Wuben        
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 137

Thread: RIP Popular Photography

  1. #61
    Flashaholic* RedLED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Palm Springs, CA, Beverly Hills, CA, Washington, DC, New York City Manhattan
    Posts
    3,106

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    Weddings are chicken feed compared to corporate work, our serious money comes from that, well into six figures, a trip, with a lot of expense on our end because they need so much but with big profits, and these dam terrorists have ruined many out of the country trips, as high level executives are targets. In the 90's the big companies did not blink at our huge bids, they just kept up us. Many still do. Once a CEO, told me to just double what ever we bill. And I did. In the 90's silicone valley.

    Also, forget Malcom Gladwell, he would be lucky to shoot a photo of his foot.

    Nevertheless, keep up the good wedding work. We have had some $30,000 dollar ones over the years, I just have contracts from naming the families. No one gets them as often as you think, and today many wealthy in this era are total cheapskate's, and would never give that kind of money. Trust me I live in a few towns which full of them. And no longer work for any of them no matter what they pay and it is not what the older generations paid. The new money, they are awful people.

    Books are a better source than the Internet as they have been researched, by editors, and the authors vetted.

    You are are spot on about the race to the bottom, I'm glad I started when I did as I am looking to semi retire and do just the things I want.

    Busiuess skils are equal to technical and art. Remove one and you can't work in this business, you must be excellent at all. Work hard, real hard, and you can make unreal amounts in this field, however it is closing fast.

    I worked over twenty years without a day off, and loved it. That kind of demand is over.

    As as far as 10,000 hours, I had an assistant years ago from Sweden. He was the most talented photographer I have ever seen in my life (Self taught, like most of us), here on a college exchange, I even sent him on an assignment to photograph Ray Charles, which he did wonderful work on.

    When he returned home, before he was allowed to work in the profession, he was required to attend an art academy, and a bunch of useless college classes. When finished, he lost his edge, his natural talent and spirit broken, lost by a bunch of bearded professors, he told me he could not even take a photo of a bridge. He quit. So don't be fooled by the people that show up at something like the insane TED conference, that worthless thing. That kind of thinking ruins people.

    In art, the longer you spend in academia the more you lose your talent. My best college professor, once told me get a BA and get out, he was right. Frankly good common sense is just as good for this work.

    Again best of luck,

    RL
    Last edited by RedLED; 03-25-2017 at 05:33 PM.
    Check my Web Site: www.Redwayphoto.com

  2. #62
    *Flashaholic* StarHalo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    California Republic
    Posts
    10,355

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    Quote Originally Posted by RedLED View Post
    And no professional, I have ever known at the highest levels ever uses RAW, RGB is perfectly fine
    I shoot RAW and post-process manually in Lightroom exclusively But then I'm not filling memory cards on a deadline. Been carefully filling out my histograms since the pictures were on floppy disks in Windows 98, and the dynamic range of these modern cameras is definitely twenty years ahead (though I have seen the D3 get pictures I can't explain and would gladly carry one..)

    Before and after with the big dynamic range of the little deck of cards-sized camera:


  3. #63
    Flashaholic* RedLED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Palm Springs, CA, Beverly Hills, CA, Washington, DC, New York City Manhattan
    Posts
    3,106

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    No, that's fine we do use raw on certain things, it does have a use. Not for deadlines though. There is software for going big, like for a bill board. I don't do any post production, so I'm not the one to ask. I do camera work, lenses, lighting and directing. I just want to be where the action as I hate, like many professionals, photoshop, and all the other software. However, I need some one good at it, and some people only want to do that.

    Same as in the film days, some people hated taking photos, but loved the dark room. Even in the digital age we need people to fix our photos sometimes, not every shot you take is an award winner but thank god for post production professionals.
    Check my Web Site: www.Redwayphoto.com

  4. #64
    Flashaholic* xdayv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    1,975

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    Looking back the D3 raw files were a breeze to process in the Lightroom engine... now we got these big fat D800 files to deal with.

    Wonder if we have access to PDF archives of this magazine though?

  5. #65
    *Flashaholic* StarHalo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    California Republic
    Posts
    10,355

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    On the subject of the D3 and why I respect it, not my picture - About a year ago a guy over on the photography forum was shooting a wedding with a D3S and just randomly snapped this pic while walking about, he wanted to know if he should include it in the photos sent to the client. So I'm getting ready to edit it, up the shadows, maybe remove the gal in the back, and I'm really impressed by the processing he's already done to it, not a bit of noise anywhere and very smooth pixels. I ask him what he used to process it, and he says "that's how it came out of the camera." What?! This is ISO 640, just a quick off the cuff snap of a scene, and it looks like this at the pixel level? I told him "I'd use a 12MP camera for weddings too if they all came out like that.."

    Seriously, full size/1:1 this and see if you can find a flaw, there's no noise where there should be noise, no pixels where there should be pixels, it's just madness:


  6. #66
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    457

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    Quote Originally Posted by StarHalo View Post
    And SLR sales have shown very slow and modest gains since the digital camera took over, and haven't really been affected by the cell phone, whereas the compact camera has been completely destroyed by the phone; compact sales figures today are about on par with the sales of film cameras in their final year. The notable trend within the SLR category this year is that mirrorless is rising and DSLR is declining.
    I am not sure where you are getting your stats but they are not accurate.

    Interchangeable lens cameras peaks in sales in 2012 and have been dropping every year since and are about 1/2 their peak. Point and shoots are a $volume basis are are complete death spiral and are at barely 1/10 their peak.

    The comment about mirrorless cameras increasing is also wrong. Mirrorless sales have been virtually flat the last 4 years, while DSLR has declined.

    Infographics-2016-03-1.jpg


  7. #67
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    457

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    Quote Originally Posted by StarHalo View Post
    Just my observation, but the cell phone usually does the kind of pictures done by cell phones better than the camera in auto mode; the phone's minuscule aperture and raised-shadows processing makes for remarkably optimized selfies and indoor shots. And since you're sharing an image that won't be viewed on anything larger than a cell phone, the amount of detail is about right for the format.
    Comparatively the aperture is quite large compared to the sensor size. The firmware is very good though.

  8. #68
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    457

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    Quote Originally Posted by RedLED View Post
    Star,

    I agree with you on this100%.

    And no professional, I have ever known at the highest levels ever uses RAW, RGB is perfectly fine, let the camera do the work for you. At the Oscars or Emmys, I shoot 8,000 images, with dead lines, RGB is the way to go, and my post production artist will tell me to do a few only if we are going big in size, light room and its BS aside. I don't like light room, mt artist may, I use something else simpler that I won't a discuss here.
    RGB? ... do you mean JPEG?

  9. #69
    *Flashaholic* StarHalo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    California Republic
    Posts
    10,355

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    Quote Originally Posted by ssanasisredna View Post
    I am not sure where you are getting your stats but they are not accurate.
    You're not looking back far enough, check video above/second page @ 10:30

  10. #70
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    457

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    Quote Originally Posted by xdayv View Post
    Looking back the D3 raw files were a breeze to process in the Lightroom engine... now we got these big fat D800 files to deal with.

    Wonder if we have access to PDF archives of this magazine though?
    But fortunately we have lots of computing power too.

  11. #71
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    457

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    You know you should never ask to point out the flaws ... there are always flaws :-)

    - There is what looks like a stuck pixel in the guys suit just to the right of his shirt (middlish).
    - There is a fair amount of compression artifacts in the flowers
    - There is chromatic aberration on the bottom left of the silk of the bouquet (there is a spot where it is blown out and you can see color fringing)

    You can pick up a used D600/610 for under <$1000 that from a purely technical image standpoint is going to blow away a D3 ..... but I suspect you could have given the same photographer a D3400 and a kit lens and they still would have delivered an impressive image ... except the kit lens may not have had a wide enough aperture to give the shallow depth of field.

    Quote Originally Posted by StarHalo View Post
    On the subject of the D3 and why I respect it, not my picture - About a year ago a guy over on the photography forum was shooting a wedding with a D3S and just randomly snapped this pic while walking about, he wanted to know if he should include it in the photos sent to the client. So I'm getting ready to edit it, up the shadows, maybe remove the gal in the back, and I'm really impressed by the processing he's already done to it, not a bit of noise anywhere and very smooth pixels. I ask him what he used to process it, and he says "that's how it came out of the camera." What?! This is ISO 640, just a quick off the cuff snap of a scene, and it looks like this at the pixel level? I told him "I'd use a 12MP camera for weddings too if they all came out like that.."

    Seriously, full size/1:1 this and see if you can find a flaw, there's no noise where there should be noise, no pixels where there should be pixels, it's just madness:

    Last edited by ssanasisredna; 03-25-2017 at 11:40 PM.

  12. #72
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    457

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    -----

  13. #73
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    457

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    Quote Originally Posted by StarHalo View Post
    You're not looking back far enough, check video above/second page @ 10:30
    You stated, "And SLR sales have shown very slow and modest gains since the digital camera took over, and haven't really been affected by the cell phone"

    That stopped being true after 2012. DSLR sales are 1/2 the peak. That is a pretty huge hit when you consider that the total consumer market is much much bigger than it was in 2012 with the rise of China and other areas economically. Cell phone cameras became quite good in the 2010-2012 period.

  14. #74
    *Flashaholic* StarHalo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    California Republic
    Posts
    10,355

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    Quote Originally Posted by ssanasisredna View Post
    You know you should never ask to point out the flaws
    You normally post on camera forums?

  15. #75

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    Quote Originally Posted by ssanasisredna View Post
    RGB? ... do you mean JPEG?
    You go into the menu of a Nikon, go to color space and pick sRGB or Adobe RGB. I'm supposing red uses Adobe RGB?

    See, that is why Popular Photography was important.... they discussed the details in plain language for everybody to understand... even that guys 12 year old kid who is dictating the market according to her dad.

    I keep mine on sRGB as I don't use Adobe products for my edits.

    This thread makes me want to resubscribe to Shutterbug magazine. It already got me to dust off my D7000 and take a bunch of macros of flashlights using my $99 50mm wedding portrait lens.

    I'm sure red has the 1.4 version of Nikons 50mm prime lens but for $99-150 their 1.8 version is pretty sweet. To me half the fun with that one is it steps you back in time to say... the brownie camera days with an advantage of the instant new millenium dark room.

    Learned about it reading.... wait for it...

    Popular Photography...
    Last edited by bykfixer; 03-26-2017 at 06:59 AM.
    John 3:16

  16. #76
    Flashaholic joelbnyc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    228

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    Quote Originally Posted by bykfixer View Post
    . I'm sure red has the 1.4 version of Nikons 50mm prime lens but for $99-150 their 1.8 version is pretty sweet.
    I presume you are talking about the older 1.8D line without motor? FX 1.8G lines are pretty awesome value too.

    For my wife's d750 we got I think the AF-S FX 1.8G 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm, all $200-$500 each, and great marks at dxomark, amazing image quality. And you can get a full frame Nikon for not much more than the D7000 series...

    The wide angles in this 1.8G series look great too, $600-800 range.

    She has I think 1 or 2 older motorless primes as well, and one of the big ~$2k F2.8 70-200 VR zooms. Then the monitors, computers, software, websites, marketing, flashes and other accessories...

    Course now she wants another FX camera so she doesn't have to switch lenses as much and for backup... not a capital unintensive biz...

    But, even with full frame gear, it's a lot less costly than a college degree, if one has the talent, drive, and biz sense to make it all useful.
    Last edited by joelbnyc; 03-26-2017 at 09:06 AM.

  17. #77
    *Flashaholic* StarHalo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    California Republic
    Posts
    10,355

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    Quote Originally Posted by bykfixer View Post
    It already got me to dust off my D7000 and take a bunch of macros of flashlights using my $99 50mm wedding portrait lens.
    Love that Pentax $99 50mm..

  18. #78

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    Quote Originally Posted by StarHalo View Post
    Love that Pentax $99 50mm..
    Nice! I love using prime lenses. My dad was a Pentax user. He finally broke down and bought an autofucus film camera in about 2002 or so.
    When I feel nostalgic I'll use that one instead of my Rebel G. It plays nice with drug store Fuji film.
    Come to think of it, does Fuji even make film anymore? My film stash has probably turned 10 years old by now...


    Quote Originally Posted by joelbnyc View Post
    I presume you are talking about the older 1.8D line without motor? FX 1.8G lines are pretty awesome value too.

    For my wife's d750 we got I think the AF-S FX 1.8G 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm, all $200-$500 each, and great marks at dxomark, amazing image quality. And you can get a full frame Nikon for not much more than the D7000 series...


    Older? 2012-13-ish. I don't follow you on the "motorless" thing. It autofocuses and speaks to the camera. Super duper fast very accurate focus too.

    My 35-70 pre-G auto focuses but doesn't speak to the camera so it always thinks it's on 2.8. When Nikon discontinued it they were on the bay for as much as $900. (For what was a $400 when in production). I bought one from some magazine photographer in Seattle for $50 because the lens was so scratched up. It took photos that looked like they had a difuser for old people portraits. Great for pastel flavored macros and such. But one day I found a broken one for free and paid a guy $99 to rebuild my working one. The broken one had new fangled nano coated AR glass so I got the old metal frame lens with modern glass for less than $200. That's my wide angle lens for the full frame camera.

    I found a sensor I liked and really have no issue with only 10 and 16 MP cameras. They do decent noise reduction at less than stratospheric iso's and using my custom settings only generate 16-25 mb photos. If I want to go huge I just save as a bmp in my editor for making poster sized prints or when I need to crop some ridiculously small portion of a photo for work purposes.
    John 3:16

  19. #79
    *Flashaholic* StarHalo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    California Republic
    Posts
    10,355

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    Quote Originally Posted by bykfixer View Post
    Come to think of it, does Fuji even make film anymore? My film stash has probably turned 10 years old by now...
    Our big sellers are Fuji, Kodak, Ilford..

    Should also mention: Fuji makes/sells the most film and the most film cameras by a massive margin thanks to the current best-selling camera, the Instax.

    Quote Originally Posted by bykfixer View Post
    Older? 2012-13-ish. I don't follow you on the "motorless" thing.
    Older lenses that don't have an autofocus motor in them; that's one of the nice things about Pentax, both the autofocus and stabilization are in-body, so you have both regardless of what [non-manual] lens you use.
    Last edited by StarHalo; 03-26-2017 at 02:47 PM.

  20. #80

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    Quote Originally Posted by StarHalo View Post
    Love that Pentax $99 50mm..
    I like the idea of in camera auto focus, but especially stabilization.

    I was (holding finger tips touching) this close to going with Pentax digital after purchasing a Nikon D80. But by the time I was ready to upgrade had spent a bunch of money on full frame compatible Nikon lenses and opted for the D700.

    The Panasonic had me intrigued as well.

    I also let my Pop Photo subscription expire and opted for Shutterbug for a few years.
    John 3:16

  21. #81
    Flashaholic joelbnyc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    228

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    Yeah, one of the benefits of the D7000 and full frame Nikons is they have auto focus motors in the camera, so they can use older (cheaper but still great) Nikon lenses that do not have motors inside the actual lens, AF as opposed to AF-S lenses. The, I think, 3xxx and 5xxx crop frame lines require AF-S lenses to autofocus.
    Last edited by joelbnyc; 03-26-2017 at 03:25 PM.

  22. #82
    Flashaholic* RedLED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Palm Springs, CA, Beverly Hills, CA, Washington, DC, New York City Manhattan
    Posts
    3,106

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    Yes, of course RBG Jpeg. RPG is a JPEG, And I have never seen a professional with any of those brands. Not yet, anyway.

    Fixer, you got it, except I have all 1.4, thousands of dollars more of lenses in all focal legenths.
    Last edited by RedLED; 03-27-2017 at 02:17 AM.
    Check my Web Site: www.Redwayphoto.com

  23. #83
    Flashaholic* RedLED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Palm Springs, CA, Beverly Hills, CA, Washington, DC, New York City Manhattan
    Posts
    3,106

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    Not to start any trouble, but no, and I mean no, professional even ownes or carries nor has a 50 mm lens in his possession.

    Fixer, yes. Longer, you bet but, never a 50mm, the worst lens in the lot. No professional even has one, except as a loupe used upside down. You have to trust me on a 50mm, the most useless.
    Last edited by RedLED; 03-27-2017 at 02:34 AM.
    Check my Web Site: www.Redwayphoto.com

  24. #84

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    Quote Originally Posted by StarHalo View Post
    Love that Pentax $99 50mm..
    Quote Originally Posted by RedLED View Post
    Not to start any trouble, but no, and I mean no, professional even ownes or carries nor has a 50 mm lens in his possession.

    Fixer, yes. Longer, you bet but, never a 50mm, the worst lens in the lot. No professional even has one, except as a loupe used upside down. You have to trust me on a 50mm, the most useless.
    No trouble her mon-frier. Yeah I can see a person whose photography involves lenses that need their own monopod or tripod not having a "wedding lens" in their kit. I would also suppose they don't carry a 105 or 185 macro either.

    But for a hobbyist who crosses over tons of genres as it were, or the nature pro who covers many bases those are certainly good ones to have. Still life photography involves a totally different set of tools. And the "wedding lens" got its name long before zoom lenses became the norm. Probably not a big seller these days but at one point if you did weddings you had a 14, a 28 and a 50mm lens on your Minolta, Canon, Pentax or Yashica. (Who remembers those rigs?)

    Heck, even a Hassleblad comes with a wedding lens from the factory. That or a 35 iirc.
    John 3:16

  25. #85
    *Flashaholic* StarHalo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    California Republic
    Posts
    10,355

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    Quote Originally Posted by RedLED View Post
    Not to start any trouble, but no, and I mean no, professional even ownes or carries nor has a 50 mm lens in his possession.
    You should try one, it's ~$100 for a lens that's as sharp as the best in any given ecosystem; Canon's 50mm has a sharpness score approaching that of the Zeiss Otus/Milvus lenses. Excellent for dramatic shots of small items (like flashlights,) it's what I used for the antique mall shoot.

  26. #86
    Flashaholic* RedLED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Palm Springs, CA, Beverly Hills, CA, Washington, DC, New York City Manhattan
    Posts
    3,106

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    I'll make up a list of what is in my bag, I don't have time to do it now though.
    Check my Web Site: www.Redwayphoto.com

  27. #87

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography


    ^^ This guy...
    Nor his assistant probably have a 50mm lens.... at least in that setup, but I'm speculating the assistant is learning the ropes of the pro circuit and provides pretty good help to the photographer while she hones her skills. So perhaps she has a 50mm in her personal quiver.

    He was near first base taking photos in the first baseman's direction shortly before I took this snapshot.
    Last edited by bykfixer; 03-27-2017 at 04:42 PM.
    John 3:16

  28. #88
    *Flashaholic* StarHalo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    California Republic
    Posts
    10,355

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    I might not have a 50mm lens with my theoretical lottery windfall Leica S setup either, but bear in mind that flashlight pic above, the antique mall series, that's a $500 new-in-box body with a $100 new-in-box lens; the bang-for-the-buck force is strong with this one..

  29. #89
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    457

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    Quote Originally Posted by StarHalo View Post
    You should try one, it's ~$100 for a lens that's as sharp as the best in any given ecosystem; Canon's 50mm has a sharpness score approaching that of the Zeiss Otus/Milvus lenses. Excellent for dramatic shots of small items (like flashlights,) it's what I used for the antique mall shoot.
    It has high resolution .... Over a certain aperture range ... In the center. The vignetting is okay. Chromatic aberattions okay.

    That's the difference compared to really good lenses. The good ones are sharp under a wider aperture range especially wide open, sharp corner to corner, and minimize other issues.

  30. #90

    Default Re: RIP Popular Photography

    Quote Originally Posted by StarHalo View Post
    I might not have a 50mm lens with my theoretical lottery windfall Leica S setup either, but bear in mind that flashlight pic above, the antique mall series, that's a $500 new-in-box body with a $100 new-in-box lens; the bang-for-the-buck force is strong with this one..
    Agreed. Not bad for $600.
    Now my lottery windfall would involve a Zeiss 50mm prime. I almost bought one when they were like $500. When the next B&H catalog arrived they were $750. Doh!!

    But if a winning ticket falls in my lap I'd still use my D7000, but I'd opt for a titanium tripod instead of alluminum.

    Edit: It just dawned on me that I opted for alluminum back when for better shock absorption as the mirror slap of my camera caused slight blur when I used my wifes titanium tripod. My Kirk ball head is so dang rigid even the slightest vibrations were not attenuated and that showed up in my long exposure night shots. Decent 8x10's resulted but crops were out. Even using a remote. I did discover the shear brute weight of my D700 and good lenses did a proper absortion. Or at least much better. Plus the weight of alluminum seemed to play nice with mid speed sundown shots in windy conditions...
    Last edited by bykfixer; 03-27-2017 at 06:16 PM.
    John 3:16

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •