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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)