david king
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I work for a printer up the road from you in Dalton. We seperate our trash, from recycleable paper and plastic. I think it actually saves money on our garbage service. Our clients are pretty green as well. They don’t want use putting their flooring products in the landfill if possible. Its the right thing to do!
Chad you have it pretty much right! Its not good professional business practice to give photography or art away to commercial companies. Bartering is selling you photography at probably half price. It cheapens the perception of the value of images. If somebody needs a image for a commercial job they should have a budget and pony up some money.
Back in the days when film was king the only way to get a big improvement in image quality was to use a bigger camera and larger film. The same is true nothing has changed with digital you still need MORE BIGGER PIXELS. Cramming more pixels on a small sensor just dosen’t get the same results. I use a medium format rig most the time and the jump in image quality is really quite impressive. If you go to a scanning back you get even better image quality. Another factor is the lines per millimeter that the camera system can resolve. I think the biggest thing that the D3 has going for it is the low light performance! It’s a big plus for what is primarily a hand held camera. I’ve seen some amazing pictures shot at 1600 and 3200 ISO.
Dusty,
In Nikon Capture NX you can use control points and define certain areas using U-Point technology. This is also available in Photoshop using Nik Softwares Viveza. Viveza will be available for Aperture soon too.
All I did was darken the corners and add some blue on the control points in the corners of the sky, darken the corners in the foreground and added some contrast. I put a control point on you face and added a little contrast and lightened. I did the same thing in the area of the fish.I like Aperture a lot and I would encourage you to stick with it and check out some of the plugins and editing tools that are becoming available. You can always round trip to Photoshop. The Apple Aperture site has a bunch of video Tutorials.
Here are some more links you might find interesting:http://www.capturenx.com http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/aperture/ http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-9308-9356These programs could be useful, Helicon Filter and Helicn Focus at heliconsoft.com. You might consider making exposures for different areas and combining them later in post processing thats what this software does but you could do it in PS too. Shoot as much raw material as you can and experiment. Bracket exposure and focus so you will have more options later.
The Digital Story with Derrick Story is a good one. The Inside Aperture Podcast is another. The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom is another as well as Inside Digital Photo and TV. I listen to them through iTunes.
There is a lot of stuff on Youtube too.Gretag Macbeth which is now owned by X-rite is pretty much industry standard. They have come out with a new item called the Colormunki targeted at the photographer. Pantone make a very affordable calibrator called the Huey. I have my laptop and workstation calibrated to our workflow it helps with consistency but its no silver bullet. You can get pretty close with the controls on the computer if you are working to match the output of you own printer. You might want to consider your viewing conditions also, if you work in an area where the color temperature changes a lot its a real problem. Your color settings in PS can be confusing as hell too.
I think the most important point is who is the creator/author. I’m sure that a Lawyer could argue either point but it probably is a matter of settled Law now! We just don’t have a Copyright Lawyer/Fly Fisherman on the board. If the cover of American Angler went for 100K and a picture that was taken under the supposed conditions was in question I can see someone if inclined trying to sue for a piece of the action.
I would think whoever drives the creation of the content would be the author of the photograph. If a photographer sets their equipment up, defines parameters and places themselves in a scene and asks a bystander or helper to trip the shutter the photographer would still be the author of the photograph. Like in kind to a writer dictating to a assistant if they were to weak or incapacitated. The words recorded are still theirs. The mechanical act of recording content created by another should not confer ownership.
Working as collaborators or business partners Barry & Cathy, and Zach & Lauren use both their names in the photo credit. This seems to be a decent thing to do. I guess if the harmony of their relationships were to dissolve the issue of who actually owned the pictures would be up to a judge. Its a pretty interesting question that I think has more than one correct answer based on the circumstances and parties involved.
Maybe some of the Lawyers on the board could weigh in with considered opinions.
If you find yourself in this situation again I would bracket bigtime and see what I got. You might get something dramatic on the darkside or maybe us the top of 1 image and the foreground of another. I think you were working hard to get a vertical, but with the log and the lines of the bridge it would make a really nice square or landscape image in Black&White or sepia. I did a quick edit in CaptureNX
Check this whiz kid out from RIT http://www.cis.rit.edu/fairchild/ his HDRS look pretty natural.
Zach you need to run right out and by a D3 so you can shoot RAW and JPEG simultaneously then you would have all the bases covered for a little under 5K!
Tim if I could get Zach to email me a reduced NEF I would be glad to run it through Aperture to see how it would workout.
You might be able to select the sky with a color range selection and drop in a stormy sky. Being backlit its a problem and its going to be tough to make it look natural though. Or you could use the come back in the afternoon filter. HA!
Black velvet is what you need and its cheap. If you are going to try to do a lot of still life stuff you might want to consider a soft tungsten 3200k light source instead of flash. That would solve some of your depth of field problems by allowing you to extend your exposure. Realistically bumping your ASA up is a bad idea for anything more than the web and on black you will get noise.
