As far as income, most recently during the summer I work on motion picture films as still photographer and EPK (electronic press kit) and then in the winter I relocate up to northern vermont where I shoot and work in the terrain park at Sugarbush Resort. Once you cover enough hours you can get into the union which is big big money. Average rate of a union photographer for feature films is like 95$ an hr for 8 hour days, and anything over that is double...anyone who has worked on set of a film will know most days are over 15+ hours.

For the flash setups believe it or not on all of those I only used 2 flashes. The four square one is actually 6 photos merged into one..and the water one is 4. Most of the photos take me a few days (probably like 10+ hrs) some take less! I'll post some more up when I have time!

Cardsharkk - sick pics man. Really impressive. I really disagree with Math regarding the water thing (though he does politely caveat with 'you're too good a photographer...'). I hate the idea of 'stylist passe' - if you like something and do it well, then enjoy and keep doing it. It's really only the hardcore minority who have early onset stylistic issues with fun creative techniques.

No offense to you Math, but I really thought that comment was unfair.

I was going to let this go, de gustibus non est disputandum, and all that, but the word 'unfair' got to me. In what way was what I said unfair? I'm not offended by it - I'm baffled!

What sort of comments do you consider to be appropriate here? How would such comments be useful?

Also, are you seriously suggesting that it is better for an artist to consistently treat a particular type of picture element one particular way even if the rest of the compositions are radically different? Or are you suggesting that an artist should find a trademark form of execution and stick with it no matter what? If he does that, shouldn't he consider how apt potential subject matter is to that style?

Please note, I didn't suggest Cardshark stop using the technique. I suggested he not use it exclusively, but rather consider when it is appropriate. If one keeps using a technique exclusively without consideration of context, can one's use of that technique truly continue to be considered "creative"?

Cardshark is one of the best photographers contributing to this thread. His execution certainly far exceeds my own. But most good photographers want to get even better. One way of doing this is to spend more time considering how the techniques that could be applied to taking the photograph relate to its subject matter, and making a choice of technique for a reason that relates to the composition as a whole. Good photographers go beyond using a technique merely because it is fun or familiar. Another way to improve is to consider (not necessarily adopt) the comments of others. Cardshark seems to have received my remarks in the spirit in which they were intended.

http://www.pbase.com/gregbradley/ima...73997/original

take a look at this amazing Mosaic of the Milky Way shot in Australia with a D800 (not mine - lol)

wow, Tre-fi. I hope you tell us more about what you do. Like how you get those style of photos; just lots of lighting?

correct, way better than 98% of us

Those two cloudy looking things to the left are the 2nd and 3rd closest galaxies to our own. They are some of the few galaxies that you can see with the naked eye: The Small and Large Magellanic Clouds. Here in the upper north hemisphere we do not see these objects in the night sky.

The galactic center is located a bit to the bottom left of the top part of the milky way in this photo. Near the very dark cloud. Constellation sagittarius.

Those dark areas are clouds formed by dust and other stuff. They are so dense that they block the light from the stars behind, and so we see darkness.

I did appreciate the comment. Its nice to get some criticism every once in a while. I wish I would get it more! While I still think running water looks best with the slow shutter speed most of the time, I'm now thinking about some different ways I can capture it with a fast shutter speed.

In other news I'm quite excited for the crashing waves photos I took this morning in the Philippines. It was certainly an adventurous shooting location

Dont know if any of you snowboard or not...but head out and pick up the newest issue of transworld snowboarding I have one of my photos in it!

I think it's unfair to hold a hobbiest to professional standards. 2p2 has a way of expressing opinions using excessively strong language to present them as facts. I'm not sure if it's due to the personality types who are drawn the boards, or if it's developed over time, but it's pervasive.

All of that is basically taking a **** on a technique that a guy likes and chose to use in places he found appropriate, and presenting as though you're some type of stylistic authority. He had other pictures with water shot at a faster shutter speed in that same post. Clearly he's a photographer who knows how to get various looks and feels. To me, it seems unfair that you would choose to label his efforts cliche' and then back peddle a bit by adding 'you're much too good'.

Constructive criticism is valuable and usually appreciated, and it appears as though Card took it that way which is good. Perhaps I misunderstood your relationship, but there were about 10 billion other ways you could have expressed that you would like to see him try some different techniques, many of which would have been much less dismissive and condescending. That said, the fact that you chose to begin your reply with latin certainly points to the fact that your tone was not accidental.

A serious reply merits a detailed response. Well, no wonder I was baffled, because that is not what I was doing. So who's being unfair?

I disagree with the implication that all professionals are better than all hobbyists. I disagree with the implication that thinking about how the subject matter ought to affect the choice of photographic techniques is beyond the skill of a good amateur. What I was doing was providing a comment that I thought was appropriate for cardsharkk04's skill level. It seems you don't think he is as good as I do.

I'll buy that. I think it is reflective of the culture of this board, which is pretty much the only one on which I post, and of some other boards I have read. Unoubtedly I have subconsciously adopted some aspects of a posting style frequently found here.

Perhaps it is part of the nature of internet forums for people to be more brusque. Or perhaps it is part of the nature of internet forums for posts to be interpreted by some as being more brusque than they intended, and even interpreted as more brusque than they actually are.

No. To use a poker analogy, you are saying that I am criticizing slowplaying. What I did is more like criticizing nearly always slowplaying aces OTB regardless of the number of limpers.

LOL. I am no kind of stylistic authority. I have establshed no stylistic credentials here. I know jsut enough about photography to have an opinion that is a ltttle bit informed about some of the thought processes that go into some aspects of good photography. I don't even claim to know as much as cardsharkk. All I did was something like telling a driver that they have left their turn indicator on. Doing so doesn't mean I am presenting myself as an expert driver, or even better than the driver in question. When I forget my own turn indicator, I appreciate when somebody points it out.

ORLY? Flowing water? Which one(s)?

Are you referring to the third picture? That shot was taken at a shutter speed of 1/2 second, which is two stops slower than the second picture in the post and only two stops faster than the first picture. The water in the third picture doesn't look motion-frozen because of a fast shutter speed. It looks that way because it is barely moving.
Yup. My whole approach assumes he knows how. Now, what %age of his photos ITT which have swiftly flowing water as a significant element use a much faster shutter speed?

I labeled the technique cliché, not his use of it. What I said, effectively, was "you are overusing a cliché". Are you seriously suggesting that such a treatment of flowing water hasn't become a cliché? Using a cliché can be appropriate, just like slowplaying aces OTB can be appropriate. Overusing it is not.

You need to look at the context of the comments to understand why mentioning the cliché was appropriate, and why my post was not unfair or negative.

cardsharkk04 posts his pics.

Then hybris posts Although he doesn't use the word, hybris is the one to introduce the thought that the "'flowing water at slow shutter speed' technique" is a cliché.

I see cardshark's pics and hybris's comment. While I agree with hybris, I rarely see any value in posting "me too" or "+1" type posts. Instead, I compose a post that calls out the pics I like best and a brief reason for each selection: You will note I compliment chardshark for his employment of a cliché.
While I am composing that post, cardshark responds to hybris with (emphasis mine).

Because I think cardshark is more likely to be open-minded, rather than to be just making a close-minded defence of his approach, I take this as him inviting discussion on his use of the technique. From him seeing no reason not to use the technique, I infer that he may not have thought about this matter very much. That is when I made the post to which you object. It contained two reasons to counter his "I see no reason". I want to give him something to think about. I don't think that was a backpeddle. It was an attempt to show that I wasn't trashing his work in general, or using the topic of treatment of flowing water as a way to diss him.

I won't claim to be a master diplomat any more than I am a master photographer. Neither empathy nor gentleness are my strongest suits. Undoubtedly I could have phrased things differently. Shall I look to this post of yours as an example from which to learn?
The latin was in my reply to you, not cardshark. Do you take the deployment of a latin cliché as an assertion of superiority? And if so, do you assume that I view everybody in the same way you think I view you?

I don't know if you misunderstood my relationship with cardshark - it is nothing more than fellow-poster and fellow-photographer. I do think you must have misunderstood my tone, intent and meaning, and in more than one of my posts on this matter.

I'm disappointed that you chose not to repond directly to these questions: A discussion of these might have been a better way to reach some mutual understanding of the purpose and flaws of my comments to cardshark. A more general discussion of those questions may have been of greater value to other readers of this thread than our current back'n'forth.

The lesson I have taken from our conversation on this is that my writing is still not sufficiently clear that every reader comprehends my tone, intent and message. Given cardshark's responses, I am unable to conclude that my intended message failed to reach its intended target.

Shot a wedding for a close friend this weekend. I usually turn down weddings because I really do not like shooting them. It was a good time though

I'm not a pro photographer, but my first impression of this photo was

1. The main subject is too far away
2. The houses and telephone posts are kind of distracting
3. Don't like the shadow in the foreground

Hobbyist feedback!!!

Yeah I don't know if you have the megapixels to pull it off but Id probably try a tight crop and blur the background.

I shot multiple photos cut in close...the point of them being that far away is to capture everything that was going on in that point and time. Way too many photographers get caught up in composing there photos based around a simple subject. Images I feel are much more powerful when you can capture a moment..not a subject. It's hard to word, but ive been shooting weddings since I was 17 and have just kind of fell into my own way of shooting them. I'll post more when they finish exporting

and when you view the full size you will see the image is actually shot on 2.8 so when its actually blown up and printed they are the only ones in focus

I agree that capturing a moment often requires shooting the main subjects in their environmental context. So you managed to tell the viewer that nothing was going on and the happy couple were alone in the world, without a car, in a semi-rural setting. An intriguing story, and unusual for a wedding photograph. Perhaps this photograph works better when seen with other photos from the same session.

Depth of field is a function of more than just aperture. What focal length were you using, or what is the distance from focal plane to subjects?

If you are shooting 50mm at a distance of about 21 metres, you will have nearly 50 metres of DOF behind them, so those houses will nearly be in focus. Even if they are not precisely in focus, they are sharp enough to be part of the subject matter of the photograph.

It was shot on 2.8 at 200mm

Here is a bigger version of it so you can kind of see what I'm saying.

(click for the full size)



The image is being blown up into a large print.

I agree you also need to see the rest of the set, it was an outdoor wedding that was shot in a backyard in the middle of nowhere in New York so I can see where posting that single photo may have mislead you.

Anyways here is some more of my personal work

My friend very recently (in the last month) got obsessed with photography. I'm curious as to if these are any good because I have no photography experience whatsoever.

Thanks. The larger resolution makes it easier to see the slight background blur when I zoom in.

200mm? Wow, my guess was off by a lot! (Though part of that might be due to being used to crop-frame sensor cameras.) So about 85 metres from subject to camera.

Still, while they are a bit blurred, the poles and houses remain clear enough IMO to be part of the composition, not negligible background. Was this a result of f/2.8 being as fast as you had at 200mm? What do you think of scratchy1's suggestion of further blurring in post (given what you have said, forget cropping), and why? Or to come at the issue another way, why did you decide to go with a wide enough aperture to slightly blur the poles and trees, rather than keeping them sharp by using a smaller aperture? I always want to learn more about thought processes that go into making a picture.

Really like this last one.

Focal length? Aperture? Shutter speed? ISO?

Photography experience may help one identify specific issues, but I am not sure it is necessary to see if a picture is good - assuming there is such a thing as objective goodness in photography.

Brooklyn Bridge photo is tilted. Buildings and bridge tower are leaning. Colour/exposure are good, but framing is a bit arbitary - I might want to see more of whatever is on the left, perhaps a bit less water.

Receding fence is a classic composition, but I might want a bit more depth of field (DOF), as one would get from a smaller aperture. Maybe change the point of view a bit to the right so we get less lawn and the fence line disappears towards the corner of the frame rather than an aribitrary spot on the top edge.

Vineyard also needs more DOF, and would probably be a bit more interesting if taken from a lower point of view, with less sky in the frame. I might want to try this shot at either end of a long zoom range. As it is, a lot of out-of-focus green stuff isn't too interesting.

I like the colours in the shot of the sailing ships in port, but a wider angle lense would have avoided having to cut off so much of the hull of the centre ship. Using the mast to frame the shot on the right is fine, but the left side seems to be at an arbitrary location. Also the mast almost in the centre of the shot may not be in the best place. When balance is important and you have multiple elements or a single main element which is a small part of the frame, it is often better to have the signficant element(s) about 1/3 of the way in from one edge. In Tre-fi's latest post, notice how the hand on the gun is about 1/3 in from the top and right, the head of the man in the office is in about the same location, and the performer's head is 1/3 from top and left, while his hand is 1/3 from bottom and right.

I'm a grandparent, so baby pictures are almost always good. Which do you like better - the one your friend took, or this cropped version? Why?

The probably with adding more blurr to it in post is that you completely lose the color, and a lot of the texture that still remains in the trees.

Here is another one from that particular location. I have the same one in color too but I've been favoring the black and white



As for the last photo of kid cudi, it was shot on my D700 with a 17-35 2.8 at 1/60th on 3200 iso I believe? I shot it last year and I'm too lazy to pull up the data

I like this much more than the other version.

Nice work on the portraits, all of them are excellent.

I see. What about selectively blurring just the houses and the poles, but leaving the trees and sky alone?

So you didn't pull the photo and check its EXIF, but you can come up with shutter speed and ISO! I can understand remembering camera and lens. Are you actually remembering shutter speed and ISO or did you come up with these numbers another way? For instance, are these the slowest shutter speed and highest ISO you would normally consider using in this sort of situation?
Me too, but I'd rotate it 1.5 degrees clockwise, and crop out the topmost wires. Having the couple between two houses is symbolic, so it adds to the composition. A much different story is told compared to the first version.

+1 the story the first version told me was that this couple was planning to raise their future children under the power lines and there was nothing anyone could do to stop them.

I think that would look way too unnatural.

So you didn't pull the photo and check its EXIF, but you can come up with shutter speed and ISO! I can understand remembering camera and lens. Are you actually remembering shutter speed and ISO or did you come up with these numbers another way? For instance, are these the slowest shutter speed and highest ISO you would normally consider using in this sort of situation?[/QUOTE]

I shoot a lot of live shows and I remember this show in particular because it was like the first big show that I shot live. The highest ISO i shoot on for these is usually around 2800 at 1/60th, shoot it raw, and bring it up in photoshop. It was super dark in that theatre though and I was bugging out because I had to shoot on 3200. Thats why the dynamic range in the second one is so wild.