When I first became interested in photography, I went on the prowl for a good photography magazine. At first, I considered magazines such as "Aperture," that have amazing photos in each publication, but I decided to go for something that also had content that I could learn from. I decided to go with "Popular Photography." "Popular Photography" doesn't have as many jaw dropping images that magazines such as "Aperture" have, but "Popular Photography" posses articles that could, and still do, help me grow as a photographer and teach me a few valuable things. My mom has a subscription to "Popular Photography," so I was already somewhat familiar with the publication. I received my first issue in the mail in July of 2011, and its articles have helped me in different ways, and the reviews help me decide what I should consider and what I shouldn't. The only downside of the reviews are that sometimes the reviews are aimed towards equipment or cameras that I wouldn't even consider, such as point and shoots, and other "novice" like equipment, but that's what happens when a publication tries to appeal to a wide audience. The biggest, and most noticeable and annoying, downside of the publication though, is the amount of advertisements in the magazine.
For those of you who don't know, advertisements are how magazines and newspapers make their money. The subscriptions basically cover the shipping costs of the publication.
Now, I'm all for a decent publication like "Popular Photography" doing whatever it takes to continue surviving in order to provide information to it's readers, but after noticing that I could easily read everything in "Popular Photography" cover to cover in less time than it takes me to eat a meal, I decided to count how many of the pages contained an advertisement in the most recent issue I received. I counted 57 pages out of 112, or 51%, of the magazine's pages either have ads on them, or are entirely ads.The pages that contain ads, and aren't completely an advertisement, are sometimes the majority of the page, with less than 20% of a page with an ad actually being content from a writer of the magazine. I can't help but find this a little ridiculous. Does "Popular Photography" really need these many advertisements in their publication in order to continue making their magazine? I would hope so. Because I would hope that if they didn't, they would make the right choice by having as little advertisements as possible in order to provide more content, or at the very least make the magazine more enjoyable to their readers.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Friday, December 7, 2012
Post 23
For those of you who aren't familiar, and therefore don't see often, with my website, Facebook page, or Flickr page, I took photos for the UW-Whitewater Dance Team today. Here are the photos.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danpomykalski/sets/72157632191530501/
This was pretty fun day. All of the girls were extremely nice, and my contact was happy with the photos. As a photographer, there are some people you work for that treat you like dirt, and then there's some people who give you the utmost respect. I would say today was the second. Overall, I'd say today was pretty successful. I got to take photos for two hours and I'm estimating the payoff will be about the equivalent to what I made in two weeks at my old job.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danpomykalski/sets/72157632191530501/
This was pretty fun day. All of the girls were extremely nice, and my contact was happy with the photos. As a photographer, there are some people you work for that treat you like dirt, and then there's some people who give you the utmost respect. I would say today was the second. Overall, I'd say today was pretty successful. I got to take photos for two hours and I'm estimating the payoff will be about the equivalent to what I made in two weeks at my old job.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Post 22
It's been a while! Just when I thought I wasn't going to be able to think of something to talk about ever again, I went and surprised myself. It seems so obvious now, too, and it should have been one of those things I had discussed right away.
But first, I want to give a quick update. I have a website now. The current website is temporary, but the domain name will remain the same even after my permanent site is up and running. The domain name is: www.danpomykalskiphotography.com, so be sure to add my site to your favorites. It's not much right now. Just a photo of Peyton, a way to contact me, and a very, very brief description.
I also just had a shoot a few days ago, but am unable to share the photos until a little later. I'm very excited to share these photos with you, which will be on my flickr page: www.flickr.com/danpomykalski. I'll let you know once they're up. I'm really happy about how these turned out, and can't wait to show them.
I have a shoot this Friday, and I have high expectations for the results. I'll be sure to upload of those to my Flickr page as well once I'm done editing them.
Now, for the actual topic of this post.
Modern technology has made it extremely easy for almost anyone to pick up a dSLR and achieve "professional" image quality with a few presses of a shutter button, and then a few clicks of a mouse. It wasn't long ago, when being a photographer was more of a specialty, with far less Uncle Tom's with a low end dSLR shooting a wedding for free. I'm not afraid to admit that this ease of achieving decent results really attracted me to "photography," and made it much more accessible. If you're doubting what I'm saying about photography being much easier now than it was even ten years ago, take a look through Instagram. I've seen people achieve great things with a phone equipped with a decent camera and applying cheesy filters. I've also seen plenty of terrible photos on Instagram, where people try to be artistic, or try to make it look like they're a photographer, because Instagram gives one that false sense of being able to take a decent photograph. The difference between the photos that I pass over and the photos that make my mouth drop, is photos that are taken by someone who has "the eye for photography" and the photos taken by someone who doesn't.
It's hard to explain what "the eye for photography" is, exactly. I can tell when someone has it from their work, and I can tell when someone doesn't. The eye can't be taught. Someone with endless amounts of money can buy the best equipment, but their photos will still look terrible compared to someone with "the eye" working with a little point and shoot.
So what's the point of this post? To let you know that anyone can say they're a photographer, but there are certain qualities that separate the photographers who can manage to be successful today and the photographers who are successful today who would have been successful at any point of time. The photographers who have "the eye," a knowledge of equipment and how to use their tools, and photographers who manage to create great results no matter what equipment they're using.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Post 20
A few months ago, Nikon announced the D600, an "affordable" full frame camera. Compared to the other full fram cameras, the D600 is affordable at $2,000. The D800 is the next full frame camera from Nikon, and that will set you back $3,000. When I first heard about the D600, I was ecstatic. Although the D600 wasn't as cheap as many had anticipated, it still seemed like a deal. A lot of photographers have said the D600 is basically like a full frame version of the D7000, which is what I have. I was strongly considering returning my D7000 for the D600. Full frame sensors offer a number of advantages over cropped sensor cameras, such as better performance at higher ISOs. As many of you know, I take hockey photos quite a bit, and I'm already pushing my camera, in terms of noise, at ISO 1600. I wouldn't be surprised if I could shoot ISO 3200-6400 with the D600 and get the same results as I am now.
Cropped sensors have their own advantage as well. I get more reach with a cropped sensor. 1.5x more reach. When shooting hockey, this makes a pretty big difference.
In my mind, the D7000 has advantages over the D600. The D7000 has a maximum shutter speed of 1/8000th, and a max flash sync speed of 1/250th of a second. The D600 has a maximum shutter speed of 1/4000th, and a max flash sync speed of 1/200th. These numbers don't make a huge deal, but I avoided cameras with the same shutter speed as the D600 because I can just imagine running into a situation that's really bright and wishing I could shoot just a little faster. It should be acknowledged that the D600 can shoot at ISO 50, while the D7000 can only go down to ISO 100. These small differences and the $1,000 difference combine to make the D600 seem kind of like a shiny turd, to me. Personally, I'd take a faster car over one that looked better.
After shooting with the D7000 for the past couple of months, the only other camera body I've wanted is a D3x, which is $7,000, or a D4, which is $6,000. I was considering a D800 for a while, but 36.3 megapixels means not only reduced noise performance, but ridiculously large files. Besides, anyone who knows anything about cameras knows that megapixels only mean something to those who know nothing about cameras. (Unless you're a studio photographer.) I shot with a D70 for five months and got great results. How many megapixels does a D70 have? 6.1.
Cropped sensors have their own advantage as well. I get more reach with a cropped sensor. 1.5x more reach. When shooting hockey, this makes a pretty big difference.
In my mind, the D7000 has advantages over the D600. The D7000 has a maximum shutter speed of 1/8000th, and a max flash sync speed of 1/250th of a second. The D600 has a maximum shutter speed of 1/4000th, and a max flash sync speed of 1/200th. These numbers don't make a huge deal, but I avoided cameras with the same shutter speed as the D600 because I can just imagine running into a situation that's really bright and wishing I could shoot just a little faster. It should be acknowledged that the D600 can shoot at ISO 50, while the D7000 can only go down to ISO 100. These small differences and the $1,000 difference combine to make the D600 seem kind of like a shiny turd, to me. Personally, I'd take a faster car over one that looked better.
After shooting with the D7000 for the past couple of months, the only other camera body I've wanted is a D3x, which is $7,000, or a D4, which is $6,000. I was considering a D800 for a while, but 36.3 megapixels means not only reduced noise performance, but ridiculously large files. Besides, anyone who knows anything about cameras knows that megapixels only mean something to those who know nothing about cameras. (Unless you're a studio photographer.) I shot with a D70 for five months and got great results. How many megapixels does a D70 have? 6.1.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Post 19
The other day my mom called me and told me that she was thinking about trading in her Tamron f/4-5.6 70-300mm for a Tamron f/3.5-6.3 18-270mm. The 70-300mm was mine for a little while until I got the Tamron f/2.8 70-200, and it wasn't a bad lens. The 70-300mm focuses faster than the f/2.8 surprisingly, and the images weren't too bad. I just couldn't stand the variable aperture. My mom says that the 70-300mm is too heavy for her, and that she doesn't want to have to change lenses. She wants to use the 18-270mm to take photos of my sister playing softball.
The first concern I have with the 18-270mm is the aperture. f/6.3?! That's ridiculous. F/6.3 would only be useable in either extremely well lit situations, or if you were using a flash. Personally, I would consider the lens useable from 18mm to wherever f/5.6 kicked in, which I'm guessing would be around 150mm. I've heard the lens at 18mm is hideous, though, so let me revise the useable part to around 30mm to probably 150mm or so. By now, there's probably already a lens similar in price that will look much better within that range.
The second concern I have with this lens, is 18-270mm is a huge range, which means there's a lot of glass that's moving around. At $400 or so, I'm guessing the alignment of the glass and elements isn't that great throughout the range, which makes me assume the sharpness and image quality is pretty poor.
After thinking about it for a while though, I thought maybe it would be okay for someone who, like my mom, isn't a professional, and just wants to take photos of their kid. They're not looking for the best image quality, they just want to use one lens all of the time to get okay shots of their kid playing sports. This lens would provide just that, and be a perfect fit for what my mom is looking for. But then I realized, what's the point in owning a dSLR then? DSLRs provide much higher quality images than a small point-and-shoot, but at the price of being bigger, heavier, and lens swapping. My mom, or anyone who doesn't want to deal with switching lesnes, could spend a fraction of what they did for a dSLR and get the same convenience in a point-and-shoot, and when comparing a point-and-shoot to a dSLR with a lens like the 18-270mm, the images probably won't look much different.
One more thing I would like to rant about, is someone said to me, "sometimes shooting in automatic mode is better than shooting in manual." Let me just take a moment to pick this statement apart.
This is the most absurd thing I have ever heard in my life. I'll try to explain why in an example after I say this; you know what you want your photo to look like, your camera doesn't. Your camera will try its hardest to make a good guess, but that's as far as it will get. Expecting your photo to look just how you want it when you shoot in auto is like pushing the "potato" button every time you put something in your microwave, even if the food you're trying to cook isn't a potato...
At my computer desk right now, there's a Coke can. I'll take a photo in auto, see what the settings are, and then let you know what I would have wanted in this type of situation. The lighting is poor, so I'm guessing the camera will raise the ISO to a ridiculously high value, and use the flash. I've never used a dSLR in auto mode though, so I'm not entirely sure what will happen.
The camera decided ISO 800 was adequate, at f/2.8, a shutter speed of 1/60, and with the pop up flash.
I shot the same photo at ISO 640, f/1.8, and 1/50th of a second. In my opinion, my photo may be a little under exposed, but that's why I shoot RAW, to fix little things like that. The first photo is the photo shot in automatic, and the second one is the one I took. If you've read my other post about flash, you know I, along with many others, aren't all that satisfied with the pop up flash. The only time I use the pop up flash is to trigger my speedlights. You might not be able to tell a difference really between the two, but if this was more of a real world situation, such as a portrait, the pop up flash would have ruined the photo.
The first concern I have with the 18-270mm is the aperture. f/6.3?! That's ridiculous. F/6.3 would only be useable in either extremely well lit situations, or if you were using a flash. Personally, I would consider the lens useable from 18mm to wherever f/5.6 kicked in, which I'm guessing would be around 150mm. I've heard the lens at 18mm is hideous, though, so let me revise the useable part to around 30mm to probably 150mm or so. By now, there's probably already a lens similar in price that will look much better within that range.
The second concern I have with this lens, is 18-270mm is a huge range, which means there's a lot of glass that's moving around. At $400 or so, I'm guessing the alignment of the glass and elements isn't that great throughout the range, which makes me assume the sharpness and image quality is pretty poor.
After thinking about it for a while though, I thought maybe it would be okay for someone who, like my mom, isn't a professional, and just wants to take photos of their kid. They're not looking for the best image quality, they just want to use one lens all of the time to get okay shots of their kid playing sports. This lens would provide just that, and be a perfect fit for what my mom is looking for. But then I realized, what's the point in owning a dSLR then? DSLRs provide much higher quality images than a small point-and-shoot, but at the price of being bigger, heavier, and lens swapping. My mom, or anyone who doesn't want to deal with switching lesnes, could spend a fraction of what they did for a dSLR and get the same convenience in a point-and-shoot, and when comparing a point-and-shoot to a dSLR with a lens like the 18-270mm, the images probably won't look much different.
One more thing I would like to rant about, is someone said to me, "sometimes shooting in automatic mode is better than shooting in manual." Let me just take a moment to pick this statement apart.
This is the most absurd thing I have ever heard in my life. I'll try to explain why in an example after I say this; you know what you want your photo to look like, your camera doesn't. Your camera will try its hardest to make a good guess, but that's as far as it will get. Expecting your photo to look just how you want it when you shoot in auto is like pushing the "potato" button every time you put something in your microwave, even if the food you're trying to cook isn't a potato...
At my computer desk right now, there's a Coke can. I'll take a photo in auto, see what the settings are, and then let you know what I would have wanted in this type of situation. The lighting is poor, so I'm guessing the camera will raise the ISO to a ridiculously high value, and use the flash. I've never used a dSLR in auto mode though, so I'm not entirely sure what will happen.
The camera decided ISO 800 was adequate, at f/2.8, a shutter speed of 1/60, and with the pop up flash.
I shot the same photo at ISO 640, f/1.8, and 1/50th of a second. In my opinion, my photo may be a little under exposed, but that's why I shoot RAW, to fix little things like that. The first photo is the photo shot in automatic, and the second one is the one I took. If you've read my other post about flash, you know I, along with many others, aren't all that satisfied with the pop up flash. The only time I use the pop up flash is to trigger my speedlights. You might not be able to tell a difference really between the two, but if this was more of a real world situation, such as a portrait, the pop up flash would have ruined the photo.
Somehow this post turned in to a two subject thing.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Post 17
I like this video for a number of reasons. Besides the original point of the video, Dom also shows a good example of what a photo looks like before and after a photographer edits a photo. I also think Dom makes a good argument as to why people need to hire photographers. Good photos can be the difference between selling what you need to, or being stuck with it; more so through online sales.
Personally, I don't tend to edit my photos a whole lot, but even Dom's photos aren't edited as much as most people who don't know anything about photography usually think. It seems that whenever the words "edited," and "photo" are used together in a sentence, people automatically assume that some how, the photo in question is no longer real (Thank you magazine photographers and celebrities). There are two different types of editing, in my mind. Editing the photo to make it more readable/look better, which is what I, and many other photographers do, and photo manipulating. Think about it.
Post 16
For the past couple of months, I've been struggling to market myself; especially when it comes to Facebook. For the amount of time my page has been up, I wasn't doing all that bad. Of course, I wanted more, though. Not only more "likes," but also more interaction. I felt as though I was updating my statuses from my photography page and the only interaction I was having with anyone was with my fiance, who was kind enough to "like" the things I posted.
Then, one day, I got the idea of uploaded a photo. I decided to call the photo "photo of the day." After thinking about it for months, I finally came to the realization that I don't think that many people have even seen the photos on my Flickr page, which means they haven't seen my recent work either. I stopped uploaded every photo I took to my Facebook page a while ago, in fear of people stealing my photos. The first photo I posted got me the most interaction I've ever had on my photography page. For those of you who don't know this, there's actually a feature that allows the admin to schedule when something will be posted. So, I sat at the computer for hours, uploaded photos and scheduling them to be released at 1 p.m. once a day up until January 17th, at which point I anticipate I will have more photos to upload. Over the past couple of days, the "success" of my photography page has grown exponentially, and I finally feel as though I'm making some progress via social media.
Then, one day, I got the idea of uploaded a photo. I decided to call the photo "photo of the day." After thinking about it for months, I finally came to the realization that I don't think that many people have even seen the photos on my Flickr page, which means they haven't seen my recent work either. I stopped uploaded every photo I took to my Facebook page a while ago, in fear of people stealing my photos. The first photo I posted got me the most interaction I've ever had on my photography page. For those of you who don't know this, there's actually a feature that allows the admin to schedule when something will be posted. So, I sat at the computer for hours, uploaded photos and scheduling them to be released at 1 p.m. once a day up until January 17th, at which point I anticipate I will have more photos to upload. Over the past couple of days, the "success" of my photography page has grown exponentially, and I finally feel as though I'm making some progress via social media.
Post 15
I had a bit of a reality check this morning. The other day, while shooting for the Jets, I noticed another photographer shooting in the general area that I like to shoot from. I thought he looked kind of familiar, and I thought that he might be someone who had added me as a contact on Flickr, a while back. I thought about it a little more after that point, and decided that it would have been too much of a coincidence. What would be the chances that someone who had added me on Flickr would end up coming to photograph a team that I clearly took photos of? I thought pretty slim.
Turns out it was him though, and he was trying to take my job. At first I was pretty upset that he was trying to take my gig from me, especially since it's pretty clear from my Flickr page that I photograph the team. The feeling of being upset only lasted for a few seconds though, probably because I got to keep the job. The price I charge the Jets is pretty hard to beat. The only way someone could give a better price to the Jets is if the photographer paid the Jets to let them take the photos, since I take the photos for free. It also probably helps that I feel as though I have a pretty decent relationship with the organization.
I thought about it a little more, and also realized that other photographers trying to take my clients away form me is going to be something that I'm going to have to deal with my entire career. I can only see two ways of combating this. Either charge a ridiculously low amount for a session, so that no one can really beat my prices, which will result in me not being able to earn enough income to live. Or, strive to keep strong relationships with my clients and produce quality work.
I've seen the photos the other photographer provides, and they're pretty decent. It's fairly evident that he spends more time in post than I do, but that's more of a style preference. The photographer's photos were generally pretty sharp, and a lot of them were more of individual players. The more photos of individual players is also more of a style thing. One thing I did notice, though, was in some of the photos the other photographer took, the photos were edited to a point where the skin looked gooey. The players looked almost like action figures. This is something I try to avoid like the plague. There's no point in taking photos with people in them, if the people don't look like people anymore. To me, that makes less sense than a penny. But, to each his own.
Be sure to like my Facebook page for exclusive information, deals, and my photo of the day!
www.facebook.com/dpomykalski
Turns out it was him though, and he was trying to take my job. At first I was pretty upset that he was trying to take my gig from me, especially since it's pretty clear from my Flickr page that I photograph the team. The feeling of being upset only lasted for a few seconds though, probably because I got to keep the job. The price I charge the Jets is pretty hard to beat. The only way someone could give a better price to the Jets is if the photographer paid the Jets to let them take the photos, since I take the photos for free. It also probably helps that I feel as though I have a pretty decent relationship with the organization.
I thought about it a little more, and also realized that other photographers trying to take my clients away form me is going to be something that I'm going to have to deal with my entire career. I can only see two ways of combating this. Either charge a ridiculously low amount for a session, so that no one can really beat my prices, which will result in me not being able to earn enough income to live. Or, strive to keep strong relationships with my clients and produce quality work.
I've seen the photos the other photographer provides, and they're pretty decent. It's fairly evident that he spends more time in post than I do, but that's more of a style preference. The photographer's photos were generally pretty sharp, and a lot of them were more of individual players. The more photos of individual players is also more of a style thing. One thing I did notice, though, was in some of the photos the other photographer took, the photos were edited to a point where the skin looked gooey. The players looked almost like action figures. This is something I try to avoid like the plague. There's no point in taking photos with people in them, if the people don't look like people anymore. To me, that makes less sense than a penny. But, to each his own.
Be sure to like my Facebook page for exclusive information, deals, and my photo of the day!
www.facebook.com/dpomykalski
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Post 14
I started this blog for a specific reason; to showcase my photography. Over my very few posts, however, it has seemed that this blog has turned into more of a "help/advice for budding photographers" as well as a way to reach out to my potential clients/clients. Blogger is kind enough to let me know how many views I'm getting, and how many views each post gets, but I'm not actually sure who I'm reaching with these posts. I'm not even sure if I'm reaching the same people with each post, or if each post is reaching a new audience every time. I'd like to fix that. I hope to hear from the individuals who read my blog or my posts so I can get a better idea of who is reading my posts, and to see if my posts are reaching who I hope it is.
I'm sure many of you read my blog because I post the links to my Facebook page, but for those of you who haven't yet, please like my Dan Pomykalski Photography page for exclusive deals and information, by clicking here. For those of you who already like my Facebook page, you can help by sharing my page, or telling your friends about my page.
For those of you who don't know about my Flickr page, and would like to see my photos, you can click here.
I appreciate your views and the time you take to read my blog. I hope to hear from my readers soon!
Post 13
When I first got the idea in my head to get a dSLR, the first thing I did was go to YouTube. I searched for the camera I was planning to get, and of course, a countless number of low quality videos made by people who were bored one day popped up. One video really caught my attention. The quality of the video was great, in teams of resolution and the way the presenter handled the review. I ended up watching that video to the point where I knew everything that was in the video. I ended up subscribing to the channel and quickly discovered that the channel had videos that were designed for people like me; beginners.
The person responsible for this great resource was Jared Polin. I watched his videos over and over again, before and after I got my hands on a dSLR. Polin helped me get a grasp of how to use a camera and how to use Lightroom. It probably would have taken years for me to get to the point where I am today without Polin.
With that being said, it didn't take me long to get bored of what Polin was saying in his videos. Polin's message this: spend all of your money on good glass, shoot RAW, boost the contrast, and buy his t-shirts. I soon realized that Polin was nothing more than an excellent t-shirt salesman who happened to be slightly charismatic. Polin knows almost nothing about flash, and his opinions are extremely biased towards top of the line Nikon gear. Recently, Polin hasn't been bashing Canon as much as he did in his earlier videos, which almost makes it even worse, because people who have seen those videos knows how he really feels. Polin's trying to appeal to more people so he can gain more money through YouTube and sell more of his shirts.
After realizing Polin wouldn't be able to offer me much past very beginning advice, I started looking for other inspiration. This resulted in me discovering a plethora of other photographers who are able to make amazing photographs, most of which make me want to never take a photo again.
Although Polin isn't who I thought he was when I first started taking photos, there's one thing for sure. He's certainly more credible than Ken Rockwell, which isn't saying much.
The person responsible for this great resource was Jared Polin. I watched his videos over and over again, before and after I got my hands on a dSLR. Polin helped me get a grasp of how to use a camera and how to use Lightroom. It probably would have taken years for me to get to the point where I am today without Polin.
With that being said, it didn't take me long to get bored of what Polin was saying in his videos. Polin's message this: spend all of your money on good glass, shoot RAW, boost the contrast, and buy his t-shirts. I soon realized that Polin was nothing more than an excellent t-shirt salesman who happened to be slightly charismatic. Polin knows almost nothing about flash, and his opinions are extremely biased towards top of the line Nikon gear. Recently, Polin hasn't been bashing Canon as much as he did in his earlier videos, which almost makes it even worse, because people who have seen those videos knows how he really feels. Polin's trying to appeal to more people so he can gain more money through YouTube and sell more of his shirts.
After realizing Polin wouldn't be able to offer me much past very beginning advice, I started looking for other inspiration. This resulted in me discovering a plethora of other photographers who are able to make amazing photographs, most of which make me want to never take a photo again.
Although Polin isn't who I thought he was when I first started taking photos, there's one thing for sure. He's certainly more credible than Ken Rockwell, which isn't saying much.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Post 12
When I first decided I wanted to pursue a career in photography, I did a number of things. One of the first things I did was reach out to various businesses that I thought might need photos, such as realty offices, business men and women who may need photos for websites, and a local hockey team. The only response I got was from a hockey team, the Janesville Jets. The GM at the time told me that he would like for me to attend a game and take a few photos. The only problem was that I had to work the same day the next game was. I was pretty mad that I was missing such a great opportunity, but I crossed my fingers and hoped that the Jets would move on in the playoffs so I could make it to the next game. Unfortunately, the Jets lost the game and were out of the playoffs. I was almost certain that I had missed a major opportunity.
Then one day when I was sitting in my summer class, the new GM, Greg Hanthorn, contacted me and informed me that he would like to have me as a photographer for the Jets this season. I told him I was interested, and we met a few days later in his office.
I wasn't sure if I was going to be getting paid or not, but that would be the perfect situation. Not only would I be getting exposure, but I would be able to quit my job and begin my career as a photographer. However, Greg told me that there wasn't enough money in the budget to pay me, but he said I could do anything I wanted with the photos. I left the office that day not sure what I wanted to do. I wasn't sure if I was going to be able to take the time off that would be required to make it to a good chunk of the home games, and I felt as though I should be paid for my services.
I told my parents about my situation, and the first thing that came up was money. When I told other people about my situation, the first thing that came up was money. It didn't take long for me to realize that even if I wasn't getting paid, this was too big of an opportunity to pass up. Not only would I be able to get into every home game in exchange for the photos I took from an undisturbed location, but this would be an excellent opportunity to improve my skills, establish myself, and get a sense of what being a photographer would be like.
Now that I look back on it, I'm not sure if I should be paid, at least not for the first couple of CDs I handed over. I was looking through the first photos I took of the Jets during their tryout camp this summer, and I was disgusted at the photos I had taken during that week. To be fair though, the camera I was using during that time wasn't even half the camera I use now. I do make some money from taking photos for the Jets, but that's just the icing on the cake compared to the marketing I've received from Greg. I think about where I would have been if I had turned down Greg, and I realize how much I would have missed out on. I feel as though I'll be able to look back on taking photos for the Jets years from now and it will always be what jumpstarted my career.
Then one day when I was sitting in my summer class, the new GM, Greg Hanthorn, contacted me and informed me that he would like to have me as a photographer for the Jets this season. I told him I was interested, and we met a few days later in his office.
I wasn't sure if I was going to be getting paid or not, but that would be the perfect situation. Not only would I be getting exposure, but I would be able to quit my job and begin my career as a photographer. However, Greg told me that there wasn't enough money in the budget to pay me, but he said I could do anything I wanted with the photos. I left the office that day not sure what I wanted to do. I wasn't sure if I was going to be able to take the time off that would be required to make it to a good chunk of the home games, and I felt as though I should be paid for my services.
I told my parents about my situation, and the first thing that came up was money. When I told other people about my situation, the first thing that came up was money. It didn't take long for me to realize that even if I wasn't getting paid, this was too big of an opportunity to pass up. Not only would I be able to get into every home game in exchange for the photos I took from an undisturbed location, but this would be an excellent opportunity to improve my skills, establish myself, and get a sense of what being a photographer would be like.
Now that I look back on it, I'm not sure if I should be paid, at least not for the first couple of CDs I handed over. I was looking through the first photos I took of the Jets during their tryout camp this summer, and I was disgusted at the photos I had taken during that week. To be fair though, the camera I was using during that time wasn't even half the camera I use now. I do make some money from taking photos for the Jets, but that's just the icing on the cake compared to the marketing I've received from Greg. I think about where I would have been if I had turned down Greg, and I realize how much I would have missed out on. I feel as though I'll be able to look back on taking photos for the Jets years from now and it will always be what jumpstarted my career.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Post 11
The other day, I was watching a video on YouTube which basically consisted of a photographer giving a presentation to some people about what he does, and how he's successful. At one point, the photographer began to discuss prices, and why he charges what he charges. I think this brought up a number of good points that potential clients don't always take into consideration.
It's no secret that good photographers charge "a lot" of money for their servies, but there's good reason for this. Not only do clients get what they pay for, usually, and to a certain extent, but providing good photographs is a challenging feat that not every person can do. There are a number of things that photographers must do besides taking quality photographs that are extremely time consuming.
The most obvious challenge photographers face, are making good photographs. There is a difference between "taking" and "making" photographs. Snapshots are taken, but art is made. If you're trying to become a photographer, but you don't have "an eye" for it, you won't make it. Not everyone is aware of "the eye" for photography, but some people have it, and some people don't. "The eye" can rarely be taught, and is usually what separates an "okay" photograph, and an "outstanding" one. Taking a photograph from the right angle, dialing in the right settings, and arranging the subject(s) so the photograph looks good is the most essential, and probably the least time consuming. Composing the photograph and pressing down the shutter button may take anywhere from a few seconds to a few minutes, and may also take more than one shot. Ideally, I like to get a decent photo within a couple of shots, but this isn't always the case. Some people may think a few seconds of arranging and getting the right settings might not seem all that time consuming, but when I'm taking photos for any number of hours, those seconds begin to add up.
The second biggest challenge for photographers is editing. Editing is, without a doubt, one of the most time consuming parts of being a photographer, but it's also one of the parts that most clients aren't aware of. If you hire a photographer, and they shoot JPEGs and don't edit their images, then you're overpaying. I wish I could be satisfied with pressing the shutter button a few times while letting the camera do all of the work, but the camera doesn't know what I want in a photo. That's why I choose my settings, and then go in and touch those photos up. In my opinion, a JPEG will never look as good as an edited RAW file if it was edited by someone who knows what they're doing. Editing is probably 75% of what my clients pay for, because for me, it's one, if not the, most time consuming aspect. If I do a one hour session, I'll most likely be editing for at least another hour. The client will most likely be present for the hour I'm shooting, but once I go home, many clients don't realize that I sit at the computer for another hour to get edit the photos to where I like them. And, an hour is ideal. The time it takes to edit depends on what the client wants and what I'm shooting. If the client is satisfied with and prefers a more "minimalistic" edit, for example, slight adjustments to contrast, maybe an exposure adjustment, I could probably get through 100 photos in an hour, if all of the photos require slight tweaks. If I'm doing senior photos though, clients generally want those photos to be heavily edited. With senior photos, I'd be ecstatic with getting through 25 photos in an hour. So if I take 200 photos for a senior photo shoot, I might only be shooting for an hour or two, but I'll be editing for, potentially, eight hours. The client will see me working for the hour or two, but once I leave, I don't know if they even realize that my work isn't done yet.
Another factor that are included in cost, is the preparation that goes into a photo shoot. In an ideal situation, the client and I will both be free for the first day mentioned, but that's rarely the situation. Usually, the client and I will have conflicting schedules, and we'll both need to work around that, which requires who knows how long of going back and forth until we find a time that works, and that's if I already know the client. If I had to search for the client, and I've never worked with them before, I have to pitch myself to them, which adds only more time. I have to contact the client, probably send them some examples of my work, wait for them to look over the work I sent them, ask them if they're interested, and then work out all of the details, such as the date of the event, what they're looking for, tell them how much I charge and what is included when they pay, find out what time the event is/what time they want to schedule a session. Then, once I actually do the shooting for the amount of time they want, I have to go home and edit the photos. I then will send them a CD with the photos they requested on it. After I send out the CD, I then make sure they received the CD, and thank them for their business. Sometime before the shoot, I also have to make sure all of my lenses are cleaned, make sure my batteries are charged, make sure I have enough memory cards, and then get the lenses I think I'll use ready for the session/event. If I could figure out how much time went into this, I would.
Something else that I found to be surprisingly time-consuming, is putting files onto CDs. I recently had a client who ordered a number of photos from me. I wrote down the file names and expected to be done within half an hour or so. I didn't take into consideration that I have had three cameras in the past couple of years, and have some files with the same name. I went down the list of the photos the client ordered and typed them into my search bar. If I was lucky, only one file popped up, and then I put the file into a folder, which I then burned to a CD. Unfortunately, I think only one file popped up maybe three or four times. If more than one file came up, I had to search through the other files and make sure I was choosing the right one, which is more challenging than you may think when the thumbnails are literally the size of a thumbnail. Another thing I found out was that deleting and typing the names of the photos into the search bar took me longer than I thought. Once I thought I had all of the files on the CD, I went through the list to make sure they were all on there. Unfortunately, I'm not known for my organizational skills, and when I started writing down the names of the files, I started in the middle of the piece of paper, ran out of room, started a new column on the left side of the piece of paper, ran out of room, and then started a new column on the left side of the paper, which resulted in the files being out of order. This was my fault, and I will be sure to remember this for next time. When I was confirming that all of the photos the client wanted were on the CD, I realized I was missing one. I checked the list and files again, and then a second time. Then I stared at the list for a while and saw which one I didn't cross off. Another thing I will remember for next time is to write more neatly, so I can tell which file names are crossed off and which ones aren't...
This is also why I charge what I charge for prints/files. Sure, I make a profit when I sell prints. It doesn't cost me $10 to print an 8x10, but I take into consideration that the prints clients choose to buy are considered to be works of art. I not only captured a special moment that speaks to whoever wants to buy the print, but I took the time and effort to edit the photo, wait for that special moment to happen, interact with the client and make sure they have a pleasant experience while dealing with me, spend money on envelopes, postage and ink, but I have a cat to feed, and charging enough to break even won't provide me with a career, let alone enough money to make a living. Generally, I charge $5 for a file when I'm working with a client. There are advantages and disadvantages to selling files as oppose to prints. When I sell a print, that's the only print the client will have. They're buying something more unique than a file. When a client purchases a file from me, they can make as many prints of the file as they want, and in any size they want. If they want to make wall paper out of the files they purchase from me, they can, and don't have to pay me anything more than the $5. So looking at that one way, one may think I'm losing money. However, by selling files, I don't have to take the time to print every file they want, I don't have to mail the print, and I don't have to run out and buy more ink and paper before I want to. Before you decide you want to buy a file from me though, instead of a print to hang up on a wall, I only let clients who I shoot for purchase files from me. So in other words, if I take your child's senior photos, I supply you with a cd with the files on them. People who I don't shoot a session for can buy a print.
So, as you now know, when clients hire me to take photographs, I don't just show up, take photos, and then hand them over. There are a plethora of other time-consuming pieces that fit into the puzzle, which, I think, justify the high prices that photographers are often associated with. If anyone with a dSLR could take the same photos professional photographers make, then there would be no reason to hire someone to take photos.
(I realize after reading this post, that I sound like I'm complaining. I've decided that I've already typed too much and put too much effort into this post to start over, or change the wording, though. So, instead, I will clarify that I love taking photos, and I would never even consider aspiring to be anything else. Except maybe Boba Fett.)
It's no secret that good photographers charge "a lot" of money for their servies, but there's good reason for this. Not only do clients get what they pay for, usually, and to a certain extent, but providing good photographs is a challenging feat that not every person can do. There are a number of things that photographers must do besides taking quality photographs that are extremely time consuming.
The most obvious challenge photographers face, are making good photographs. There is a difference between "taking" and "making" photographs. Snapshots are taken, but art is made. If you're trying to become a photographer, but you don't have "an eye" for it, you won't make it. Not everyone is aware of "the eye" for photography, but some people have it, and some people don't. "The eye" can rarely be taught, and is usually what separates an "okay" photograph, and an "outstanding" one. Taking a photograph from the right angle, dialing in the right settings, and arranging the subject(s) so the photograph looks good is the most essential, and probably the least time consuming. Composing the photograph and pressing down the shutter button may take anywhere from a few seconds to a few minutes, and may also take more than one shot. Ideally, I like to get a decent photo within a couple of shots, but this isn't always the case. Some people may think a few seconds of arranging and getting the right settings might not seem all that time consuming, but when I'm taking photos for any number of hours, those seconds begin to add up.
The second biggest challenge for photographers is editing. Editing is, without a doubt, one of the most time consuming parts of being a photographer, but it's also one of the parts that most clients aren't aware of. If you hire a photographer, and they shoot JPEGs and don't edit their images, then you're overpaying. I wish I could be satisfied with pressing the shutter button a few times while letting the camera do all of the work, but the camera doesn't know what I want in a photo. That's why I choose my settings, and then go in and touch those photos up. In my opinion, a JPEG will never look as good as an edited RAW file if it was edited by someone who knows what they're doing. Editing is probably 75% of what my clients pay for, because for me, it's one, if not the, most time consuming aspect. If I do a one hour session, I'll most likely be editing for at least another hour. The client will most likely be present for the hour I'm shooting, but once I go home, many clients don't realize that I sit at the computer for another hour to get edit the photos to where I like them. And, an hour is ideal. The time it takes to edit depends on what the client wants and what I'm shooting. If the client is satisfied with and prefers a more "minimalistic" edit, for example, slight adjustments to contrast, maybe an exposure adjustment, I could probably get through 100 photos in an hour, if all of the photos require slight tweaks. If I'm doing senior photos though, clients generally want those photos to be heavily edited. With senior photos, I'd be ecstatic with getting through 25 photos in an hour. So if I take 200 photos for a senior photo shoot, I might only be shooting for an hour or two, but I'll be editing for, potentially, eight hours. The client will see me working for the hour or two, but once I leave, I don't know if they even realize that my work isn't done yet.
Another factor that are included in cost, is the preparation that goes into a photo shoot. In an ideal situation, the client and I will both be free for the first day mentioned, but that's rarely the situation. Usually, the client and I will have conflicting schedules, and we'll both need to work around that, which requires who knows how long of going back and forth until we find a time that works, and that's if I already know the client. If I had to search for the client, and I've never worked with them before, I have to pitch myself to them, which adds only more time. I have to contact the client, probably send them some examples of my work, wait for them to look over the work I sent them, ask them if they're interested, and then work out all of the details, such as the date of the event, what they're looking for, tell them how much I charge and what is included when they pay, find out what time the event is/what time they want to schedule a session. Then, once I actually do the shooting for the amount of time they want, I have to go home and edit the photos. I then will send them a CD with the photos they requested on it. After I send out the CD, I then make sure they received the CD, and thank them for their business. Sometime before the shoot, I also have to make sure all of my lenses are cleaned, make sure my batteries are charged, make sure I have enough memory cards, and then get the lenses I think I'll use ready for the session/event. If I could figure out how much time went into this, I would.
Something else that I found to be surprisingly time-consuming, is putting files onto CDs. I recently had a client who ordered a number of photos from me. I wrote down the file names and expected to be done within half an hour or so. I didn't take into consideration that I have had three cameras in the past couple of years, and have some files with the same name. I went down the list of the photos the client ordered and typed them into my search bar. If I was lucky, only one file popped up, and then I put the file into a folder, which I then burned to a CD. Unfortunately, I think only one file popped up maybe three or four times. If more than one file came up, I had to search through the other files and make sure I was choosing the right one, which is more challenging than you may think when the thumbnails are literally the size of a thumbnail. Another thing I found out was that deleting and typing the names of the photos into the search bar took me longer than I thought. Once I thought I had all of the files on the CD, I went through the list to make sure they were all on there. Unfortunately, I'm not known for my organizational skills, and when I started writing down the names of the files, I started in the middle of the piece of paper, ran out of room, started a new column on the left side of the piece of paper, ran out of room, and then started a new column on the left side of the paper, which resulted in the files being out of order. This was my fault, and I will be sure to remember this for next time. When I was confirming that all of the photos the client wanted were on the CD, I realized I was missing one. I checked the list and files again, and then a second time. Then I stared at the list for a while and saw which one I didn't cross off. Another thing I will remember for next time is to write more neatly, so I can tell which file names are crossed off and which ones aren't...
This is also why I charge what I charge for prints/files. Sure, I make a profit when I sell prints. It doesn't cost me $10 to print an 8x10, but I take into consideration that the prints clients choose to buy are considered to be works of art. I not only captured a special moment that speaks to whoever wants to buy the print, but I took the time and effort to edit the photo, wait for that special moment to happen, interact with the client and make sure they have a pleasant experience while dealing with me, spend money on envelopes, postage and ink, but I have a cat to feed, and charging enough to break even won't provide me with a career, let alone enough money to make a living. Generally, I charge $5 for a file when I'm working with a client. There are advantages and disadvantages to selling files as oppose to prints. When I sell a print, that's the only print the client will have. They're buying something more unique than a file. When a client purchases a file from me, they can make as many prints of the file as they want, and in any size they want. If they want to make wall paper out of the files they purchase from me, they can, and don't have to pay me anything more than the $5. So looking at that one way, one may think I'm losing money. However, by selling files, I don't have to take the time to print every file they want, I don't have to mail the print, and I don't have to run out and buy more ink and paper before I want to. Before you decide you want to buy a file from me though, instead of a print to hang up on a wall, I only let clients who I shoot for purchase files from me. So in other words, if I take your child's senior photos, I supply you with a cd with the files on them. People who I don't shoot a session for can buy a print.
So, as you now know, when clients hire me to take photographs, I don't just show up, take photos, and then hand them over. There are a plethora of other time-consuming pieces that fit into the puzzle, which, I think, justify the high prices that photographers are often associated with. If anyone with a dSLR could take the same photos professional photographers make, then there would be no reason to hire someone to take photos.
(I realize after reading this post, that I sound like I'm complaining. I've decided that I've already typed too much and put too much effort into this post to start over, or change the wording, though. So, instead, I will clarify that I love taking photos, and I would never even consider aspiring to be anything else. Except maybe Boba Fett.)
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Post 10
As many of you know, I am a photographer and just received my seller's permit. This means I can legally work in the state of Wisconsin, and am officially a business owner. If you, or someone you know, need a photographer, my contact information can be found on my Facebook page. My work can be found on my Flickr page. Contact me for information on my rates, or to schedule a session.
https://www.facebook.com/DPomykalski
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danpomykalski/
https://www.facebook.com/DPomykalski
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danpomykalski/
Post Nine
A lot of beginning photographers don't know when the right time to upgrade is. The thing most beginners want to upgrade is their body. I think this is usually because camera manufacturers and magazines/reviewers spend so much time on the specifications of camera bodies.
When I first started out, I thought the body was the most important thing too. It wasn't until I gained a little more experience and watched a few videos on YouTube that I learned that bodies aren't the most important thing, for a number of reasons.
Most importantly, lenses are the eyes of your camera. There isn't much difference in the way cameras record photos. All cameras, at least dSLRs, have some sort of sensor. Lenses, though, come between the photographer and the moment they're trying to capture. It may seem obvious, but sometimes people don't realize that without good glass, you won't get good photos. If someone who needs corrective lenses get a pair of glasses with low quality glass, they won't see things as well as they would with a pair of glasses with higher quality glass. The same thing applies to lenses. Fortunately, prime lenses are usually pretty good bang for your buck. Prime lenses don't zoom, but the lack of moving usually keeps the price low and usually means the lenses are more precise. Prime lenses are usually fast as well, in terms of aperture. Other than prime lenses, good class is usually pretty expensive. Sometimes decent zoom lenses can be had for a decent price, but usually a good, fast lens will run around $2,500 if the brand of the lens begins with a "C" or an "N." Photographers also have the option of third-party lenses. I picked up a used Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 for around $650. Nikon's 70-200mm f/2.8 was $2,500 last time I checked. The Tamron doesn't focus nearly as fast as the Nikon, the Tamron doesn't have the fancy coating that the Nikon has, and the image quality probably isn't as good as Nikon's either. As far as image quality goes, though, I can't tell. And for almost a third of the price, I'm not complaining. I'll most likely use the Tamron until it stops functioning, which could be quite a while.
Which brings me to my next point. Lenses aren't replaced as frequently as bodies. A replacement camera body can come out in as little as a year for lower-end bodies, such as Nikon's D3XXX line. Nikon's D3000 was released in 2009. Nikon's D3100, the successor of the D3100, came out in 2010. The D3200, the successor of the D3100, came out in 2012. So, as you can see, it doesn't take long for a lower-end body to become obsolete. Not to mention that each new version of Nikon's most inexpensive dSLR possessed features that would make anyone who just purchased the older model regret their decision as soon as they find out. I wouldn't be surprised if the owners of the D3000 sold their body to get the D3100, and the owners of the D3100 did the same thing for the D3200, either. Fortunately, camera companies usually don't introduce replacements for their more expensive bodies as often, although new models of the body will sometimes be released, such as Nikon's D300 and D300s. Lenses on the other hand, can last for a photographer's entire career. If a photographer spends good money on a good piece of glass, there will be less reason to replace that lens. Sure, camera companies will add things such as vibration reduction, but those things aren't necessarily reasons to go out and buy the newest lens. I've seen plenty of photographers using lenses from decades ago and getting decent results from them. A well built lens from 1970 will, usually, still be a well built lens in 2012. Bodies from as recently as 2004 don't stand a chance when compared to a recent body, ISO performance alone being a deciding factor. Sure, photographers can still use older digital bodies and still produce great results. I used a Nikon D70 for five months and took around 3000 photographs with it. Even though the D70 only had 6.1 megapixels, I was still satisfied with the photos. The ISO performance, five focus points, and the lack of reliability made it obvious that I needed to upgrade, though.
So when is the right time to upgrade? I wouldn't do it until I had a decent collection of lenses first. Sure, a kit lens may be great for a kit lens, but that's just it. I want my lens to be great for a lens. Lenses are unquestionably, unarguably, the most important aspect of a set up, besides the photographer, so I would strongly suggest investing in good glass, then worry about upgrading. Lenses will last you much longer than a body will. That is, of course, unless your body is unreliable. My D70 was to the point where it was slowing me down. There was also a time when I was photographing a birthday party. I got through halfway of the party before I had to switch memory cards. I continued to take photos without much more of a problem than I usually had with the D70, until I got home and found out that there weren't any images on the second card. I lost half of the birthday party. Luckily my fiance was helping me and she got photos of the second half. At that point, though, I realized there would be absolutely no way I could be a photographer without a reliable body.
On an unrelated note, this is also why I use smaller memory cards. I think right now I'm using multiple 8GB cards in my D7000. I can get about 250 photos on each one. Some photographers use huge, massive cards that can store more photos than they could possibly take on them. The idea of that scares me. What if something happens to the one card you have every photo on? I use a larger card in my D7000 in the second SD slot, but that's for backup purposes only. Memory cards don't fail often, but they do fail. I feel sorry for the day that happens to someone who, for instance, shoots a wedding all day using one card and ends up with no photos because the card fails. Just some food for thought....
When I first started out, I thought the body was the most important thing too. It wasn't until I gained a little more experience and watched a few videos on YouTube that I learned that bodies aren't the most important thing, for a number of reasons.
Most importantly, lenses are the eyes of your camera. There isn't much difference in the way cameras record photos. All cameras, at least dSLRs, have some sort of sensor. Lenses, though, come between the photographer and the moment they're trying to capture. It may seem obvious, but sometimes people don't realize that without good glass, you won't get good photos. If someone who needs corrective lenses get a pair of glasses with low quality glass, they won't see things as well as they would with a pair of glasses with higher quality glass. The same thing applies to lenses. Fortunately, prime lenses are usually pretty good bang for your buck. Prime lenses don't zoom, but the lack of moving usually keeps the price low and usually means the lenses are more precise. Prime lenses are usually fast as well, in terms of aperture. Other than prime lenses, good class is usually pretty expensive. Sometimes decent zoom lenses can be had for a decent price, but usually a good, fast lens will run around $2,500 if the brand of the lens begins with a "C" or an "N." Photographers also have the option of third-party lenses. I picked up a used Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 for around $650. Nikon's 70-200mm f/2.8 was $2,500 last time I checked. The Tamron doesn't focus nearly as fast as the Nikon, the Tamron doesn't have the fancy coating that the Nikon has, and the image quality probably isn't as good as Nikon's either. As far as image quality goes, though, I can't tell. And for almost a third of the price, I'm not complaining. I'll most likely use the Tamron until it stops functioning, which could be quite a while.
Which brings me to my next point. Lenses aren't replaced as frequently as bodies. A replacement camera body can come out in as little as a year for lower-end bodies, such as Nikon's D3XXX line. Nikon's D3000 was released in 2009. Nikon's D3100, the successor of the D3100, came out in 2010. The D3200, the successor of the D3100, came out in 2012. So, as you can see, it doesn't take long for a lower-end body to become obsolete. Not to mention that each new version of Nikon's most inexpensive dSLR possessed features that would make anyone who just purchased the older model regret their decision as soon as they find out. I wouldn't be surprised if the owners of the D3000 sold their body to get the D3100, and the owners of the D3100 did the same thing for the D3200, either. Fortunately, camera companies usually don't introduce replacements for their more expensive bodies as often, although new models of the body will sometimes be released, such as Nikon's D300 and D300s. Lenses on the other hand, can last for a photographer's entire career. If a photographer spends good money on a good piece of glass, there will be less reason to replace that lens. Sure, camera companies will add things such as vibration reduction, but those things aren't necessarily reasons to go out and buy the newest lens. I've seen plenty of photographers using lenses from decades ago and getting decent results from them. A well built lens from 1970 will, usually, still be a well built lens in 2012. Bodies from as recently as 2004 don't stand a chance when compared to a recent body, ISO performance alone being a deciding factor. Sure, photographers can still use older digital bodies and still produce great results. I used a Nikon D70 for five months and took around 3000 photographs with it. Even though the D70 only had 6.1 megapixels, I was still satisfied with the photos. The ISO performance, five focus points, and the lack of reliability made it obvious that I needed to upgrade, though.
So when is the right time to upgrade? I wouldn't do it until I had a decent collection of lenses first. Sure, a kit lens may be great for a kit lens, but that's just it. I want my lens to be great for a lens. Lenses are unquestionably, unarguably, the most important aspect of a set up, besides the photographer, so I would strongly suggest investing in good glass, then worry about upgrading. Lenses will last you much longer than a body will. That is, of course, unless your body is unreliable. My D70 was to the point where it was slowing me down. There was also a time when I was photographing a birthday party. I got through halfway of the party before I had to switch memory cards. I continued to take photos without much more of a problem than I usually had with the D70, until I got home and found out that there weren't any images on the second card. I lost half of the birthday party. Luckily my fiance was helping me and she got photos of the second half. At that point, though, I realized there would be absolutely no way I could be a photographer without a reliable body.
On an unrelated note, this is also why I use smaller memory cards. I think right now I'm using multiple 8GB cards in my D7000. I can get about 250 photos on each one. Some photographers use huge, massive cards that can store more photos than they could possibly take on them. The idea of that scares me. What if something happens to the one card you have every photo on? I use a larger card in my D7000 in the second SD slot, but that's for backup purposes only. Memory cards don't fail often, but they do fail. I feel sorry for the day that happens to someone who, for instance, shoots a wedding all day using one card and ends up with no photos because the card fails. Just some food for thought....
Monday, October 22, 2012
Post Eight
Today I officially registered my business and got my sellers permit. All of my prints are now for sale. Legally.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Post Seven
On Friday, I was taking photos for the Janesville Jets. I was waiting around with Devan for the game to start when Greg Hanthorn approached me and informed me that I was going to be taking photos of the puck drop, and that I was going to be one of two photographers on the ice while it was happening. Let me take a quick second that this was probably one of the most exciting things I've done throughout my photography career. Standing on the ice with a few other people made me feel more important than I probably am, but that's okay.
Anyway, the other photographer who was on the ice with me was a photographer for the "Janesville Gazette." While waiting to go on the ice, I took the time to examine his gear. The photographer had two Canon bodies with an integrated battery grip, which means they were the top of the line at one point. They could have been older models, but they could have been the most recent. Either way, he had spent some serious money on his gear, not to mention that on both of the bodies he had "L" lenses. For those of you who don't know, only the very best Canon lenses are designated with an "L" and a red ring around the lens somewhere, so like his bodies, his lenses were flagships.
The photographer and I went out onto the ice and waited for the puck to be dropped. The photographer may have taken a few shots before the actual puck drop, but I, on the other hand, made sure to get photos of the people interacting. For some reason, I find these moments important and usually try my best to photograph them.
This is where I will get to the main reason for this post. As Sue Ann Thompson, who is the former First Lady of WIsconsin, was preparing to drop the puck, I looked through the view finder of my camera and patiently waited to see the puck begin to fall. As it did, I took three, maybe four photos. While I heard my shutter slap against the insides of my camera, I couldn't help but notice that the photographer from the "Gazette" was blowing through photos, utilizing up the 14 frames per second that his body could shoot at.
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I suppose that as long as you get "that moment," it doesn't matter how it's captured. While on the other, something just seems so unprofessional about it. When one just holds down the shutter button, I feel that they no longer have to wait, or take the time to make a good photo. Especially at such a high FPS rate, one might as well take a video and just take a clip from the video to use as a photo. Besides manipulating light, I feel as though the primary purpose of photography is to get "that moment." I feel that one of the main things that goes into capturing important moments is planning and anticipation, which are both pointless when photographers simply hold down the shutter button, filling whatever they're using to record their photos with almost the same thing in each frame.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Post Six
To me, along with many others, battery grips are the most important accessory that isn't necessary to operate a dSLR, i.e. lenses, etc.
Battery grips offer a number of advantages. They make your camera look more professional by adding some extra size. Professionals often use dSLRs, such as Nikon's D4, that have built in battery grips. Battery grips also have a shutter release button, so when one is shooting a vertically, one doesn't have to contort their wrist/arm to shoot. Battery grips also offer extended shooting time. Not only can battery grips hold more batteries than a dSLR would normally, but battery grips usually have options to use AA batteries as well, incase the rechargeable batteries die.
I had a battery grip for my D3100, but then I got a D70, and never got a battery grip for it because I wasn't sure how long I was actually going to use it. The five months I didn't have a battery grip were probably the worst five months of my shooting career. When I got my D7000, I took my D70 to my local camera store a few days later and sold it, so I could get a battery grip. So, if you've ever considered a battery grip, but didn't think it was worth it, let me assure you, it is. I don't even shoot vertically that much, and I still think battery grips are necessary for any dSLR owner.
Battery grips offer a number of advantages. They make your camera look more professional by adding some extra size. Professionals often use dSLRs, such as Nikon's D4, that have built in battery grips. Battery grips also have a shutter release button, so when one is shooting a vertically, one doesn't have to contort their wrist/arm to shoot. Battery grips also offer extended shooting time. Not only can battery grips hold more batteries than a dSLR would normally, but battery grips usually have options to use AA batteries as well, incase the rechargeable batteries die.
I had a battery grip for my D3100, but then I got a D70, and never got a battery grip for it because I wasn't sure how long I was actually going to use it. The five months I didn't have a battery grip were probably the worst five months of my shooting career. When I got my D7000, I took my D70 to my local camera store a few days later and sold it, so I could get a battery grip. So, if you've ever considered a battery grip, but didn't think it was worth it, let me assure you, it is. I don't even shoot vertically that much, and I still think battery grips are necessary for any dSLR owner.
Post Five
So I was watching videos on YouTube, as I often do, and while I was watching a video, I began looking at the comments, as I, also, often do to make myself feel better about myself, because usually the comments make absolutely no sense and make the poster look like a complete idiot. Anyway, as I was looking through the comments, I saw a comment that I had to read a few times, because I didn't believe what the person was asking the first two or three times I read it.
The poster of the comment was asking the person who uploaded the video which wide-angle lens they would recommend to do concern photography. The poster of the comment stated that they owned a Nikon D600, and a 50mm f1.4. For those of you who don't know anything about cameras, the D600 body alone is a good $2000. I've seen comments like this before. The one that comes to mind was someone asking which guitar amp would go well with a Gibson Les Paul, which is no less than around $1000.
The reason these comments are so concerning to me, is because if you're going to drop over $1000, in the case of the owner of the D600, $2000, you should be more than capable of selecting the proper lens for whatever you're photographing. No only that, but there really aren't that many options for wide angle lenses anyway. Assuming the concert will be dark, you'll want a fast lens, I would assume at least a 2.8. That leaves you with one or two options if you're going to go for Nikon glass, and maybe five or six options if you decide to go third-party. If you can afford $2000 for a body, I would hope that you'd at least have enough to go for some good Nikon glass though. Lenses are the most important part of any camera system, and those who choose to put all their money into a body that'll last at most three years if you're a professional, maybe five if you just shoot for fun, are a joke. Lenses can last for twice that long, if not more. Personally, I'd probably go with an f/2.8 wide angle zoom, or a f/1.8/1.4 prime lens. Look, while ranting, I've already made a choice of what lens I would pick in a matter of a few minutes with little trouble. Wide angle 2.8, or prime 1.8/1.4. Probably 28mm prime.
I wish I had $2000 to just throw around and not know what the hell I'm doing. That's like me saying, "I think I'm going to pick up sewing," and then running out and spending $2000 on a sewing machine. I don't know what the hell to do with a sewing machine.
The poster of the comment was asking the person who uploaded the video which wide-angle lens they would recommend to do concern photography. The poster of the comment stated that they owned a Nikon D600, and a 50mm f1.4. For those of you who don't know anything about cameras, the D600 body alone is a good $2000. I've seen comments like this before. The one that comes to mind was someone asking which guitar amp would go well with a Gibson Les Paul, which is no less than around $1000.
The reason these comments are so concerning to me, is because if you're going to drop over $1000, in the case of the owner of the D600, $2000, you should be more than capable of selecting the proper lens for whatever you're photographing. No only that, but there really aren't that many options for wide angle lenses anyway. Assuming the concert will be dark, you'll want a fast lens, I would assume at least a 2.8. That leaves you with one or two options if you're going to go for Nikon glass, and maybe five or six options if you decide to go third-party. If you can afford $2000 for a body, I would hope that you'd at least have enough to go for some good Nikon glass though. Lenses are the most important part of any camera system, and those who choose to put all their money into a body that'll last at most three years if you're a professional, maybe five if you just shoot for fun, are a joke. Lenses can last for twice that long, if not more. Personally, I'd probably go with an f/2.8 wide angle zoom, or a f/1.8/1.4 prime lens. Look, while ranting, I've already made a choice of what lens I would pick in a matter of a few minutes with little trouble. Wide angle 2.8, or prime 1.8/1.4. Probably 28mm prime.
I wish I had $2000 to just throw around and not know what the hell I'm doing. That's like me saying, "I think I'm going to pick up sewing," and then running out and spending $2000 on a sewing machine. I don't know what the hell to do with a sewing machine.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Janesville Jets 9/21 and 9/22
I was too concerned about people stealing my images, so I decided to just post the links to my Flickr page for those of you who haven't seen them already.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danpomykalski/sets/72157631600638614/
And
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danpomykalski/sets/72157631593055868/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danpomykalski/sets/72157631600638614/
And
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danpomykalski/sets/72157631593055868/
Post Four
I would like to bring your attention to exhibit "A," a photo I took using the pop up flash on my D7000.
Post Three
I have noticed that the photos are larger than others in my previous post. Some obnoxiously so. I don't care, so the photos are going to stay that size.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Post One
Greetings, I have decided to use blogspot as a way to communicate to possible clients, as well as share what I have been up to in terms of photography. I may end up bringing back "Clippings" sometime in the future because, honestly, I like to complain, and I feel this is a good outlet for complaining, as long as potential employers never see it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)