The Photography Thread

^ What gear do you have? Most of your pics are either underexposed or out of focus, but the one thing that they definitely seem to suffer from is flatness. Nothing seems to pop out at you. Please don't take this as me shitting on you or anything, I just figure I would offer some friendly advice if you want it. If you have any questions feel free to ask.


I may as well post something since I haven't in a while.

White-box test:

White Box Test II 001 by Abnegātus, on Flickr

Another Holy Grail pic.

Holy Grail 036 test by Abnegātus, on Flickr

The rest of the above series I posted from my friend Rachel:

Rachel Photoshoot II 139 by Abnegātus, on Flickr


Rachel Photoshoot II 097 by Abnegātus, on Flickr


Rachel Photoshoot I 079 by Abnegātus, on Flickr
 
@Srontgorrth - I like those concert photos. The vocalist seemed to be living a drunken tragedy on stage, but he made a really good photography subject. They turned out really expressive!

I'll post some views from the Black Sea next week or so, should manage to get some good shots...
 
Stupid question @ Pessimism: where on earth do you get an action or something for those edges on your portraits? I love that effect for borders.
 
Hubster said:
Stupid question @ Pessimism: where on earth do you get an action or something for those edges on your portraits? I love that effect for borders.
Click to expand...

Paint? Normal white borders + use that black/white spraying effect to make those borders :lol:

Or maybe something less primitive like photoshop borders/frames...
 
Raina said:
@Srontgorrth - I like those concert photos. The vocalist seemed to be living a drunken tragedy on stage, but he made a really good photography subject. They turned out really expressive!

I'll post some views from the Black Sea next week or so, should manage to get some good shots...
Click to expand...

Yeah he made an absolutely great subject, moreso than any other band/vocalist ever. Such an intense performance.
 
Hubster said:
Stupid question @ Pessimism: where on earth do you get an action or something for those edges on your portraits? I love that effect for borders.
Click to expand...

I use the NIK silverefex for Black and white conversions, really it's the best program I've ever used for B&W stuff. The edging is actually a replica of a certain film if I remember correctly (prob old Ilford). I'm not a fan of preset anything, so I use the preset for the edging and then immediately get rid of all the other changes that come with it :lol:. Control points for the fucking win.
 
Sort of have a dilemma. I got my first photo pass (woo!) to shoot DRI/Warbringer May 5th, but I don't know how well the 70-200mm f4L will hold up lighting-wise. At this other venue I took some pictures at with the 55-250mm when I still had it, mostly around f4 or f5 and there were some pretty good ones... So I'm wondering if I should rent the 2.8, or perhaps just sell the f4 and buy the 80-200mm 2.8? Not to sure on what to do. Gonna see if I can go to a show with actual lighting before May 5th...

Mainly worried because if the images come out pretty good at this, then I become an official photographer for this one metal/rock-ish website, but if not, then yeah...
 
How the hell did you manage to get a gig for a mag so fast? Get me a job too, eh? PLEASE!?

Either way, the f4 would be fine if the light was great, but it would really limit shallow depth of field - something you may actually want. More than likely though you will want something faster. Many people rec' the fast primes in this regard. The minimum you'll want with any lens though is 2.8, but most people will tell you to push the boundaries and go to 1.4 or 1.2.

The f4 70-200 may not be as fast as the 2.8, but it is sharper. A dastardly trade-off I know.

You could get the 80-200 2.8 if you want, but I wouldn't rec' it. If you really want to go faster, I would trade in the 70-200 f4 for a f2.8. The only benefit of the 80-200 is that it is cheaper. God forbid you get a bad copy though, because Canon is running out of parts for that damn lens (you can find reviewers of the lens easy online stating that they ended up spending the difference in costs between the 70-200 & 80-200 just to get the lens up to par wit). Plus it has the old motor system apparently, so it's possible that the autofocus may not be as fast. This might not matter to you right now because your body will be limiting the speed of your AF as it is, but when you upgrade it will become a hassle. For the record, I would eschew the 80-200; even if it came to renting, I would go for the 70 over the 80 (especiall if it was the 70 mkII dear god
Fap-Flash.gif
)


Just remember where you are going to be during the show. If you are getting pit access, you will be vying for the best position in the pit, and a telephoto might not work to your advantage (but if they don't have a it, and you are able to work from a distance, then the telephoto's will be a godsend). Typically flash is outlawed (doesn't stop most people, the absolute fuckers) and you can only shoot for the first three songs anyway (another benefit of the telephoto, with your reach you can shoot outside of the pit without any problems and without any time limits), so you might want a wider prime. The speed increase for the 1.8/1.2 will certainly be to your advantage should the lighting be absolute shit.
 
Higher aperture is the definite priority. I've shot enough gigs now to know that the chance of the lighting being shit is very high unless you're doing an arena style show.

*IF* you do go wide-angle and not prime, be mindful to pick your shot placement carefully: be aware of times when the band members are exposed by overhead light.
 
The fastest glass Canon makes are primes, but yes Hubster is right in that they are not always wide. Which is also something to consider for your crop sensor (crop sensors are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to wideness :()

If you want to go wide and you plan on renting you should see how much the 14mm 2.8 or the 24mm 1.4 are running. Those are normal EF lenses, if you want to go wide but have telephoto capabilities (to a degree) then the only thing I can think of off hand is the 17-55 2.8 ef-s lens.

If you want to go as fast as possible, and still have some distance between you, you might as well go for the 50mm 1.2. I mean hell, 50mm is more than adequate when you're at the front of the stage.
 
Pessimism said:
How the hell did you manage to get a gig for a mag so fast? Get me a job too, eh? PLEASE!?

Either way, the f4 would be fine if the light was great, but it would really limit shallow depth of field - something you may actually want. More than likely though you will want something faster. Many people rec' the fast primes in this regard. The minimum you'll want with any lens though is 2.8, but most people will tell you to push the boundaries and go to 1.4 or 1.2.

The f4 70-200 may not be as fast as the 2.8, but it is sharper. A dastardly trade-off I know.

You could get the 80-200 2.8 if you want, but I wouldn't rec' it. If you really want to go faster, I would trade in the 70-200 f4 for a f2.8. The only benefit of the 80-200 is that it is cheaper. God forbid you get a bad copy though, because Canon is running out of parts for that damn lens (you can find reviewers of the lens easy online stating that they ended up spending the difference in costs between the 70-200 & 80-200 just to get the lens up to par wit). Plus it has the old motor system apparently, so it's possible that the autofocus may not be as fast. This might not matter to you right now because your body will be limiting the speed of your AF as it is, but when you upgrade it will become a hassle. For the record, I would eschew the 80-200; even if it came to renting, I would go for the 70 over the 80 (especiall if it was the 70 mkII dear god
Fap-Flash.gif
)


Just remember where you are going to be during the show. If you are getting pit access, you will be vying for the best position in the pit, and a telephoto might not work to your advantage (but if they don't have a it, and you are able to work from a distance, then the telephoto's will be a godsend). Typically flash is outlawed (doesn't stop most people, the absolute fuckers) and you can only shoot for the first three songs anyway (another benefit of the telephoto, with your reach you can shoot outside of the pit without any problems and without any time limits), so you might want a wider prime. The speed increase for the 1.8/1.2 will certainly be to your advantage should the lighting be absolute shit.
Click to expand...

When I had a booth at this festival at UNLV the wife/kids of the guy who runs fullmetalrock.com saw my stuff and liked it, and than saw some of my concert pictures and we started talking about the website and so on, so I emailed the guy and ended up getting:

let me set you up with a show, shoot it
and lets see what you can bring to the table

if all goes well
we will bring you on as a FMR staff member
complete with FMR email
and I will mentor/guide you
in
networking, contacts, and making things happen


So, yeah. I forgot that the 80-200mm didn't have USM though, that might cause issues. And yeah I've heard about the f4 quality being better than the 2.8 quality as well, but 2.8 is fast....

As for the show, I've never been to the venue, and it's hard to tell whether or not there is a photo pit, but so far, it seems as though there isn't one. It's also a restaurant/bar/grill type place to, so I'm going to go sometime this or next week and check it out. Given that there probably isn't going to a photo pit, I'll definitely be using the 70-200mm a lot... I have the 50mm 1.8 and a Tamron 17-50mm 2.8, which would both be pretty helpful if there were a pit, but maybe I'll just get up close during the show and get some shots, though that will be pretty difficult given the bands/crowd. Based on pictures on the venue website (i.e. http://www.vampdvegas.com/photo_pretty.html) the lighting seems pretty good, but than again I can't say for sure without having been there for myself. There are actually going to be a couple of local shows there but they're both 21+ :erk:

There's a show at a venue that does have lighting/a stage this Friday, and despite there being shitty bands, I might go anyways just to see how the lenses will perform.

And thanks for the input btw, it is much appreciated.

I think I'm going to try shooting that one show, and then take a look at the venue sometime, and make a decision from there.
 
You and I have both rec'd him the 50 1.8 on page 1, so I figured it was a no brainer. The hood for that lens is probably a third of its price though :lol:

I think I'm going to make a cheap one out of a a plastic bowl and some black colored adhesive.



Also, this damn thread needs more posts.
 
Well, here are some of my other band pics that for some reason are just not appearing correctly online (looks great offline, and in multiple viewers, but as soon as flickr gets a hold of them certain details appear that weren't there before... it's driving me fucking nuts!)

I ended up having to harvest the logs from a really shitty wallpaper that I found online. I'm not even sure if it's their current logo (I only like two songs from them, and even those songs have got some problems in and of themselves).

One of the ones that I am having trouble with, the damned right side of the face is haunting me; even when I go over it heavily with the burn tool the son of a bitch looks unaltered. I have no idea what the problem is:

3 Inches of Blood 096 by Abnegātus, on Flickr

Another picture that refuses to cooperate in the facial region:

102 by Abnegātus, on Flickr


I'm still unsure if the logo should have taken up residence in the negative space:

175 by Abnegātus, on Flickr

The pose is alright I suppose, but overall I think it's pretty boring.

198 by Abnegātus, on Flickr



Decent enough, I just wish the original colors weren't so washed out (it was best and worst part of the entire picture):

241b by Abnegātus, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dak
The GMD Social Hobby Thread
Replies
376
Views
21K
GMD Social Forum
Carpe Mortem
Carpe Mortem
kramer1309
The photography thread
Replies
1K
Views
117K
Bar
arvoitus
A
Erik
The photography thread
Replies
26
Views
598
RC
NAD
N
KafkaX
The Mysticism Thread
Replies
29
Views
2K
GMD Social Forum
Einherjar86
E
ThisIsACoolName
The Thread.
Replies
97
Views
6K
GMD Social Forum
mutantllama
M
Top Bottom
Back