat rate to let them use whatever they want however much they want? To give you an idea of the quality of the shots (which admittedly isn't amazing, I used a 7D with a 50mm 1.8 and a 70-200 F4L): http://www.flickr.com/photos/madaaa/sets/72157625741426443/ (the lighting was AWFUL and I was playing too... so not the best positioning) I would be doing photos for dodgeball, football, softball, and some happy hours at local bars. My ballpark was 50-75 per session, is that too low? Munkaboo fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Apr 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 19:50
|
|
|
This doesn't matter at all, but do you guy think the little piece of glass in front of the flash bulb inside the assembly, behind the diffuser is just glass or a hot mirror?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 21:13
|
|
|
Fresnel?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2011 22:44
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Based on the number of lovely wedding photographs I've seen on here and locally, combined with the fact that pretty much everyone who posts here seems to be much more self-aware about the quality of their work and isn't just trying to join in on a flickr circlejerk or dupe people into giving them a bunch of money, I'd say go for it. I was recently propositioned with a similar offer, and I'm doing it. I'm leaning towards this as well. Even though I would avoid family jobs. I've been doing a few videos for companies now and my first was quite frankly a piece of poo poo (but the client was really happy with it). The best thing was that I learned SO MUCH from just actually doing it. Now I'm a bit happier with where I'm at and actually charging people for my work. Just make sure you are well prepared. Have a checklist. Try and get some practice down in that situation. Check out blogs which give details of stuff to capture (having a list of all the photos you need is a good idea. I do that with all the shots I need in video)
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 02:09
|
|
|
Fists Up posted:I'm leaning towards this as well. Even though I would avoid family jobs. I've been doing a few videos for companies now and my first was quite frankly a piece of poo poo (but the client was really happy with it). The best thing was that I learned SO MUCH from just actually doing it. I think people really are afraid of this mindset and I don't know why. I think it's because our society pushes that you need to study something intensively before you can hope to have any competency at it. Whereas I think if people would just go out and trying to do things, they will discover that it's really the fastest and most efficient way to learn how to do something. That's not to say that reading about a subject or receiving training it is bad, but so many people want their hand held through the entire process of learning something anymore. People were doing this poo poo long before books and college courses and training programs existed, and they seemed to do okay. Have more faith in yourself and just maintain a sense of modesty about your work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 02:38
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Fresnel? nope, flat glass and maybe coated. I've ripped down one of those cheap blowout deal Quantaray flashes and am repurposing the innards as a modern (maybe) TTL compatible press camera style flash.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 04:20
|
|
|
Fists Up posted:I'm leaning towards this as well. Even though I would avoid family jobs. Re: Wedding talk— Turns out its a friend of a my sister in law's friend. Apparently their photographer bailed on them last minute, and the wedding is on the 30th. I don't know how often professionals bail on scheduled gigs, but I doubt they had a good/professional photographer in the first place- given the group of people, town they're from and...affinity, or lack thereof, for the arts. Not to sound harsh, but its true. However, they're expecting a huge discount, and just because they think we(my wife would have to assist) can take great photo's we're still not professionals (which is true), but the pay still has to be worth my while...
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 15:39
|
|
|
RizieN posted:Re: Wedding talk— Turns out its a friend of a my sister in law's friend. Apparently their photographer bailed on them last minute, and the wedding is on the 30th. I don't know how often professionals bail on scheduled gigs, but I doubt they had a good/professional photographer in the first place- given the group of people, town they're from and...affinity, or lack thereof, for the arts. Not to sound harsh, but its true. I would avoid it. You have to make it worth your time and you need to be the one calling the shots. You're doing them a favor, not the other way around. I'm not saying you can't work for cheap, but you have to ensure that you get your value out of it. Like usable portfolio shots that you have complete control over. I'm going to shoot a friends small courthouse wedding, but then the following weekend, I'm going to make them dress up nicely and model for me and really work them until I get some killer shots to sell my portfolio. They understand that I'm going to do a good job covering their special moment, but then they working to help me out afterwards. It could be a disaster, but at least I'm maintaining the creative control.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 16:32
|
|
|
RizieN posted:Re: Wedding talk— Turns out its a friend of a my sister in law's friend. Apparently their photographer bailed on them last minute, and the wedding is on the 30th. I don't know how often professionals bail on scheduled gigs, but I doubt they had a good/professional photographer in the first place- given the group of people, town they're from and...affinity, or lack thereof, for the arts. Not to sound harsh, but its true. If it is something you are interested in getting into, be firm about what you think you should get out of it... Don't let them cheat you! Also, what exactly would they expect of you?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 16:46
|
|
|
Well, I see it as freelance work to buy new gear and supplement my income. I've got a fulltime design job, but I've found a new love for photography the last few months (I've been doing product photography for years, but in the last 3ish months I've started looking at photography in a new light, more serious about it as an art etc...), and even more recently I'm getting really into fashion photography. I've whored myself out for logo designs and poo poo in the past, so I would look at this like a more productive version of that. I wouldn't want to my career to be wedding photography, but it'd be a real nice supplemental income source. I've received more information on what they want, her budget is 200-500, she's having a very small wedding at some Mosque, and a family dinner on a Riverboat. She doesn't want any prints...but, which made me laugh, "wants post-processing". I'm guessing she just wants simple documentation of the event, and nothing too fancy. Most signs are pointing to no, but she wants to meet with us. I think I'll have the meeting and see what her expectations are and feel her out, just get an idea of what I'd be getting myself into. Also to inform her of my (lack of)qualifications. RizieN fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Apr 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 17:02
|
|
|
RizieN posted:Well, I see it as freelance work to buy new gear and supplement my income. I've got a fulltime design job, but I've found a new love for photography the last few months, and recently more into fashion photography. I've whored myself out for logo designs and poo poo in the past, so I would look at this like a more productive version of that. I wouldn't want to my career to be wedding photography, but it'd be a real nice supplemental income source. If they don't mind about your "lack of skill", I would MAYBE consider it, but you have to remember the stress involved in weddings, not to mention family drama, even if they are just a friend of the family that you don't know well. What kind of post-process work do they want? How many pictures are they expecting? Do they want JPG or RAW?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 17:07
|
|
|
Thats the kind of stuff I'm going to have to find out in the meeting I suppose, I don't think they know what the difference between JPG and RAW is..however, I've got some very large SD cards, and quite a few of them, so I'd probably shoot RAW+JPG. No idea what kind of post she'll want. My first assumptions that spring to mind, again given the people/part of town, are gimmicky poo poo, like selective color and vignettes...but I'll have to find that out. I'm going to be completely honest about my lack of experience with this thing, I've always been a kind of 'under-promise over-perform' kind of guy anyway, but the stress involved with possibly ruining someones big day is a higher-than-normal level than I normally deal with on a regular basis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 17:18
|
|
|
RizieN posted:Thats the kind of stuff I'm going to have to find out in the meeting I suppose, I don't think they know what the difference between JPG and RAW is..however, I've got some very large SD cards, and quite a few of them, so I'd probably shoot RAW+JPG. No idea what kind of post she'll want. In my opinion, you should shoot in RAW only RAW+JPG is just a waste of time and space.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 17:24
|
|
|
Yea thats what I normally do, I was just thinking if I don't need to do any post processing on most of the shots then cataloging, exporting and all that would be faster with just jpegs. I guess I'm just at the point where I really need to have a sit down with this girl, definitely have SA's advice in my head during the meet, and then make some decisions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 17:30
|
|
|
RizieN posted:I'm going to be completely honest about my lack of experience with this thing, I've always been a kind of 'under-promise over-perform' kind of guy anyway, but the stress involved with possibly ruining someones big day is a higher-than-normal level than I normally deal with on a regular basis. If they are idiots and you are more than competent with a camera then it will go fine. Just make a checklist of shots to get so you don't forget anything, make sure you know how the ceremony will go and when to be ready for those important moments (like the first kiss). Make sure you check out the location of the ceremony ahead of time, and figure out some good compositions that you'll likely utilize. As far as how intrusive to be, that is up to the couple and the person running the ceremony- check with them. Normally I would say don't risk loving up somoene's special day, but if they are already only willing to pay a minimal amount for photography then I figure it's open season for whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 17:34
|
|
|
RizieN posted:I've received more information on what they want, her budget is 200-500, she's having a very small wedding at some Mosque, and a family dinner on a Riverboat. She doesn't want any prints...but, which made me laugh, "wants post-processing". I'm guessing she just wants simple documentation of the event, and nothing too fancy. [edit] Or at least make sure you are protected with a contract spelling out exactly what they get for their whopping $200. InternetJunky fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Apr 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 17:38
|
|
|
If you do this, be sure to find out which mosque and call them and see what their photography rules are. Do some googling too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 18:01
|
|
|
If I do it I'm going to do extensive research, on and off location. I don't want any surprises.InternetJunky posted:Run away. Also if I do it I will charge at least 400, I can make 200 whipping together a lovely logo in illustrator, certainly wouldn't do a wedding with all these risks/stress for 200, but if I do do it and do it well it could be a nice stepping stone to something else, or at least experience. And I will definitely draft up a contract, gently caress if I need to be on Judge Joe Brown answering questions about my lens aperture capabilities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2011 19:33
|
|
|
How long ago did we stop doing the weekly photo competition thread? Was there just not much participation anymore?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2011 18:55
|
|
|
I never got to be a part of that, I wish someone would start it up again though, because it'd force me to shoot more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2011 19:15
|
|
|
It's been a while; and frankly I quite miss them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2011 19:15
|
|
|
Abnegatus posted:It's been a while; and frankly I quite miss them. Me too, it always added some kind of goal to my otherwise aimless photo walks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2011 21:22
|
|
|
Tell me about scale focusing - am I doing this correctly here?  (lens is an FD 50/1.8, apologies for lovely cell pic) I've never had a lens with a distance scale before, from what I can tell this example is showing that everything from 8ft-infinity is in focus at f/16, right? How accurate do these tend to be, should I go with something a little more conservative than indicated to be safe? This is on 35mm, so I don't have the instant feedback on what is/isn't in focus that I'm used to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2011 22:02
|
|
|
Tigertron posted:How long ago did we stop doing the weekly photo competition thread? Was there just not much participation anymore? It stopped a few months ago because there wasn't enough people entering and it also takes someone to administer it. I liked looking at it, but I found it difficult to consistently enter. I think if someone wants to start it up again, you should totally go for it. It used to be biweekly, but I think monthly would probably work just as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2011 22:20
|
|
|
Beerios posted:Tell me about scale focusing - am I doing this correctly here? That is exactly how scale focusing works and why newer lenses without it blow. On another note, I just realized that on an APS-C Sensor (My Pentax K20D) a 50mm lens is actually 77mm, so almost a portrait lens. I was wondering why my 105mm f/2 prime looked so narrow on it as well and it's because it's acting like a 162mm! Kinda blew my mind. Moist von Lipwig fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Apr 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2011 22:24
|
|
|
Speaking of scale focusing, I just picked up another goofy old screwmount lens for ten bucks. It's an Isco Gottingen Tele-Westenar 135mm f/3.5, surprisingly tiny, looks pretty dope through the viewfinder - but the scale focus thing is all off. When it's focused at infinity, the marks on the barrel are way the hell towards the short end of the scale still. That part of the barrel isn't loose at all, so unless someone intentionally unscrewed and rotated that sleeve around, I dunno what happened to it. Neat that it takes like three full rotations to go through the whole focus range though. Really satisfying compared to newer lenses that offer a quarter turn of manual movement or less. Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Apr 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 02:07
|
|
is go
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:It stopped a few months ago because there wasn't enough people entering and it also takes someone to administer it. I liked looking at it, but I found it difficult to consistently enter. I think if someone wants to start it up again, you should totally go for it. It used to be biweekly, but I think monthly would probably work just as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 06:46
|
|
|
Beerios posted:Tell me about scale focusing - am I doing this correctly here?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 06:48
|
|
|
spf3million posted:I thought it meant that everything form 2.5' to infinity was in focus at f/16. f/4 would be from around 4'-7'. Or am I misunderstanding this? You're looking at meters, he was talking about feet. You're both right 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 06:59
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:You're looking at meters, he was talking about feet. You're both right  Thanks
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 08:06
|
|
|
I still dont get it, what do the red line and red dot represent? Is that for the shutter which is cut off and they dont mean anything for focus/feet? You just align the numbers...no dot or line?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 16:28
|
|
|
RizieN posted:I still dont get it, what do the red line and red dot represent? Is that for the shutter which is cut off and they dont mean anything for focus/feet? You just align the numbers...no dot or line? The red line is the true plane of focus at the hypothetical f/1 I believe. Not sure what the hell the red dot is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 16:57
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:The red line is the true plane of focus at the hypothetical f/1 I believe. Not sure what the hell the red dot is. It's the IR focusing shift http://www.apogeephoto.com/mag1-4/mag1-4mfir.shtml (looong explanation) i.e., if you use infrared film, the plane of focus is different for that of visible light. So, you have to offset your focus a little to compensate. In practice, that means focusing normally, then giving the focus ring a little tweak - the amount/direction the tweak matches the difference between the line and the red dot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 17:04
|
|
|
Ok I think I get it, so everything in between 3.3ish and and 10 meters is in focus at F/8 ?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 17:10
|
|
|
RizieN posted:Ok I think I get it, so everything in between 3.3ish and and 10 meters is in focus at F/8 ? Yup. and your bonus tip is 'hyperfocal distance': Line the infinity symbol up with your f-number on the right Look at the distance that lines with the same f-number on the left. Everything from that distance an beyond will be in focus. e.g. with that pic: at f16, everything from 2.5m, all the way to the distant hillsides, will be in focus. EDIT: found some more explanatory pics: http://www.dofmaster.com/hyperfocal.html#focusing
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 17:28
|
|
|
spog posted:It's the IR focusing shift That's incredibly badass that manufacturers even included that. Too bad infrared (colour) film is so hard to find nowadays  .
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
I found a scan of my camera's manual online and it confirmed the red dot is for infrared film. Focus normally and transfer the scale reading from the center line to the red dot (I'd only trust this at a fairly small aperture, but if I were doing IR it would probably be landscapes at f/11-16 anyway).
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 17:31
|
|