Or as I always say, I knew everything when I was sixteen!
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
keith_w wrote:
graywolf wrote:
[...]
Then the economy improved and I could make a lot more money doing
something else with
Message - From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Skills - was Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
Well, from my experience to be a financially successful professional
photographer you need three things.
1. A really tough ego.
2. Relentless self promotion.
Keith, I used to use my MXen without thinking. It was so automatic, the
cameras seemed like an extension of myself. Unfortunately I have two
things against me now, I do not shoot enough to regain that ability, and
my short term memory and coordination are flaky even if I did. If my
long term me
On 29 Oct 2005 at 18:42, graywolf wrote:
> There was a bit here about automatic cameras and consistent exposure, I
> was just trying out the Oly for some eBay photos. With the camera
> mounted in a fixed position, fixed lighting, and the same subject, shiny
> against a medium dark background, m
There was a bit here about automatic cameras and consistent exposure, I
was just trying out the Oly for some eBay photos. With the camera
mounted in a fixed position, fixed lighting, and the same subject, shiny
against a medium dark background, moved about to show different details,
and the cam
On 29 Oct 2005 at 13:28, graywolf wrote:
> One of the things I want to say is that 12 for 12 I mentioned, was for
> routine work. Experimental stuff or learning a new technique was more
> like 1 for 100, but you did that on your own not for a client. With my
> free reshoot policy I was not abou
Gee, I woulda thunk you needed a camera, Black of course. ;>)
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Skills - was Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
Well, from my experience to be a financially successful profess
On Oct 29, 2005, at 11:04 AM, keith_w wrote:
... How many of us know our cameras *that* well? ...
Um, well, I make between 200 and 400 exposures per week, of all kinds
of subjects in all kinds of lighting, regardless - in order to obtain
and maintain that working relationship with my gear
Don't forget the free wedding meals...
keith_w wrote:
Powell Hargrave wrote:
When I was shooting weddings, something like 100-150 proofs went
into the album. Generally, I would shoot in around 200 frames to
give me some room to delete bad pictures and have some spares for
padding out the al
William Robb wrote:
[...]
One of the last weddings I shot, and it was one of the reasons I retired
from shooting them, was one with a lot of acrimony between the now
divorced parents of the bride, and pretty much everyone else in the party.
Pretty much everything that could have gone wrong w
- Original Message -
From: "Powell Hargrave"
Subject: Re: Skills - was Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
>
Although I did come to very much dislike weddings in general. Some are
great. Many are inhabited but up-tight pushy people and inter/intra
family
clan w
- Original Message -
From: "Powell Hargrave"
Subject: Re: Skills - was Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
I spent a summer working for a wedding factory in Vancouver. The photogs
were given 5 or 6 rolls of 120 film per wedding. Job was to fill the
rolls
with usa
>A "wedding factory!" Why not...
>
>Never thought of it, but why not?
>
>Sell us your estimable skills for $50.
>Probably works out to some $4 an hour, but what the hey? What ELSE do
>you have to do, to put $50 in your pocket? Breeze!
>
>keith <== shaking his head...
Well it was in the '60s wh
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Hi,
Having had a good lesson from Godfrey yesterday about exposure, and some
tips on processing RAW, you'll find no disagreement here.
It's not "too hard to get it right" (although I'm still working on honing
the skills needed to do so), you just have to know what to d
Powell Hargrave wrote:
When I was shooting weddings, something like 100-150 proofs went into the
album. Generally, I would shoot in around 200 frames to give me some room to
delete bad pictures and have some spares for padding out the album pages.
The guys I am working with now, shooting digita
graywolf wrote:
[...]
Then the economy improved and I could make a lot more money doing
something else with a lot less effort and minimal worrys. Besides, I do
not have a bullet proof ego, and the need for relentless self promotion
wearied me relentlessly. I do like to think I have a good eye
Hi,
Having had a good lesson from Godfrey yesterday about exposure, and some
tips on processing RAW, you'll find no disagreement here.
It's not "too hard to get it right" (although I'm still working on honing
the skills needed to do so), you just have to know what to do and then
practice and ex
>When I was shooting weddings, something like 100-150 proofs went into the
>album. Generally, I would shoot in around 200 frames to give me some room to
>delete bad pictures and have some spares for padding out the album pages.
>The guys I am working with now, shooting digital, are having 400-500
Well, a lot depends upon what market area you are in. Back then (and we
are talking about in the middle of the worse recession since the great
depression of the 1930's, and one of the areas hardest hit by it) in the
market I was in, the norm was you delivered about 100 proofs, for a
contracted
Well, you are correct, Paul, if you are talking about the top one
percent, the guys who are grossing a million-plus a year. The median
income of fulltime professional photographers in the US the last time I
check was about $27,000. I kind of guess that you would not consider
that a good living,
Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I've seen where digital has in some ways raised the bar. To get the
>exposure latitude with digital that is inherent in color negative film,
>you have to shoot RAW and you have to know what you're doing.
Agreed. I've seen many who don't.
>For the tim
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: Skills - was Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
I guess you should also consider how many shots were expected in an
average
wedding portfolio back then vs what's expected for the average wedding
these
days
Not if you want to earn a decent living. Inferior work with a
fashionable twist can get you fifteen minutes of fame, but to earn a
good living as a pro, you have to produce consistently excellent
photography. And that comes from someone who could never earn a good
living as a pro.
Paul
On Oct
I've seen where digital has in some ways raised the bar. To get the
exposure latitude with digital that is inherent in color negative film,
you have to shoot RAW and you have to know what you're doing. For the
time being at least, that means doing it yourself. A few of the
lightweight pros I've
On 29/10/05, graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Beat you to it, Cotty. HAR!
Mnft, I was asleep (quite literally).
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
From what I've seen 3. is also optional...
graywolf wrote:
Well, from my experience to be a financially successful professional
photographer you need three things.
1. A really tough ego.
2. Relentless self promotion.
3. An eye for an image.
All else is optional.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfp
On 29 Oct 2005 at 0:38, graywolf wrote:
> Back in the 80's when I was trying to make a living with my cameras, I
> expected to get 1 great shot out of 12 and that all 12 would be salable
> (Which is why I hated weddings there were always duds that were not the
> photographer's fault, often of c
- Original Message -
From: "graywolf"
Subject: Re: Skills - was Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
Usually, if someone has particularly consistent exposure he also has
correct exposure unless there is an equipment failure. Consistent exposure
requires quite a lo
Usually, if someone has particularly consistent exposure he also has
correct exposure unless there is an equipment failure. Consistent
exposure requires quite a lot of skill. However this thread is coming
perilously close to the one which I was told not to post about anymore.
graywolf
http://
Cor, he paints with light!
Beat you to it, Cotty. HAR!
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank said>
draw your own conclusions...
-frank
Great, now i have to le
I do not think it is better. What we think is good changes with time.
Many old photos look stilted and simple, but that is because we have
different tastses today than people had back then. The interesting thing
is the best photos from yesteryear are timeless. That will apply to
today's images
hel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Skills - was Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:50:06 -0700
I disagree. I think the quality bar has been lowered and that, while
there
are many good ima
PPA is the Professional Photographers of America. An organization for
portrait studio owners and wedding photographers. It has the same
relation to photography that your National Cheese Council does to
cheese. It is a sales aid for members.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <
I think I have to agree with that, Shel.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
It's just that attitude that has contributed to the lowering of the quality
bar. Usable results - maybe. But high quali
Wow, thanks, Frank. I have been saying that almost since my first day on
the list. But then I am a guy who had been told by lab owners' that my
exposures were the most consistant they had ever seen. Too bad my
clients did not think that was real important. While I was make a
midnight snack, I w
Well, from my experience to be a financially successful professional
photographer you need three things.
1. A really tough ego.
2. Relentless self promotion.
3. An eye for an image.
All else is optional.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have to come down on the side of overall improved quality. Magazine
>editors who don't pay a lot and are used to uneven contributions tell
>me that the work is noticeably better than it was five years ago. I see
>it in the web galleries as well.
Lea
- Original Message -
From: "Markus Maurer"
Subject: RE: Skills - was Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
I will have a look at the photos later,
I counted five that would likely be scans from prints that I made.
William Robb
gt;>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>>Subject: Re: Skills - was Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Rob Studdert"
>>Subject: Re: Skills - was Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
>>
>>
&
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: Skills - was Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
but really who really wants to view pic after pic of squashed wild
life?
Sheesh, it was just one picture. Most of his stuff is tasteful nudes.
He's on the web,
I have to come down on the side of overall improved quality. Magazine
editors who don't pay a lot and are used to uneven contributions tell
me that the work is noticeably better than it was five years ago. I see
it in the web galleries as well.
On Oct 27, 2005, at 9:03 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
he must have inspired the book on how to identify roadkill.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: Skills - was Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
I don't know but I
On 27 Oct 2005 at 20:17, William Robb wrote:
> More years ago than I care to admit, I did a gallery hanging with another
> photographer.
> The show was in a cafeteria in a well trafficed office building.
> I put up a bunch of my pretty B&W landscapes, the other guy put up his
> socially relevant
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: Skills - was Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
I tend to agree with Herb, even the overall quality of the images posted
to the
PDML has risen significantly since the widespread adoption of DSLRs.
Content i
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: Skills - was Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
Beyond technical excellence doesn't the value of an image really depend on
the
individual. For instance I'm rarely moved by "street" genre ima
previously written:
I bet it's the lab's work that's saving his ass. Does he process the film?
Does he make the prints? It doesn't matter, really. If he, and others,
want to skirt by and rely on the labs and computers to get good prints,
that's their business. That's the new way to do things
On 27 Oct 2005 at 18:21, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Technical quality of images may have increased, however, the quality of the
> photographs - to be original, creative, compelling, to tell a story, to move
> and
> motivate people, has, IMO, diminished.
Beyond technical excellence doesn't the value
e: 10/27/2005 6:04:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Skills - was Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
>
> On 27 Oct 2005 at 17:50, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> > I disagree. I think the quality bar has been lowered and that, while
there are
> > many good images out there, they are good re
100 exposures with the lens cap on will guaranteed be consistent.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 9:06 PM
Subject: Re: Skills - was Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
Is consistent exposure the
I thought you were supposed to stay seated. :-)
Tom C.
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Skills - was Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:05:52 -0700
I got my
ere to see the actual lighting conditions
at the time the film was exposed.
Is consistent exposure the same as correct exposure?
Tom C.
From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To:
Subject: Re: Skills - was Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
Date: T
> actually *trying* to create a 'very good photograph' versus just taking a
> photo?
>
> Tom C.
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> >To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> >Subjec
On 27 Oct 2005 at 17:50, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> I disagree. I think the quality bar has been lowered and that, while there
> are
> many good images out there, they are good relative to most of the crap we see,
> and there are fewer very good photographs.
I tend to agree with Herb, even the ove
;Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Skills - was Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:50:06 -0700
I disagree. I think the quality bar has been lowered and that, while there
are many good
I disagree. I think the quality bar has been lowered and that, while there
are many good images out there, they are good relative to most of the crap
we see, and there are fewer very good photographs.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Herb Chong <
> that may be the case, but nonetheless, ther
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 8:16 AM
Subject: Re: Skills - was Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
the fellow who runs the lab at which i get all my b&w stuff processed
tells me that he can t
26, 2005 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: Skills - was Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
I suspect that the % of truly skilled pro photographers is now hovering at
an all time low.
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > I have a friend who's been making his living as a wedding and portrait
> photographer for the last 20 years and did it part time for the previous
> 20. He never takes an exposure reading.
And Fra
He gets his prints made from medium format negatives.
PP of A is Professional Photographers of America.
> I bet it's the lab's work that's saving his ass. Does he process the film?
> Does he make the prints? It doesn't matter, really. If he, and others,
> want to skirt by and rely on the labs
And three stops over/under exposure is "good enough" only in the most all
encompassing sense of the term.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: P. J. Alling
>
> Velveeta is cheese only in the most all encompassing sense of the word...
>
> Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> >I bet it's the lab's work that's
Velveeta is cheese only in the most all encompassing sense of the word...
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I bet it's the lab's work that's saving his ass. Does he process the film?
Does he make the prints? It doesn't matter, really. If he, and others,
want to skirt by and rely on the labs and computer
I bet it's the lab's work that's saving his ass. Does he process the film?
Does he make the prints? It doesn't matter, really. If he, and others,
want to skirt by and rely on the labs and computers to get good prints,
that's their business. That's the new way to do things. I'm just an old
fart
His work is so good it's stunning. He frequently wins PP of A competitions.
> What a depressing attitude. "Good enough most of the time" seems to be the
> prevailing attitude these past few years. Would you buy a product that was
> advertised as "Good enough most of the time?"I just had thi
It's just that attitude that has contributed to the lowering of the quality
bar. Usable results - maybe. But high quality results - maybe not.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Tom Reese
> They don't need to worry about exposure with color negative film. There's
> enough latitude that a thr
What a depressing attitude. "Good enough most of the time" seems to be the
prevailing attitude these past few years. Would you buy a product that was
advertised as "Good enough most of the time?"I just had this
thought about birth control devices that were good enough most of the time.
Shel
Hi,
Several of the lab people I know have said the same thing, and the same
thoughts have been printed in many articles about photography and exposure.
Automatic metering, if not used judiciously and with care and intelligence,
can ruin more pics than it helps. The thing is that many photogs don'
> > They don't need to worry about exposure with color negative film. There's
> > enough latitude that a three stop miss will still give usable results.
>
> They are pros. They are supposed to be giving better than usable
> results.
> If you are out by three stops photographing a wedding, you
"Tom Reese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've saw evidence of that at the photo shop. We used to do a lot of
>> processing for pros. When they started making the transition to digital
>> you could see who really had a handle on exposure and who didn't. Not
>> many did.
>
>They don't need to worry
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Reese"
Subject: Re: Skills - was Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
They don't need to worry about exposure with color negative film. There's
enough latitude that a three stop miss will still give usable results.
They are pro
They don't need to worry about exposure with color negative film. There's
enough latitude that a three stop miss will still give usable results.
> I've saw evidence of that at the photo shop. We used to do a lot of
> processing for pros. When they started making the transition to digital
> you cou
Frank said>
> > draw your own conclusions...
>
> -frank
Great, now i have to learn to paint.:-)
Dave
On 10/27/05, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That's an understatement.
>
> >I've run into a lot of pro photographers who are only able to do what they do
> >because the automation in the camera has enough skill to cover for them.
> >I suspect that the % of truly skilled pro photographer
"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: "Herb Chong"
>
>> the assumption among many professional photographers is that you have the
>> skill or you wouldn't be there.
>
>That is not a safe assumption for them to make.
That's an understatement.
>I've run into a lot of pro photographers
#2 refers to here http://users.bestweb.net/~hchong/Temp/.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: Skills - was Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
once you have captured a burst,
sked the questions, brought written word to my
private
TC> thoughts. I have not made pronouncements or declarations regarding the
TC> future of Pentax. How the HELL would I know, I'm not on the inside
track!
TC> Tom C.
>>From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ts.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 2:08 PM
Subject: RE: Skills - was Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
Just a couple of questions/comments:
Large buffer/fast write times
How many shots
- Original Message -
From: "Herb Chong"
Subject: Re: Skills - was Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
the assumption among many professional photographers is that you have the
skill or you wouldn't be there.
That is not a safe assumption for them to make. I'
the assumption among many professional photographers is that you have the
skill or you wouldn't be there. what you list says that in areas where
manual focus skill or potential for lens flare is most important, Pentax has
an edge. otherwise, any other area, Pentax is at best even when the
techn
How the HELL would I know, I'm not on the inside track!
TC> Tom C.
>>From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>>To: Tom C
>>Subject: Re: Skills - was Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
>>Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:05:5
clarations regarding the
future of Pentax. How the HELL would I know, I'm not on the inside track!
Tom C.
From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: Tom C
Subject: Re: Skills - was Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:05:
Hello Tom,
When we get a whiner on the list, who basically spells doom and gloom
(what you did) it would be nice to see your credentials. For
photographers, part of the credentials are your photos (skills). If
you were a well known and respected photographer who made those
statements, maybe some
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: Skills - was Re: Sent My Brother to the Dark Side
>
For me, it's not a matter of not getting the shots I want because of the
technology, though for sure a larger buffer/faster throughput could help
on rare occasio
From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
There have been a some who comment negatively that I am still waiting
to see their work to show how they are unable to get the shots they
want because of lack of technology. I suspect most are due to lack of
skill. Those who have truly found the roadblock
As to buffer for the D - it is 5 frames of raw (if you turn off NR,
> you get 6). The write speed with Lexar WA 40X cards is about 7-8
> seconds per frame. This is an area that the DS has improved a fair
> bit. I was thinking it was about 3 seconds.
Thi
Just a quick test - write time for a DS RAW file to my s-l-o-w SD card
looks to be about five seconds. That should improve quite a bit with a 60x
or 80x card (yes, I know the camera can't use all that speed, but that's
the speed of the next card I'll be getting).
Shel
> [Original Message]
> Fr
Hello Shel,
My thoughts were brought to the surface by the new round of
lamentations. I do find it amusing that the competition is Canon.
None of the other manufacturers are doing tons better than Pentax at
the moment - for bringing out new, competitive equipment.
There have been a some who comm
My experience with the D suggests that the buffer behaves in a similar fashion
to what you describe hear, even though it's somewhat smaller and slower on
paper. I usually get about eight shots when I shoot at normal intervals. I
noticed this with some satisfaction when I shot the bank robber pic
Hi Bruce ...
I'd been thinking a bit about your comments even before you posted this
message. Pentax has worked for me since 1967. Some Pentax models didn't
appeal to me at all, so i didn't choose to buy or use them. There was
almost two decades where what Pentax offered just didn't cut it for m
88 matches
Mail list logo
