photographer

[romemadman]

a guy i work with is a photographer for a bunch of action sports and othre things

i thought some of you guys might be inter ested in ssome of his us open pics and others

 

tell me what you think of his work

i have told him of this website and he may join

he is not a famous guy but a guy tryyinh to make a living

http://www.empire-image.com/index2.htm

[LineSki]

siiiiiiiiiiiiiiick photos

[SteveStepp]

Snowboard Open pics at Stratton VT were the sickest

[Ski]

a guy i work with is a photographer for a bunch of action sports and othre things

i thought some of you guys might be inter ested in ssome of his us open pics and others

 

tell me what you think of his work

i have told him of this website and he may join

he is not a famous guy but a guy tryyinh to make a living

http://www.empire-image.com/index2.htm

32706[/snapback]

 

You want us to honestly critique his life's work...and he might be joining this MB?

 

I've had students intern to me with portfolios similar to his. He gets it, works well with a 50mm range, seems to understand the sports he shoots (a lot of photogs don't). To get to the next level, I'd tell him to pull out a 24mm lens and get closer when shooting things like the little kid sitting on the skateboard and bring out the depth. And work with a 300mm+ lens and start hitting the emotion of sports. There's a huge difference between people posing and people expressing. He has the posing stuff down; the expression (pain, triumph, etc) isn't shown in that collection.

 

Photographers go through a learning process where they start by copying work they like. That's fine and usually the best way to get better. When I did model work, I'd even ask girls to bring me clippings of photos they liked, then we'd use them as a starting point during our shoot. Then we'd progress from there to make it special to them. Your boss has the tools, so what signature-unique-look does he put into his photos?

[LineSki]

I'm just getting into photography. Meaning like I actually know how to adjust the light meter with the shutter, and f-stop. Now I need to develop creative skills like you said above, got any more tips ski?

[mtnbiker99x]

24mm lens and get closer

32753[/snapback]

 

 

If he is using some of today's digital cameras he would need a 16mm, 24 was pretty wide for 35mm. You have to take in the 1.6x conversion factor for most digital cameras and that 16 will give you 25.6mm

 

The plus side is if you have a 200mm 2.8 lens its a 320mm 2.8 without the cost. Throw a 1.4x on it and you have a 448 f4

[Ski]

I'm just getting into photography. Meaning like I actually know how to adjust the light meter with the shutter, and f-stop. Now I need to develop creative skills like you said above, got any more tips ski?

32767[/snapback]

 

What are you most interested in shooting? I guess that's the first question. The best possible internship for new photogs that aren't sure what they want is at a newspaper. At a decent paper, you do sports, a little fashion, a little spot news, and some editorial illustration.

 

For now, I'll assume it's sports, since that's where you're working.

 

Firstly, when I say something totally obvious, don't be offended. I don't know you and don't know your work.

 

Okay, here goes:

 

The longer the lens, the less depth of field. Your foreground and background will be out of focus, which makes your subject 'pop', or stand-out. Focus is tougher with a long lens in some respects, since it's more critical to be exact. But easier in that you know when you have focus. Longer lenses from 300mm up also compress and image.

 

Your eyes are the equivalent of a 55mm focal length, btw, which is why 50mm lenses were considered "normal" and packaged with SLR's.

 

The standard working lens for sports is 300mm. For baseball, for instance, that gives you a fairly full frame of 2nd base plays, as well as full frame of home plate, while standing behind the first base coach's box. It gives full frame QB to running back handoffs in football, etc...

 

For skiing/boarding, it's a length that allows you to be far enough away from the action to not be an impact, while also able to see and anticipate with your own eyes, prior to shooting.

 

But great photographers make their mark with the wide angle lenses. Anyone can shoot long...when worked for a paper in central Jersey, I covered all the Yankee and Mets weekend home games. At Shea, I'd be sitting in the photo pit, which is beyond first and third base, right on the warning track. I'd have four camera bodies. One would be on a mono-pod, with a 300mm lens; a 24 around my neck for plays that came at me; a 400mm 2.8 mounted to a tripod head and attached to the railing; and, a 600mm lens on a swivel bracket mount prefocused on the centerfielder. I looked like a one man band. The 400 and 600 were wired to foot releases, so if there was a play at 2nd base, I'd just step on that release button; a play in center I could hit that foot release. I'm writing this because a monkey could have gotten those pics. It's the wide stuff that separates the good from the great. Here's an example of that same old double-play shot seen every day in newpapers (unknown photog):

 

 

The biggest mistake with wide lenses though is too much information. A painter creates art by addition; a photographer creates art by subtraction. The wider the lens, the more difficult that is. The first skateboard half-pipe comp I did was also the first one I'd ever seen...this was a long time ago. All the shots from the top of the pipe were okay, with the boarders getting air and the background showing the scene. But then I put on an 18mm 3.5 lens, set the focus on about 4 feet, and put the camera down by where the boarders were doing whatever the one handed hand stand with their boards over their heads is called...so I was shooting up, with their hands in the forground and their faces looking down at the camera. It was also a very clean background of sky.

 

Here are some samples (by other photogs) of wide lens photography taken to the next level:

 

 

 

These pics are great because they are close, yet clean. They bring you into the action, despite their imperfections. There's a real candid nature about them, even the baketball shot that was fired from a remote to a mounted camera.

 

Sports is an excellent way to break into photography because so much of their shooting principles apply to other kind of shooting, such as concerts, spot news, and feature photography.

 

Remember that our eyes are instinctively attracted to the lightest part of a photo, secondly to people, and subsequently to eyes and mouths. A portfolio should be an emotional experience, not a catalogue of stock action.

 

When I talk to a class or lecture group, I usually go into abstract features, too. Getting people to theink about color or tone, such as firey red, calming blue, natural greens, and foreboding black. The relationship between color and feeling. Then we move into shapes: soft curves, hard edges, and sweeping lines. A photog gets to manipulate each of these by by searching for shades and shadows, shifting intensities of tone and hues.

 

Walk around a subject before you shoot it, whenever possible. See how it changes as the light changes.

 

And how does it feel? Bring texture into your photos. Experiment with soft, smooth, and rough textures.

 

Do you know what the Golden Hour is? One hour after sunrise and the two hours before sunset is refered to as the Golden Hour. When the light has a golden texture and there is a natural softbox effect. National Geographic photogs often shoot 90% of their jobs during this time. A great time to do portfolio work...

 

 

So that's a quick outline of what I've put about 50 interns through, as well as classes. Post some pics and I'll gladly talk to you about them, if you want.

 

Hope this helps...

[sibhusky]

Loved it, loved the shots.

[mtnbiker99x]

Go out and photograph every day. (or as much as possible)

 

You'll get good stuff as well as disappointments. Like this one yesterday it came up a little soft and slightly out of focus. I was down at the 10 yard line and they were on the other side of field and camera could not track the guys running fast enough. It was a pick off and there was a story behind it. I sharpened it in Photo Shop but I don't know if it will be enough to use.

 

The second photo I used Photo Shop to lighten the shadows so you can see the players eyes but not enough to screw up the photo.

 

They are just every day photos nothing special.

Edited September 11, 2005 by mtnbiker99x

[mtnbiker99x]

Here's an example of that same old double-play shot seen every day in newpapers (unknown photog):

Hope this helps...

32779[/snapback]

 

I like that shot but if I were the photographer I would used the Shadow/Highlight option in PhotoShop CS2 to lighten the face so you could see the emotion.

[mtnbiker99x]

I like that shot but if I were the photographer I would used the Shadow/Highlight option in PhotoShop CS2 to lighten the face so you could see the emotion.

32793[/snapback]

 

I adjusted some things in that baseball shot. You can now see the face without it looking fake.

[LineSki]

thank you that helped me alot. I like to shoot a lot of motocross, and black and white photos. I will post some for you to critique.

[AtomicSkier]

twas just messin around to after I detailed my friends VW GTI 1.8T...i thought it looked cool

 

can't wait to get my digital rebel XT (350d) 8 megapixels!! wooT!

[Ski]

twas just messin around to after I detailed my friends VW GTI 1.8T...

 

A car lover's equivalent to a boob shot, yes?

[Ski]

thank you that helped me alot. I like to shoot a lot of motocross, and black and white photos. I will post some for you to critique.

32812[/snapback]

 

So you are shooting film? All the better when you do it yourself. Before there ever was a Photoshop, we used to develop and print color 8x10's on deadline. Did you know you can dodge and burn color pretty much the same way as b&w? Using the same wand or hand masks...

 

Some of my favorite pics were shot on b&w. I used to do a lot of Third World stuff and b&w made for better images. More stark, you know?

[AtomicSkier]

A car lover's equivalent to a boob shot, yes?

32819[/snapback]

 

 

Look how reflective the paint is!

[LineSki]

So you are shooting film? All the better when you do it yourself. Before there ever was a Photoshop, we used to develop and print color 8x10's on deadline. Did you know you can dodge and burn color pretty much the same way as b&w? Using the same wand or hand masks...

 

Some of my favorite pics were shot on b&w. I used to do a lot of Third World stuff and b&w made for better images. More stark, you know?

32820[/snapback]

 

Im devolping all of the black and white myself, not the colors though. I will buy a digital slr when I actually become good with the 35 mm. And when I get some money

[LineSki]

The longer the lens, the less depth of field. Your foreground and background will be out of focus, which makes your subject 'pop', or stand-out. Focus is tougher with a long lens in some respects, since it's more critical to be exact. But easier in that you know when you have focus. Longer lenses from 300mm up also compress and image.

32779[/snapback]

 

I have 300mm lense also so its good to hear I have the basic lense for what I like to do.

[emtp563]

twas just messin around to after I detailed my friends VW GTI 1.8T...i thought it looked cool 

 

can't wait to get my digital rebel XT (350d)  8 megapixels!! wooT!

32816[/snapback]

 

I just got a Digital Rebel XT with a Canon Speedlite 420EX, Canon 50mm f/1.8 II, Tamron AF18-200MM F/3.5-6.3 XR Di II, and a Canon RC-5 Wireless Remote Controller.

I only have enough knowlege to use the basic Zone settings but would like to learn enough to use the Creative Zone settings (ie Tv, Av, M, etc). I need to read up and gain some knowlege in f-stop, aperture, ISO, etc. before I can start taking some decent photos in the Creative Zone.

 

I am learning some of the basics on using the USM and just scored a copy of PhotoShop CS2 off of BitTorrent.

 

Ski999, can you post some specific tips here on where and when to use specific aperture values, shutter speeds, etc?

Edited September 26, 2005 by emtp563

[Ski]

Ski999, can you post some specific tips here on where and when to use specific aperture values, shutter speeds, etc?

33870[/snapback]

 

I shoot everything with a manual exposure, which is the TV setting on Canon cameras.

 

The basic idea with aperature/shutter speed follows the f/16 rule. That formula begins with a bright, sunny day and your exposure is f/16 with a shutter speed of 1/film speed. In other words, if you are rating your ASA/ISO as 400, then your exposure is the next closest shutter speed fraction, which is 1/500 of a second at f/16. I like to see into the shadows a little, so I generally make a bright sun exposure of f/11 and 1/500 sec.

 

F stops, of course, are a measurement of the lens opening and each "click", or stop, is doubling or halving. The higher the number, the smaller the opening.

 

F/2.8 is twice as big as f/4; f/5.6 is half the size opening as f/4.

 

So, for example, these are combinations of the same exposure: 1/500 and f/8=1/250 and f/11=1/125 and f/16.

 

If you shoot a lot, then you can pretty much walk outside and not even bother with a light meter:

 

For 400 ASA film:

 

Bright sun exposure is 1/500 at f/11

High clouds 1/500 at f/8

dark clouds mid day 1/250 at f/5.6

rainy 1/125 at f/4

 

When to use shutter priority vs. aperature priority:

 

If you are using a long lens, then you use shutter priority program. You need to be sure to have a fast enough shutter speed with a longer lens. General rule is that you can hand hold a fraction of the lens' focal length. IE, you'd never want to go under 1/500 of a second with a 500mm lens. Never under 1/125 second with a 135mm lens. You can hand hold a 28mm lens with a 1/30 sec. shutter speed. You should also use shutter priority for sports pics, since you are freezing action.

 

Aperature priority is best when depth of field is important. Scenic photos, as well as portraits. The smaller the aperature, the greater the depth of field.

 

Not sure if any of this is helpful, but feel free to ask anything specific...

[emtp563]

I'm starting to grasp the basics, slowly but surely. Thanks for the tips.

[Timeless]

For all you budding photo-geeks out there

 

A Moral Dilemma

 

 

This test only has one question, but it's a very important one. By

giving an honest answer, you will discover where you stand morally.

No one else will know, so you won't be fooling anyone but yourself

if you give anything but a truthful answer.

 

The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation in

which

you will have to make a decision. Remember, your answer needs to be

honest, yet spontaneous. Please read slowly and thoughtfully,

giving due consideration to each line.

 

Here's the situation:

 

You are in Louisiana; New Orleans to be specific. There is chaos

all

around you caused by a hurricane with severe flooding. This is a

flood of Biblical proportions. You are a photojournalist working

for a major newspaper, and you're caught in the middle of this epic

disaster.

 

The situation is nearly hopeless. You're trying to shoot

career-making

photos. There are houses and people swirling around you, some

disappearing under the water. Nature is unleashing all of its

destructive fury. Suddenly you see a man floundering in the water.

He is fighting for his life, trying not to be taken down with the

debris.

 

You move closer...somehow the man looks familiar. You suddenly

realise who it is. It's George W. Bush, President of the United

States!! At the same time you notice that the raging waters are

about to take him under...forever. You have two options - you can

save the life of G.W. Bush, or you can shoot a dramatic Pulitzer

Prize winning photo,

documenting the death of one of the world's most powerful men.

 

So here's the question, and please give an honest answer:

 

 

Would you select high-contrast colour film, or would you go with the

classic simplicity of black and white?

[sibhusky]

Good one, Discordial!

[Ski]

I'd throw him Teddy Kennedy's giant pumpkin head as a life preserver.

[Papasteeze]

black and white