Happy Cyber Monday! Feel free to use coupon code "cybermonday" to receive 50% off your total order from my website!
www.danpomykalski.com
Monday, December 2, 2013
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Post 57: Nikon 50mm f/1.8G Review
This is my favorite and most used lens. The 50mm 1.8G is basically just an expensive lens cap for my camera. It's on my D7000 at least 75% of the time. I originally had the D version of this lens, but I had my camera sitting on the desk and our cat, Noodle, knocked my camera off the desk and the lens ended up breaking. For my birthday, Devan bought me the G version to replace it. I couldn't be happier about Noodle breaking the D version.
This lens works well for most situations. It has about the same angle of view as a 75mm lens on my D7000, making it acceptable for shoulder-up portraits. This lens would probably be considered to have too much zoom for street photography, but I would still use it for that. I wouldn't use this lens at f/1.8 in a professional setting, but by f/4, this lens is great. I would probably even use this lens at f/2.8 if I were working for a client.
This lens is an amazing value. The 50mm f/1.8G costs a little over $200 brand new. And, the 1.8G version has an aspherical element, while the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G, which would probably be considered more of a "professional" lens, does not. At that price, and the quality of photos this lens can produce, there is no reason this lens shouldn't be in every Nikon shooter's bag.
This lens works well for most situations. It has about the same angle of view as a 75mm lens on my D7000, making it acceptable for shoulder-up portraits. This lens would probably be considered to have too much zoom for street photography, but I would still use it for that. I wouldn't use this lens at f/1.8 in a professional setting, but by f/4, this lens is great. I would probably even use this lens at f/2.8 if I were working for a client.
This lens is an amazing value. The 50mm f/1.8G costs a little over $200 brand new. And, the 1.8G version has an aspherical element, while the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G, which would probably be considered more of a "professional" lens, does not. At that price, and the quality of photos this lens can produce, there is no reason this lens shouldn't be in every Nikon shooter's bag.
Friday, November 22, 2013
Post 56: Nikon 105mm f/2.5 AIs review
When I was first considering getting the Nikon 105mm f/2.5 AIs, the first thing that caught my attention was how many people were claiming this was one of Nikon's best lenses ever made. This information in addition to the price, which I think was less than $150 used, persuaded me to order the lens.
I haven't used the lens a whole lot, mostly because it's a manual focus lens. I could turn the focus ring all day, though. If you haven't owned a manual focus lens, you probably don't know what I'm talking about. If you have, then you know exactly what I'm talking about, and can relate. The amount of resistance the focus ring has is perfect, and feels right. This lens is also mostly, if not all, metal, which makes it feel solid. It's pretty small relative to current lenses for it's focal length. It's probably about the size of an 18-55mm, and 10 times the weight.
As I said before, I don't use this lens all that much. I'm hoping to change that, though. My biggest concern is missing focus with this lens. I remember I used it to take headshots once, and there were three or four photos that I would have loved to use, but they were too out of focus. I ended up having to use a photo that wasn't necessarily my first choice. One thing that could help avoid missing focus is stopping the lens down to gain a little more depth of field. Obviously, this isn't an option if you're shooting and want to blow the background out, which this lens does beautifully.
This lens annihilates distracting backgrounds with creamy, buttery, bokeh. Sometimes older lenses don't have nice smooth, desirable bokeh. This isn't one of those times.
I can't tell how sharp this lens is wide open, because I can't tell if the photos are soft, or out of focus because of me. I was able to produce some acceptable photos wide-open at f/2.5, though, which doesn't always happen with lenses. Stopped down, this lens is tack-sharp, but then you miss out on that delicious bokeh that I'm apparently obsessed with.
Something else I found surprising with this lens is the lack of chromatic aberration. I haven't shot outside with this lens yet, so that might make a difference.
If I lost this lens, I would probably buy it again. As far as I can tell, this lens produces great photos wide open with pleasing bokeh, little chromatic aberration, and for little money. These lenses can be had for almost nothing, and I would absolutely consider them a steal. If you don't own a lens close to this focal length, you would be doing yourself a favor by picking one of these classic lenses up.
Photos were all shot at f/2.5.
Edit: One of the benefits of being a Nikon shooter is to have access to these old lenses. There are a number of older lenses out there that are "dated" because of new technology that still perform quite well. Since these lenses are older though, they can often be bought for next to nothing. Canon shooters aren't quite as lucky. I was just reading something, and apparently because Nikon has used the F-mount system since 1959, that gives us Nikon shooters over 400 options for lenses.
Another thing I was just reading was "National Geographic's" "Afghan Girl" was taken using a Nikon 105mm f/2.5. For those of you who don't know, that photo is a pretty well known cover photo from the 80s.
Edit, Round Two: That's 400 different Nikkor lenses. So that doesn't include all of the third-party glass, like Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina.
Edit: One of the benefits of being a Nikon shooter is to have access to these old lenses. There are a number of older lenses out there that are "dated" because of new technology that still perform quite well. Since these lenses are older though, they can often be bought for next to nothing. Canon shooters aren't quite as lucky. I was just reading something, and apparently because Nikon has used the F-mount system since 1959, that gives us Nikon shooters over 400 options for lenses.
Another thing I was just reading was "National Geographic's" "Afghan Girl" was taken using a Nikon 105mm f/2.5. For those of you who don't know, that photo is a pretty well known cover photo from the 80s.
Edit, Round Two: That's 400 different Nikkor lenses. So that doesn't include all of the third-party glass, like Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina.
Post 55: What's in my bag (at the moment, anyway)
Every photographer always wants to know what's in the other guy's (or girl's) bag. I've been thinking about doing a post like this for a while, but I've been a little hesitant. I don't use the most expensive or newest gear, which some people think is responsible for the photo, and not the skill of the operator.
I'm going to do a general post of what's in my bag, and then do a more in depth post for each piece later on (that's the plan, anyway).
So, what's in my bag (or what am I able to put in my bag, depending on how I'm feeling)...
Nikon D3100. This isn't my main body. It's actually Devan's now, but it's available as a backup body if I ever needed it.
Nikon D7000. My baby. This body definitely has some issues, but it gets the job done. I'll definitely take it over the D70 I was using for a brief moment.
Nikkor - N.C. 24mm f/2.8:
I bought this lens used to take landscapes before I went to Utah for Spring Break with my fiance and some friends. I think the lens is damaged, which either occurred before I purchased it, or during shipping. It's a manual focus lens, and every time I turn the focus ring, there's quite a bit of squeaking and resistance. Not the good kind of resistance that a manual focus lens usually provides, but the kind of resistance a lens would have if it had been dropped.
I don't use this lens too often. The only time I use it is if I have to get a wide-angle shot or for landscapes, which I don't do too often.
Nikon 35mm 1.8G:
This was the first lens I bought myself, and the first lens I got besides the 18-55 or 55-200. It used to be my main lens, and was on my camera 99% of the time. I don't use this lens as much anymore. My main lens is now the 50mm 1.8G
Nikon 50mm 1.8G:
I bought the Nikon 50mm 1.8D from a local camera store. I think I had that lens for a few weeks until Noodle knocked my camera off the desk and broke it. Devan bought me the 50mm 1.8G for my birthday though, which I'm definitely not complaining about. The G version of this lens is infinitely times better than the D version, and absolutely worth the extra money (which isn't that much for a lens). I use this lens for almost everything but sports now. If I could pick one lens to have, it would be this one.
Nikon 105mm 2.5 AIs:
I bought this lens used sometime last winter. I think I got it for less than $150. I bought it mostly for it's reputation as a legendary portrait lens. I haven't used it much, but from the photos I've taken, it looks like it lives up to that reputation. It's a manual focus lens, and I could turn the focus ring all day. If you haven't owned a manual focus lens before, do yourself a favor and buy at least one. They're dirt-cheap and lenses like this 105mm are an incredible bargain. Admittedly, the fact that this lens is manual focus is the reason I haven't used it much. I would hate to have my photos be out of focus due to user error.
Nikon 180mm 2.8:
I love this lens. The chromatic aberration is pretty horrendous at times, but I'll put up with it. I think I bought this lens for a jokingly low $350. This lens was a professional lens at one point, but due to advancements in technology, they're a bargain at this point (assuming your camera body has a focus motor).
Promaster flash:
I don't know what kind of model it is. I just know it has an optical slave trigger, which is all that matters to me. This is the flash I use in all of my portraits. The flash has power settings of full, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8. 1/16, 1/32, and 1/64. This flash does everything I need it to, except say "Nikon." Speaking of which, this flash will most likely have a friend in the near future. Looking at a Nikon SB 600, 700, or 800.
Flash stand and Umbrellas:
I don't know the brand of these or the size of the umbrellas. They can't really fit in my bag either, but I figured I would include them since I use them for almost every portrait session.
That's what's in my bag, except for a bunch of 8 GB memory cards and my battery grips for both of my cameras.
I'm going to do a general post of what's in my bag, and then do a more in depth post for each piece later on (that's the plan, anyway).
So, what's in my bag (or what am I able to put in my bag, depending on how I'm feeling)...
Nikon D3100. This isn't my main body. It's actually Devan's now, but it's available as a backup body if I ever needed it.
Nikon D7000. My baby. This body definitely has some issues, but it gets the job done. I'll definitely take it over the D70 I was using for a brief moment.
Nikkor - N.C. 24mm f/2.8:
I bought this lens used to take landscapes before I went to Utah for Spring Break with my fiance and some friends. I think the lens is damaged, which either occurred before I purchased it, or during shipping. It's a manual focus lens, and every time I turn the focus ring, there's quite a bit of squeaking and resistance. Not the good kind of resistance that a manual focus lens usually provides, but the kind of resistance a lens would have if it had been dropped.
I don't use this lens too often. The only time I use it is if I have to get a wide-angle shot or for landscapes, which I don't do too often.
Nikon 35mm 1.8G:
This was the first lens I bought myself, and the first lens I got besides the 18-55 or 55-200. It used to be my main lens, and was on my camera 99% of the time. I don't use this lens as much anymore. My main lens is now the 50mm 1.8G
Nikon 50mm 1.8G:
I bought the Nikon 50mm 1.8D from a local camera store. I think I had that lens for a few weeks until Noodle knocked my camera off the desk and broke it. Devan bought me the 50mm 1.8G for my birthday though, which I'm definitely not complaining about. The G version of this lens is infinitely times better than the D version, and absolutely worth the extra money (which isn't that much for a lens). I use this lens for almost everything but sports now. If I could pick one lens to have, it would be this one.
Nikon 105mm 2.5 AIs:
I bought this lens used sometime last winter. I think I got it for less than $150. I bought it mostly for it's reputation as a legendary portrait lens. I haven't used it much, but from the photos I've taken, it looks like it lives up to that reputation. It's a manual focus lens, and I could turn the focus ring all day. If you haven't owned a manual focus lens before, do yourself a favor and buy at least one. They're dirt-cheap and lenses like this 105mm are an incredible bargain. Admittedly, the fact that this lens is manual focus is the reason I haven't used it much. I would hate to have my photos be out of focus due to user error.
Nikon 180mm 2.8:
I love this lens. The chromatic aberration is pretty horrendous at times, but I'll put up with it. I think I bought this lens for a jokingly low $350. This lens was a professional lens at one point, but due to advancements in technology, they're a bargain at this point (assuming your camera body has a focus motor).
Promaster flash:
I don't know what kind of model it is. I just know it has an optical slave trigger, which is all that matters to me. This is the flash I use in all of my portraits. The flash has power settings of full, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8. 1/16, 1/32, and 1/64. This flash does everything I need it to, except say "Nikon." Speaking of which, this flash will most likely have a friend in the near future. Looking at a Nikon SB 600, 700, or 800.
Flash stand and Umbrellas:
I don't know the brand of these or the size of the umbrellas. They can't really fit in my bag either, but I figured I would include them since I use them for almost every portrait session.
That's what's in my bag, except for a bunch of 8 GB memory cards and my battery grips for both of my cameras.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Post 54: The Importance of a Good Headshot
For actors, a quality headshot is almost a necessity. To be honest, when I first decided I wanted to be a portrait photographer, I thought a lot of my business would come from actors who needed updated headshots. As my peers and I get older, though, I can't help but notice the importance of a quality headshot for anyone who wants to be seen as a professional.
I doubt I'm the only one who can immediately tell the difference between a good headshot and a bad headshot, especially when they're juxtaposed on social media sites such as LinkedIn. When I see a good headshot, I can't help but think that individual not only looks more professional, and like someone I can rely on, but also they have enough money, and care enough about their appearance, to hire a professional photographer to take a professional headshot. Conversely, when I see someone with a low-quality headshot, I think the exact opposite.
Today, it isn't uncommon for potential employers to look for applicants on social media sites, meaning your profile picture is potentially the first impression you'll make on the interviewer. If I was looking for someone to network with or hire, I can guarantee I would be drawn toward someone who has a good, quality headshot, over someone who doesn't look like they care.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Post 53: Nikon's "Pure Photography" campaign and other things that aren't as exciting
It's been so long since I've posted anything here that I had to look at my older posts to remember my naming system. But, there have been a few announcements made by Nikon in the past month or so that have gotten me excited to take the time to sit down and blog, a bit.
First of all, Nikon announced the D610. I found this somewhat surprising, considering it's only been a year and a few weeks since Nikon announced the D600. It isn't uncommon for entry level cameras such as the Nikon D3X00s and D5X00s to be replaced every year, but for a full-frame camera to be replaced so quickly, even though it is Nikon's entry-level full-frame camera, is a little strange. Even Nikon's top of the line cropped-sensor body, the D7000, was out for around two and a half years before it's replacement was announced in February of 2013.
As far as I know, there haven't been a whole lot of changes made to the D610 compared to the D600. That is except for the D610 being able to shoot at six frames per second instead of five and a half; something that will definitely be noticeable... From what I've heard, the biggest reason Nikon released the D610 was because of the problem people were having with oil spots being on the sensor of their D600s due to the shutter. Apparently, Nikon has fixed this in the D610.
Here is a link to Nikon's D610: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d610/
The second announcement that I was initially excited about, was Nikon's announcement of the 58mm 1.4G. But then I saw the price. $1,700. Of course, this lens has Nikon's Nano-Crystal coating, as well as a gold ring around the lens and a maximum aperture of f/1.4, indicating it is a professional grade lens. The reason I was excited for this lens, is because I currently shoot with a cropped sensor body. meaning the focal length of my lenses are all multiplied by 1.5. This crop factor means that this new 58mm would be the equivalent field of view of 87mm, which is only 2mm longer than what is considered the perfect focal length for portraits.
But after thinking, I realized that I'm most likely going to purchase a full-frame camera within a year or so anyway, which would mean I would have the weird focal length of 58mm. It's not really that big of a deal, but I don't know how many 58mm lenses I've seen. For whatever reason, I'd rather just have a lens with a focal length that ends in a "0" or "5." Someone out there understands what I'm saying, I hope. I just feel like 58mm isn't all that common of a focal length. Considering I'll be upgrading to a full-frame body soon, it would make more sense for me to just wait and get an 85mm 1.4G. I would have to buy an 85mm anyway, because that focal length would be missing from my bag after going full-frame.
Here is a link to Nikon's 58mm 1.4G: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/singlefocal/normal/af-s_nikkor58mmf_14g/
The third announcement, the one I'm most excited about, I don't even know what it is, exactly. Over the past couple of days, Nikon has released a series of videos titled "Nikon-Pure Photography." The first couple of videos, almost none of the camera is shown, except for quick glimpses that last for only a few seconds, at most. By the fourth video, a little more of the camera is revealed, and we're told at the end that the announcement will come on November 5th.
I don't think I can wait that long. I'm not even sure what this is, but I know I need it. I've heard, basically, two different rumors/speculations. The first speculation, which I hope isn't the case, is Nikon is going the Leica route, and this new camera will be outrageously expensive, and won't be in my price range for a long, long time. I'm talking about the decision between this camera and a car.
The second rumor/speculation I've seen, is that this is going to be a very, very simple camera. By simple I mean omitting unnecessary things such as a flash, an LCD screen, and limiting things such as the controls and shutter speed; all things I could quickly come to terms with. I've also heard this camera could be potentially full-frame. If it is full-frame, and reasonably priced, Nikon can count on me buying one ASAP.
One thing that is pretty certain is this new camera will be "retro" looking, which is pretty popular these days. As long as the camera has a manual mode, view-finder, and a full-frame sensor, I'll be set...
Here are links to Nikon's "Nikon-Pure Photography" videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxjTnDxnb7s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6C9gbxBFPU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBzjFkMpWQw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHUQeZP3g88
First of all, Nikon announced the D610. I found this somewhat surprising, considering it's only been a year and a few weeks since Nikon announced the D600. It isn't uncommon for entry level cameras such as the Nikon D3X00s and D5X00s to be replaced every year, but for a full-frame camera to be replaced so quickly, even though it is Nikon's entry-level full-frame camera, is a little strange. Even Nikon's top of the line cropped-sensor body, the D7000, was out for around two and a half years before it's replacement was announced in February of 2013.
As far as I know, there haven't been a whole lot of changes made to the D610 compared to the D600. That is except for the D610 being able to shoot at six frames per second instead of five and a half; something that will definitely be noticeable... From what I've heard, the biggest reason Nikon released the D610 was because of the problem people were having with oil spots being on the sensor of their D600s due to the shutter. Apparently, Nikon has fixed this in the D610.
Here is a link to Nikon's D610: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d610/
The second announcement that I was initially excited about, was Nikon's announcement of the 58mm 1.4G. But then I saw the price. $1,700. Of course, this lens has Nikon's Nano-Crystal coating, as well as a gold ring around the lens and a maximum aperture of f/1.4, indicating it is a professional grade lens. The reason I was excited for this lens, is because I currently shoot with a cropped sensor body. meaning the focal length of my lenses are all multiplied by 1.5. This crop factor means that this new 58mm would be the equivalent field of view of 87mm, which is only 2mm longer than what is considered the perfect focal length for portraits.
But after thinking, I realized that I'm most likely going to purchase a full-frame camera within a year or so anyway, which would mean I would have the weird focal length of 58mm. It's not really that big of a deal, but I don't know how many 58mm lenses I've seen. For whatever reason, I'd rather just have a lens with a focal length that ends in a "0" or "5." Someone out there understands what I'm saying, I hope. I just feel like 58mm isn't all that common of a focal length. Considering I'll be upgrading to a full-frame body soon, it would make more sense for me to just wait and get an 85mm 1.4G. I would have to buy an 85mm anyway, because that focal length would be missing from my bag after going full-frame.
Here is a link to Nikon's 58mm 1.4G: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/singlefocal/normal/af-s_nikkor58mmf_14g/
The third announcement, the one I'm most excited about, I don't even know what it is, exactly. Over the past couple of days, Nikon has released a series of videos titled "Nikon-Pure Photography." The first couple of videos, almost none of the camera is shown, except for quick glimpses that last for only a few seconds, at most. By the fourth video, a little more of the camera is revealed, and we're told at the end that the announcement will come on November 5th.
I don't think I can wait that long. I'm not even sure what this is, but I know I need it. I've heard, basically, two different rumors/speculations. The first speculation, which I hope isn't the case, is Nikon is going the Leica route, and this new camera will be outrageously expensive, and won't be in my price range for a long, long time. I'm talking about the decision between this camera and a car.
The second rumor/speculation I've seen, is that this is going to be a very, very simple camera. By simple I mean omitting unnecessary things such as a flash, an LCD screen, and limiting things such as the controls and shutter speed; all things I could quickly come to terms with. I've also heard this camera could be potentially full-frame. If it is full-frame, and reasonably priced, Nikon can count on me buying one ASAP.
One thing that is pretty certain is this new camera will be "retro" looking, which is pretty popular these days. As long as the camera has a manual mode, view-finder, and a full-frame sensor, I'll be set...
Here are links to Nikon's "Nikon-Pure Photography" videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxjTnDxnb7s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6C9gbxBFPU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBzjFkMpWQw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHUQeZP3g88
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Post 52: A typical work day
For some reason, a lot of people think that when someone is a photographer, and own their own business, the only days they work are the days they spend shooting. False. I wish this was the case. I wish I would get to just sit around and wait for clients to come to me, while I sit around and play NHL 13, or pet my cats. Anyone who owns any type of business, but especially my fellow photographers, know this is not how running a business happens. This post is going to focus on what a typical day for me when I'm not shooting might look like from when I wake up to when I go to bed. Hopefully this will extinguish the idea that photographers get to do whatever they want until they feel like working.
A typical day for me looks a little something like this:
6 a.m. Devan wakes me up before she leaves for work to say goodbye. Sometimes I wake up now, sometimes I go back to sleep. This day, I fell back asleep.
7:30ish a.m. I wake up and start checking emails to see if anyone wants to set up a session. Then I get out of bed, take a shower, eat breakfast, etc. etc.
9 a.m. After eating, most likely, some type of egg dish, I hop on the computer. For the next hour or two, I'll either look up ways to get more people to look at my website or how to get more clients.
11 a.m. After researching how to get more clients, I'll usually spend the next hour or so emailing new, potential, clients, showing them my portfolio and discussing rates. Some days I don't do this because there are only so many people in my area I can email. Some days I'll think of someone or a company I haven't contacted yet, though.
Noon Next, I spend an hour or so looking at how my website has been doing using a number of different tools which keep track of visitors, how many people have clicked on my links, where the people who are looking at my site are from, etc. Usually I'll also take the time either during or after this to figure out more ways to make it easier for people to find my website.
1 p.m. After working on my website, I'll take a look at my social networking sites, primarily Facebook. I don't usually spend much time looking at this, but I'll usually respond to any messages I've received, look at how many people have viewed the "photo of the day" and pick out new "photo of the days" for the upcoming week or so. I might also type of a blog post, which can take anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour.
2 p.m. Lunch break.
3 p.m. I probably spend about an hour everyday learning about new things about photography, which will hopefully make me better and more consistent. I learn from either other photographers on YouTube, or by reading articles online.
4 p.m. I check Facebook again, check my email accounts again, and check to see how my website is doing again. After replying to messages and emails and making any phone calls I have to, it's around 5, which is when Devan gets home. Once Devan gets home, I don't usually get much else done.
This is what a typical day might look like for me. Some days are shorter, some days are longer, and I don't always do all of these things in the order above. Generally, I try to put at least five to seven hours of work in at least four days a week.
So, as you can see, I get the luxury of working from home and being my own boss, but in order to be successful and build my business, I have to put in work, just like everyone else. But, unlike everyone else, I wake up loving my job.
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Post 51: New URL
I have changed my URL from www.danpomykalskiphotography.com to www.danpomykalski.com.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Post 50
From now until the end of August, use coupon code "AUG2013" on my website to receive 50% off any order!
Friday, August 9, 2013
Post 49
Lately, I've been seeing a lot of bad photos floating around. I mean really bad. Criminally bad. Photos that were clearly taken by someone who has no understanding of light. Photos with unflattering shadows on people's faces. Photos that look terrible but could have been fixed slightly with some post-processing. Photos taken by people who were paid that shouldn't have been. I truly feel bad for whoever paid these people who are passing themselves off as "professionals." I'm sure the photographer charged some ridiculously low fee, so the person isn't out that much money, but wasted money is wasted money. Not to mention that whoever paid them felt that the occasion was special enough that a photographer was needed, now the only photos they have to remember the occasion are poor quality photos taken by someone who shouldn't have been taking them. I can't help but look at a lot of these photos and wonder if whoever hired them even bothered to look at their previous work. If you're going to spend the money on a photographer, you might as well spend more and hire someone who actually knows what they're doing.
Post 48: What Equipment Do I Need For XYZ?
This morning I was watching a video on YouTube where an established photographer/YouTuber was answering a question he received via email from a "semi-professional" photographer. The photographer basically said that they would like to get into wedding photography and asked the YouTuber what type of equipment they should get. The YouTuber then answered the question.
Had I been asked the question, I would have answered with: "I hope you aren't charging to shoot weddings if you don't even know what type of equipment you need to shoot one..."
Not only charging to shoot, but shooting weddings as the primary photog at all. Weddings aren't something that happen every day for people, which makes the photos taken extremely important. If you don't know what type of equipment you need to do a certain shoot, then I can't help but assume you have no idea about your equipment or the equipment available to you. Any real professional (someone who takes good photos and gets paid for it, not someone who has a fancy camera and thinks they're a photographer) will know their equipment inside and out, how to use it, and its limitations, as well as be able to determine what equipment they need for a specific type of shoot. If you have to go around asking other people what type of equipment you need, then you're obviously not ready to be paid to shoot.
Had I been asked the question, I would have answered with: "I hope you aren't charging to shoot weddings if you don't even know what type of equipment you need to shoot one..."
Not only charging to shoot, but shooting weddings as the primary photog at all. Weddings aren't something that happen every day for people, which makes the photos taken extremely important. If you don't know what type of equipment you need to do a certain shoot, then I can't help but assume you have no idea about your equipment or the equipment available to you. Any real professional (someone who takes good photos and gets paid for it, not someone who has a fancy camera and thinks they're a photographer) will know their equipment inside and out, how to use it, and its limitations, as well as be able to determine what equipment they need for a specific type of shoot. If you have to go around asking other people what type of equipment you need, then you're obviously not ready to be paid to shoot.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Post 47
For some reason, someone somewhere determined that the equipment a photographer uses is what makes the photo, and the photographer just presses a button.
I wish I knew how many times people asked what lenses or camera body I use, obviously thinking that the more expensive something is, the better the results. Although it's true that more expensive lenses and bodies will provide higher quality images, the most limiting factor is the photographer. I can say, without a doubt, that I would be able to create the same image with a 35mm f/1.8G (a $200ish lens) that I would with a 35mm f/1.4G (a $1600 lens). If I can't make a good photo with a $200 lens, I'm not going to be able to with a $1600 lens, all of a sudden. Really, the equipment a photographer uses should be the least of someone's concern when they're looking for a photographer. The thing someone should be looking for when trying to find a photographer is quality work.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Post 46: Why should I hire a photographer?
With big, expensive cameras being so accessible, is there really a need to hire a photographer anymore? Why should anyone have to pay someone when their uncle Fred, or their friend Bob has a big camera?
There are so many reasons why someone should hire a professional photographer, I'm not even sure where to begin. I think it would be easiest if this post looked at why someone should hire a wedding photographer, and why someone should hire a photographer for headshots. Anyone who is looking to hire a photographer probably falls into one of those two categories; you're either looking for a photographer to document a special event or occasion, or you need photos to try to sell something.
Fred or Bob may have an expensive camera, but having the right equipment doesn't mean they'll provide the same results as a professional. Cameras are only tools. Thinking someone will provide amazing photos because they have an expensive camera is like thinking purchasing the most expensive golf clubs will make you the next Arnold Palmer. Having expensive equipment doesn't tell the person using it when to press the shutter button, or where to focus, or what settings to use. Generally, a good, professional photographer will be able to provide similar results regardless of the camera used. The same goes for someone who isn't a good photographer. Their results will look the same if they use a cheap camera, or an expensive one; bad.
I'm sure some of you out there are aware that Fred or Bob won't provide the same results as a professional photographer, but you're probably going to go with them anyway. There are two reasons for this; either you're paying Fred or Bob nothing, or you're paying them much less than you would pay a professional. Like with pretty much everything else in life, you get what you pay for. Fred or Bob's photos may be okay, or good enough, but if the event is special enough to you, spend the money to get quality photographs that you'll want to look at and show off to your friends and family. There's no point in having photos taken if you don't want to look at them because they're nothing special. And a lot of times, special life events, like weddings, or certain birthday parties, only happen once, and there isn't going to be another opportunity to get those photos. Paying a professional who knows what they're doing means there's a smaller chance of key moments being missed.
The next reason why someone would hire a professional photographer, is because they're trying to sell something. In a lot of cases, what you're trying to sell may be yourself.
Almost every person who is just starting their career has some type of social networking profile, which means it only requires an interviewer to type the name of a person into Google to find information on them. Yes, most social networking sites allow the user to make their profile private, or gives the user the ability to hide certain information from people, but one thing that usually isn't hidden is their profile photo. The explanation of why someone who wants to appear professional should hire someone to take professional headshots of them is easy. If you and one other person apply for the same job, the employer looks at both candidates on a social networking site, both candidates have identical resumes, but one candidate has a profile photo that's just meh, and one has a profile photo that they had taken professionally, who do you think is going to be hired? Probably the one who looks more professional. We're told to not judge a book by its cover, but it happens all of the time. People are more likely to go with the product that looks more appealing, or is portrayed better. When someone goes into a job interview, they're trying to sell themselves to the interviewer and having a professional headshot either online or somewhere in your resume can only help.
There are so many reasons why someone should hire a professional photographer, I'm not even sure where to begin. I think it would be easiest if this post looked at why someone should hire a wedding photographer, and why someone should hire a photographer for headshots. Anyone who is looking to hire a photographer probably falls into one of those two categories; you're either looking for a photographer to document a special event or occasion, or you need photos to try to sell something.
Fred or Bob may have an expensive camera, but having the right equipment doesn't mean they'll provide the same results as a professional. Cameras are only tools. Thinking someone will provide amazing photos because they have an expensive camera is like thinking purchasing the most expensive golf clubs will make you the next Arnold Palmer. Having expensive equipment doesn't tell the person using it when to press the shutter button, or where to focus, or what settings to use. Generally, a good, professional photographer will be able to provide similar results regardless of the camera used. The same goes for someone who isn't a good photographer. Their results will look the same if they use a cheap camera, or an expensive one; bad.
I'm sure some of you out there are aware that Fred or Bob won't provide the same results as a professional photographer, but you're probably going to go with them anyway. There are two reasons for this; either you're paying Fred or Bob nothing, or you're paying them much less than you would pay a professional. Like with pretty much everything else in life, you get what you pay for. Fred or Bob's photos may be okay, or good enough, but if the event is special enough to you, spend the money to get quality photographs that you'll want to look at and show off to your friends and family. There's no point in having photos taken if you don't want to look at them because they're nothing special. And a lot of times, special life events, like weddings, or certain birthday parties, only happen once, and there isn't going to be another opportunity to get those photos. Paying a professional who knows what they're doing means there's a smaller chance of key moments being missed.
The next reason why someone would hire a professional photographer, is because they're trying to sell something. In a lot of cases, what you're trying to sell may be yourself.
Almost every person who is just starting their career has some type of social networking profile, which means it only requires an interviewer to type the name of a person into Google to find information on them. Yes, most social networking sites allow the user to make their profile private, or gives the user the ability to hide certain information from people, but one thing that usually isn't hidden is their profile photo. The explanation of why someone who wants to appear professional should hire someone to take professional headshots of them is easy. If you and one other person apply for the same job, the employer looks at both candidates on a social networking site, both candidates have identical resumes, but one candidate has a profile photo that's just meh, and one has a profile photo that they had taken professionally, who do you think is going to be hired? Probably the one who looks more professional. We're told to not judge a book by its cover, but it happens all of the time. People are more likely to go with the product that looks more appealing, or is portrayed better. When someone goes into a job interview, they're trying to sell themselves to the interviewer and having a professional headshot either online or somewhere in your resume can only help.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
How To: Photograph Fireworks
I probably should have written this post before the 4th of July, but I didn't think about it until as I was photographing the fireworks here in Whitewater.
As I was watching the fireworks with Devan, there was another person with a dSLR behind me. After the woman voiced her frustrations with her new dSLR and her inability to capture the explosions, her mother, I'm assuming, tried helping by telling her daughter when to press the shutter button. As the firework went up into the sky, I would hear "now" followed by the shutter flapping, only to hear more frustration voiced by the woman with the camera.
The technique the woman was using is the exact opposite of what you should do.
For someone who doesn't know much about photography, it would probably seem obvious that photographing fireworks is all about timing. After all, the best part only last for a few seconds, and it can be difficult to predict where and when the firework will go off. However, photographing fireworks is actually one of the easiest things to do, if you have the right equipment.
The first, and most important piece of advice I can give, is to, under no circumstances, use any type of flash. Your camera is going to assume the flash needs to be fired, because everything around it is pitch black. The problem with this is that the flash is only effective to a few yards, if that. Another problem that might happen, is your camera might underexpose, due to the camera thinking the flash will be compensating for the lack of light.
So how do I photograph fireworks?
Generally, I've found that using an f-stop of 22, an ISO of 100, and a shutter speed of 30 seconds works most of the time. Using an f-stop like f/22 lets me get the shutter speed slow enough that it stays open for 30 seconds, capturing any firework that goes off during that time. This not only exposes the fireworks well, but makes it possible to capture multiple explosions in a single frame. This technique also makes it possible for the photographer to press the shutter button, and then watch the fireworks until the shutter closes again. Then, the photographer simply releases the shutter again, and watches the fireworks for another 30 seconds. I don't know about you, but this sounds much easier than trying to time your shots perfectly, and this technique also produces more interesting images.
It is important to note that a tripod is a necessity for this technique. Before, when I was too poor to afford a quality tripod, I would try to set my camera up on sturdy objects. This would work sometimes, but with fireworks, you generally have to aim up towards the sky. Also, having a tripod makes it that much easier to compose before hand, and a sturdy tripod promises less camera shake and blurry photos than a rock would.
This technique also stresses why manual modes trump auto modes. The majority of the time, cameras can only make guesses as to what the user wants. With a general understanding of photography, the results will almost always be better if the photographer is adjusting the settings.
As I was watching the fireworks with Devan, there was another person with a dSLR behind me. After the woman voiced her frustrations with her new dSLR and her inability to capture the explosions, her mother, I'm assuming, tried helping by telling her daughter when to press the shutter button. As the firework went up into the sky, I would hear "now" followed by the shutter flapping, only to hear more frustration voiced by the woman with the camera.
The technique the woman was using is the exact opposite of what you should do.
For someone who doesn't know much about photography, it would probably seem obvious that photographing fireworks is all about timing. After all, the best part only last for a few seconds, and it can be difficult to predict where and when the firework will go off. However, photographing fireworks is actually one of the easiest things to do, if you have the right equipment.
The first, and most important piece of advice I can give, is to, under no circumstances, use any type of flash. Your camera is going to assume the flash needs to be fired, because everything around it is pitch black. The problem with this is that the flash is only effective to a few yards, if that. Another problem that might happen, is your camera might underexpose, due to the camera thinking the flash will be compensating for the lack of light.
So how do I photograph fireworks?
Generally, I've found that using an f-stop of 22, an ISO of 100, and a shutter speed of 30 seconds works most of the time. Using an f-stop like f/22 lets me get the shutter speed slow enough that it stays open for 30 seconds, capturing any firework that goes off during that time. This not only exposes the fireworks well, but makes it possible to capture multiple explosions in a single frame. This technique also makes it possible for the photographer to press the shutter button, and then watch the fireworks until the shutter closes again. Then, the photographer simply releases the shutter again, and watches the fireworks for another 30 seconds. I don't know about you, but this sounds much easier than trying to time your shots perfectly, and this technique also produces more interesting images.
It is important to note that a tripod is a necessity for this technique. Before, when I was too poor to afford a quality tripod, I would try to set my camera up on sturdy objects. This would work sometimes, but with fireworks, you generally have to aim up towards the sky. Also, having a tripod makes it that much easier to compose before hand, and a sturdy tripod promises less camera shake and blurry photos than a rock would.
This technique also stresses why manual modes trump auto modes. The majority of the time, cameras can only make guesses as to what the user wants. With a general understanding of photography, the results will almost always be better if the photographer is adjusting the settings.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Post 44: Working for "Experience"
One of the questions I'm asked far too often, is will I photograph something for "experience." I respond to this question with "no."
Asking a photographer who has a legitimate business with a business license, like I do, is like going into a restaurant and asking the chef if he'll cook you something in order for him to gain more experience. Not only does experience not pay the bills, or put food on the table, but experience is something that a photographer should have before they even consider starting a business. A photographer should be able to go into a job knowing that they will be able to provide quality results before even advertising or declaring themselves a professional photographer.
This doesn't mean I'm not always constantly in need of experience, but experience is gained either while taking assignments, and learning from mistakes or from the photographs you take or by practicing at home in situations where I'm practicing and building my skills at home. Not shooting for "experience"doesn't mean I don't "barter" either. There have been a number of times where I have reduced the cost of a session for an organization because they offer me something in return, such as a discount or free advertising. The difference between bartering and shooting something for free for experience is different in that I am getting something in return.
I attribute people thinking that photographers will shoot for free to two things. The first is that the person doesn't want to pay for a photographer, because they feel quality photographs aren't worth anything. The second, which also influences the first reason, is inexperienced photographers who don't really know what they're doing, but who think they're professionals because they have an entry level dSLR and charging almost nothing and providing a large number of unedited, low-quality photos.
So the next time you're in the market for a photographer and are considering asking them to provide their services for experience, ask yourself if you would do your job for only experience, and no pay.
Asking a photographer who has a legitimate business with a business license, like I do, is like going into a restaurant and asking the chef if he'll cook you something in order for him to gain more experience. Not only does experience not pay the bills, or put food on the table, but experience is something that a photographer should have before they even consider starting a business. A photographer should be able to go into a job knowing that they will be able to provide quality results before even advertising or declaring themselves a professional photographer.
This doesn't mean I'm not always constantly in need of experience, but experience is gained either while taking assignments, and learning from mistakes or from the photographs you take or by practicing at home in situations where I'm practicing and building my skills at home. Not shooting for "experience"doesn't mean I don't "barter" either. There have been a number of times where I have reduced the cost of a session for an organization because they offer me something in return, such as a discount or free advertising. The difference between bartering and shooting something for free for experience is different in that I am getting something in return.
I attribute people thinking that photographers will shoot for free to two things. The first is that the person doesn't want to pay for a photographer, because they feel quality photographs aren't worth anything. The second, which also influences the first reason, is inexperienced photographers who don't really know what they're doing, but who think they're professionals because they have an entry level dSLR and charging almost nothing and providing a large number of unedited, low-quality photos.
So the next time you're in the market for a photographer and are considering asking them to provide their services for experience, ask yourself if you would do your job for only experience, and no pay.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Post 43: My Move to a Prime Only Bag
I've had a number of zoom lenses since my interest in photography began. I started out with an 18-55mm and a 55-200mm. I then sold my 55-200 to get a Tamron 70-300, which I then sold for a Tamron 70-200mm 2.8. At some point I also picked up a Nikon 18-70mm, which I also sold while in Moab.
The first lens I ever bought for myself, though, was a Nikon 35mm 1.8G prime lens for a measly $200. It only took me a few minutes to fall in love with this cheap lens. For those of you who don't know, a prime lens is a lens that doesn't move. These lenses are generally fast, sharp, and relatively cheap. The reason these lenses are so sharp is because they don't have as many moving parts as a zoom lens, which also is the reason they're cheaper. Zoom lenses require a lot of precision in order for the lens to be able to stay sharp while also being able to zoom; all of the lenses need to line up perfectly. This is why constant aperture lenses are also more expensive than a lens that is, for instance, f/4-5.6; these lenses don't need to be as precise as an f/4 or f/2.8 lens.
Anyway, I ended up selling my Tamron 70-200mm a week or two ago for a number of reasons. This lens performed fine optically, especially for the price of around $700 new, but the auto focus was a joke and couldn't keep up with things such as sports. With the money I got for the Tamron, I picked up a Nikon 180mm 2.8 and I just ordered a Nikon 105mm 2.5 AI with money to spare. I've used the Nikon 180mm 2.8 on two shoots so far, and I couldn't be happier. The biggest criticism of prime lenses is they don't zoom. People don't realize that they do zoom though, unless your legs don't work. The biggest defense against the "prime lenses don't zoom" criticism is that zoom lenses make you lazy. I never really understood this argument, but after being "limited" to prime lenses now, I am beginning to understand what people mean.
I will admit that, at times, prime lenses can be somewhat limiting. Since my 105mm hasn't arrived yet, I have a giant gap in my range from 50mm to 180mm. On one shoot, 50mm was too wide, and I thought 180mm was too close. I ended up using both. The results I got from my 50mm were certainly useable, but the shots I got from the 180mm were amazing. I thought that there was no way I would get anything decent with a lens that was so tight on the subject, but I love the results. The 180mm has forced me to think more about my composition, and wait for things to fall into place, instead of zooming out, taking the photo, and then cropping in post production. The 180mm has also changed the way I take photos, and given me different results than I would have with a zoom lens. Results that I'm actually a lot happier with. If you have a dSLR and are still tied down with your zoom lenses, I would highly suggest going out and buying a prime lens. I've seen some prime lenses selling for $40 used, so that's always an option if you don't have a lot of money to spend. I can almost promise, though, that once you have a prime lens, that lens will quickly become your favorite.
The first lens I ever bought for myself, though, was a Nikon 35mm 1.8G prime lens for a measly $200. It only took me a few minutes to fall in love with this cheap lens. For those of you who don't know, a prime lens is a lens that doesn't move. These lenses are generally fast, sharp, and relatively cheap. The reason these lenses are so sharp is because they don't have as many moving parts as a zoom lens, which also is the reason they're cheaper. Zoom lenses require a lot of precision in order for the lens to be able to stay sharp while also being able to zoom; all of the lenses need to line up perfectly. This is why constant aperture lenses are also more expensive than a lens that is, for instance, f/4-5.6; these lenses don't need to be as precise as an f/4 or f/2.8 lens.
Anyway, I ended up selling my Tamron 70-200mm a week or two ago for a number of reasons. This lens performed fine optically, especially for the price of around $700 new, but the auto focus was a joke and couldn't keep up with things such as sports. With the money I got for the Tamron, I picked up a Nikon 180mm 2.8 and I just ordered a Nikon 105mm 2.5 AI with money to spare. I've used the Nikon 180mm 2.8 on two shoots so far, and I couldn't be happier. The biggest criticism of prime lenses is they don't zoom. People don't realize that they do zoom though, unless your legs don't work. The biggest defense against the "prime lenses don't zoom" criticism is that zoom lenses make you lazy. I never really understood this argument, but after being "limited" to prime lenses now, I am beginning to understand what people mean.
I will admit that, at times, prime lenses can be somewhat limiting. Since my 105mm hasn't arrived yet, I have a giant gap in my range from 50mm to 180mm. On one shoot, 50mm was too wide, and I thought 180mm was too close. I ended up using both. The results I got from my 50mm were certainly useable, but the shots I got from the 180mm were amazing. I thought that there was no way I would get anything decent with a lens that was so tight on the subject, but I love the results. The 180mm has forced me to think more about my composition, and wait for things to fall into place, instead of zooming out, taking the photo, and then cropping in post production. The 180mm has also changed the way I take photos, and given me different results than I would have with a zoom lens. Results that I'm actually a lot happier with. If you have a dSLR and are still tied down with your zoom lenses, I would highly suggest going out and buying a prime lens. I've seen some prime lenses selling for $40 used, so that's always an option if you don't have a lot of money to spend. I can almost promise, though, that once you have a prime lens, that lens will quickly become your favorite.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Street Photography could become illegal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9R3th3JA1k
I saw this video while checking my YouTube subscriptions, and the title made my heart stop.
I was originally attracted to photography because of Adam Colton and the work he was able to create with his camera. After learning a few things about photography, I then fell in love with the idea of street photography. I felt street photography had the ability to turn everyday happenings into art and images that I could feel myself, as well as capture those rare moments that no one seems to notice. There were some great street shots that I would stare at for long periods of time, getting lost in the photographs. There is a very famous photo of a sailor kissing a woman after World War II ended. This photo would fall into the category of street photography, which is solid proof that street photography, like all types of photography, isn't just an art form, but a way to document history.
I also feel that photography is a way for many to express themselves, which I feel would fall under the right to free speech. Pornography is also considered to be protected under the right to free speech, and if pornography is protected under this right, then there is no reason photography shouldn't be as well.
When I'm walking around and taking street photos, I tend to only take photos of things or people I find doing interesting things. If you don't want your photo to be taken by someone like me, then just go about your business. Chances are you won't end up being the subject of my photograph. If you were to happen to do something interesting, under current laws, there isn't much you can do anyway. I'm almost positive I can take a photo of you if you're out in public and over the age of 18. However, the only way I can profit from this photo is if I have you sign a model release. After I take that photo, under current copyright laws, I own that photo, and I can do whatever I would like with it as long as it is for personal or educational, including news, use.
I really hope that this law doesn't pass. I feel this law is too broad to pass. What if someone is taking a photo of their family member or friend, and a person they don't know happens to stray into the background. Is the person with the camera going to be sent to jail? I also feel this law is taking away not only our right to free speech, but also taking away a valuable and irreplaceable form of recording history. Think of all of the famous photos you've ever seen in your life, and now think of how many of those people gave permission to the photographer to take their photos. The most powerful images are often the ones that catch people in their element, acting as they normally would without being directed. This is what makes street photography so valuable, and this is why we can't let laws like these pass.
I saw this video while checking my YouTube subscriptions, and the title made my heart stop.
I was originally attracted to photography because of Adam Colton and the work he was able to create with his camera. After learning a few things about photography, I then fell in love with the idea of street photography. I felt street photography had the ability to turn everyday happenings into art and images that I could feel myself, as well as capture those rare moments that no one seems to notice. There were some great street shots that I would stare at for long periods of time, getting lost in the photographs. There is a very famous photo of a sailor kissing a woman after World War II ended. This photo would fall into the category of street photography, which is solid proof that street photography, like all types of photography, isn't just an art form, but a way to document history.
I also feel that photography is a way for many to express themselves, which I feel would fall under the right to free speech. Pornography is also considered to be protected under the right to free speech, and if pornography is protected under this right, then there is no reason photography shouldn't be as well.
When I'm walking around and taking street photos, I tend to only take photos of things or people I find doing interesting things. If you don't want your photo to be taken by someone like me, then just go about your business. Chances are you won't end up being the subject of my photograph. If you were to happen to do something interesting, under current laws, there isn't much you can do anyway. I'm almost positive I can take a photo of you if you're out in public and over the age of 18. However, the only way I can profit from this photo is if I have you sign a model release. After I take that photo, under current copyright laws, I own that photo, and I can do whatever I would like with it as long as it is for personal or educational, including news, use.
I really hope that this law doesn't pass. I feel this law is too broad to pass. What if someone is taking a photo of their family member or friend, and a person they don't know happens to stray into the background. Is the person with the camera going to be sent to jail? I also feel this law is taking away not only our right to free speech, but also taking away a valuable and irreplaceable form of recording history. Think of all of the famous photos you've ever seen in your life, and now think of how many of those people gave permission to the photographer to take their photos. The most powerful images are often the ones that catch people in their element, acting as they normally would without being directed. This is what makes street photography so valuable, and this is why we can't let laws like these pass.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Post 41
I recently got back from a road trip to Moab, Utah. Of course I took photos while I was there; a few of which I shared with a group I belong to on Facebook.
There was one member, who is planning on going to Moab this summer, who posted a comment on the photo I shared asking about how much hiking was involved to take photos like mine.
I'm probably over thinking this a little too much, and this probably isn't what the poster meant when they asked the question, but I couldn't help but wonder, "why do you want to take photos like mine?"
As a photographer, I try to get the most unique photos I can in order to stand out from all the other "photographers" out there. If everyone took photos that looked like everyone else's, why even bother taking photos? I think it's important to be able to look at someone's photos and figure out how they positioned their flash, or how they got the background to blur a certain way, but I think trying to copy someone else's style is going to leave other photographers frustrated and angry. Every photographer's style is unique in one way or another, and it's important to realize this.
There was one member, who is planning on going to Moab this summer, who posted a comment on the photo I shared asking about how much hiking was involved to take photos like mine.
I'm probably over thinking this a little too much, and this probably isn't what the poster meant when they asked the question, but I couldn't help but wonder, "why do you want to take photos like mine?"
As a photographer, I try to get the most unique photos I can in order to stand out from all the other "photographers" out there. If everyone took photos that looked like everyone else's, why even bother taking photos? I think it's important to be able to look at someone's photos and figure out how they positioned their flash, or how they got the background to blur a certain way, but I think trying to copy someone else's style is going to leave other photographers frustrated and angry. Every photographer's style is unique in one way or another, and it's important to realize this.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Why You Should Never Undervalue Your Work
A few weekends ago, I did some work for someone to return a favor. After I took the photos, a person who was at the event contacted me and said they were also interested in ordering some photos. She gave me the file names, I added the total up, and replied to her email.
The next morning, I woke up to a message from the original contact, telling me that she felt I was charging too much per file, and that they had recently had another photographer who supplied 1400 photos for a group price of $150 on a CD, or five photos for $20.
What?! $.10 per file? The first thing I can't help but think to myself when I see this is "amateur." If this photographer knew the value of their work, they certainly wouldn't feel that their time is only worth $.10. I'm also confused as to how anyone could possible take 1400 photos in an hour and a half.
It took me a while to think of how to respond to the message. I had never been faced with this problem before. I've done work similar to this, but charged, roughly, 50% more. If the clients were ever unhappy with the price, it had never reached my ears.
I replied to the email basically saying that I could drop the price some, but not a lot. I explained that while determining prices, I had to take into consideration the amount of time it took me to drive to the location, the amount of time it took me to take the photos, the amount of time it took me to get back home, and the amount of time it took me to edit all of the photos. I also said that I would never be able to make a living off of what the other photographer sold those photos for. I'd be interested to see some of those photos. Maybe they're only worth $.10?
I make it a point to try to work with my clients as much as I can, but I would never be able to make a living off of the price the other photographer charged. It's also hard to adjust my prices because I wasn't paid to show up. The only potential profit I would be receiving would be through selling files. When I'm paid a set amount to do a specific job and files are included in that price, it's much, much easier to negotiate with price.
For instance, I recently did some work for someone and gave them an estimate with 15 files included. The client asked me if there was any way she could get the price lower. I asked the client how many photos they thought they would need, and what their budget was. After they told me, we agreed on half of the price that I originally gave them, but instead of 15 photos included in the price, they would only get four, and each additional file was four times as much as the original estimate. I didn't have to do as much editing, I still got paid, and the client got the amount of photos they needed; a win-win.
So why should you never undervalue your work?
First of all, if you have any respect for yourself, or your profession, and you're truly a "professional," you'll take into account the amount of time it takes to get to the location, the amount of time you're taking photos, the amount of time it takes you to get back, the amount of time it takes to edit the photos, and the amount of time went into contacting your client. Making quality photographs isn't easy, and takes time; your prices should reflect this. Keep in mind, that if this is your only income, this is your job, and you should be getting paid what you would be getting paid in any other post-college profession.
Secondly, out of respect for your fellow photographers. The photographer who sold their photos for $.10 a piece basically valued every other photographer's work that the clients they work for come in contact with at the same price, which, again, is extremely low.
So how did I handle this situation? I offered to lower my prices as much as I could, but still make somewhat of a profit. I haven't received any orders yet, but I'm okay with that. I stood my ground, and I might not make money from this job, but I wasn't expecting to in the first place. I originally went for the original contact to return a favor. Also, every client I work with is potentially even more clients. I rely heavily on word-of-mouth to get my name out there. If I drop my prices for a number of clients, and then they spread the word to their friends about me, what do you think their friends will expect me to charge?
If you're ever having trouble deciding how much to charge, here are things you should use to help determine prices.
You have to take into consideration that your equipment will have to be replaced, eventually.
You have to determine how much you would like to earn per hour. Take into account how much time you'll spend traveling, how much time will be spent taking the photos, how much time it takes to edit the photos, and how much time it takes to set up the session with the client.
You can also call around and see how much other professionals are being paid. For example, if you're taking photos of a sporting event, try to find out how much the officials are being paid.
The next morning, I woke up to a message from the original contact, telling me that she felt I was charging too much per file, and that they had recently had another photographer who supplied 1400 photos for a group price of $150 on a CD, or five photos for $20.
What?! $.10 per file? The first thing I can't help but think to myself when I see this is "amateur." If this photographer knew the value of their work, they certainly wouldn't feel that their time is only worth $.10. I'm also confused as to how anyone could possible take 1400 photos in an hour and a half.
It took me a while to think of how to respond to the message. I had never been faced with this problem before. I've done work similar to this, but charged, roughly, 50% more. If the clients were ever unhappy with the price, it had never reached my ears.
I replied to the email basically saying that I could drop the price some, but not a lot. I explained that while determining prices, I had to take into consideration the amount of time it took me to drive to the location, the amount of time it took me to take the photos, the amount of time it took me to get back home, and the amount of time it took me to edit all of the photos. I also said that I would never be able to make a living off of what the other photographer sold those photos for. I'd be interested to see some of those photos. Maybe they're only worth $.10?
I make it a point to try to work with my clients as much as I can, but I would never be able to make a living off of the price the other photographer charged. It's also hard to adjust my prices because I wasn't paid to show up. The only potential profit I would be receiving would be through selling files. When I'm paid a set amount to do a specific job and files are included in that price, it's much, much easier to negotiate with price.
For instance, I recently did some work for someone and gave them an estimate with 15 files included. The client asked me if there was any way she could get the price lower. I asked the client how many photos they thought they would need, and what their budget was. After they told me, we agreed on half of the price that I originally gave them, but instead of 15 photos included in the price, they would only get four, and each additional file was four times as much as the original estimate. I didn't have to do as much editing, I still got paid, and the client got the amount of photos they needed; a win-win.
So why should you never undervalue your work?
First of all, if you have any respect for yourself, or your profession, and you're truly a "professional," you'll take into account the amount of time it takes to get to the location, the amount of time you're taking photos, the amount of time it takes you to get back, the amount of time it takes to edit the photos, and the amount of time went into contacting your client. Making quality photographs isn't easy, and takes time; your prices should reflect this. Keep in mind, that if this is your only income, this is your job, and you should be getting paid what you would be getting paid in any other post-college profession.
Secondly, out of respect for your fellow photographers. The photographer who sold their photos for $.10 a piece basically valued every other photographer's work that the clients they work for come in contact with at the same price, which, again, is extremely low.
So how did I handle this situation? I offered to lower my prices as much as I could, but still make somewhat of a profit. I haven't received any orders yet, but I'm okay with that. I stood my ground, and I might not make money from this job, but I wasn't expecting to in the first place. I originally went for the original contact to return a favor. Also, every client I work with is potentially even more clients. I rely heavily on word-of-mouth to get my name out there. If I drop my prices for a number of clients, and then they spread the word to their friends about me, what do you think their friends will expect me to charge?
If you're ever having trouble deciding how much to charge, here are things you should use to help determine prices.
You have to take into consideration that your equipment will have to be replaced, eventually.
You have to determine how much you would like to earn per hour. Take into account how much time you'll spend traveling, how much time will be spent taking the photos, how much time it takes to edit the photos, and how much time it takes to set up the session with the client.
You can also call around and see how much other professionals are being paid. For example, if you're taking photos of a sporting event, try to find out how much the officials are being paid.
Nikkor NC 24mm f/2.8 Review
So the other day, I did something I never thought I would; I ordered a lens off of eBay.
I had been looking for a wide angle lens for the past couple of months. I was strongly considering the Nikon 24mm 2.8 AF-D, but then I started looking at manual-focus lenses. After checking some other sites, I decided to look on eBay. I found the same lenses I was looking for for half the price. The price of the lenses put me off somewhat, but I found a person with a good rating, and decided to go for it.
My lens arrived yesterday, and I tore open package. First, out came the lens cap, which was broken. I wasn't sure if the cap was broken to begin with, or if it was broken during delivery. A broken lens cap wasn't that big of a deal, though if the lens worked.
I threw the lens onto my camera and took a few sample shots, put my card into the computer, and began looking at the results.
First of all, I would just like to mention that this lens is made completely (or at least the majority of it) out of metal. This lens is heavier than all of my other lenses, except maybe my 18-70mm and 70-200 f2.8. I love it. It's also worth mention that this lens is a manual-focus lens. Love that, too. This lens also has no way of communicating with recent cameras. I'm usually guessing on shutter speed and ISO. I've actually been pretty spot on, though, with my guessing. The most I've been off was a stop or two.
Lenses like these really make you think about what you're doing. You have to focus it yourself. You have to think about your settings.
While looking through the images, I noticed a few things. The first thing; the 24mm is a complete joke at f2.8. Unacceptably soft.
Stopped down a stop or two, though, this lens is incredible. I'm sure it has something to do with the fact that this lens is only a few days old, but wow.
Wow.
I had been looking for a wide angle lens for the past couple of months. I was strongly considering the Nikon 24mm 2.8 AF-D, but then I started looking at manual-focus lenses. After checking some other sites, I decided to look on eBay. I found the same lenses I was looking for for half the price. The price of the lenses put me off somewhat, but I found a person with a good rating, and decided to go for it.
My lens arrived yesterday, and I tore open package. First, out came the lens cap, which was broken. I wasn't sure if the cap was broken to begin with, or if it was broken during delivery. A broken lens cap wasn't that big of a deal, though if the lens worked.
I threw the lens onto my camera and took a few sample shots, put my card into the computer, and began looking at the results.
First of all, I would just like to mention that this lens is made completely (or at least the majority of it) out of metal. This lens is heavier than all of my other lenses, except maybe my 18-70mm and 70-200 f2.8. I love it. It's also worth mention that this lens is a manual-focus lens. Love that, too. This lens also has no way of communicating with recent cameras. I'm usually guessing on shutter speed and ISO. I've actually been pretty spot on, though, with my guessing. The most I've been off was a stop or two.
Lenses like these really make you think about what you're doing. You have to focus it yourself. You have to think about your settings.
While looking through the images, I noticed a few things. The first thing; the 24mm is a complete joke at f2.8. Unacceptably soft.
Stopped down a stop or two, though, this lens is incredible. I'm sure it has something to do with the fact that this lens is only a few days old, but wow.
Wow.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Friday, March 15, 2013
Post 37
The most annoying thing I've run into as a photographer, so far, goes something like this.
I'll find a potential client and get in contact with them. Eventually, I'll show them my portfolio, which is usually followed by, "these photos look great!" Then, they'll ask "what kind of equipment do you use?"
I'm pretty sure this isn't the type of question that a photographer would ask another photographer to strike up a conversation on common ground. This question is seeing how "qualified" I am through my equipment.
I find this question extremely annoying. If you have seen my work, and you like it, why does it matter what I'm shooting with? Someone who takes great photos will be able to take great photos with a D40 or a D4 just like someone who takes terrible photos will do so with the most expensive, and most advanced camera you can find. What the photographer has in their bag should be the least of your concern when looking for a photographer.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
RAW vs JPEG
There are two file formats that you can use with dSLRs. These formats are RAW or JPEG.
JPEGs are compressed files, which means the camera makes the adjustments to the photo you taken by making guesses as to what you want. The benefit of these files is that the information that isn't used by the camera is then thrown away, which menas smaller file sizes. JPEGs also don't require any post processing to be done to them. In my opinion, as well as many other photographers, JPEGs usually don't look very good. If you're going to be using a dSLR and using JPEG files, I don't really know why you wouldn't just buy a nice point-and-shoot.
RAW files are unedited by the camera, and all of the information is there for the photographer to work with. Having all of the information is ideal for editing photos. The downside to RAW files is that they must be edited. Unedited RAW files are flat and almost never look good if nothing has been done to them.
Here are examples of a RAW file and a JPEG. I've underexposed by about two stops to demonstrate how much better a RAW file looks compared to a JPEG when photos need to be "saved."
The first file is the JPEG. The second file is the RAW file which was exported as a JPEG. The only thing that was done to the JPEG was an increase in exposure of +4. The adjustments made to the RAW file were what I generally always do to my RAW files, which is an adjustment to contrast and clarity. The RAW file's exposure was also increased by +4.
As you can see, the JPEG file lost a lot of detail on the left hand corner of the camera. There's also a lot of noise in the JPEG file. It's also easier to fix the white balance in a RAW file. If you decide to switch from JPEG to RAW now, that doesn't mean you don't have to try your best to get as much right in the camera as possible.
This type of situation was as much of a real-world-situation that I could think of while not getting up from my computer. This type of thing would happen if you were walking around, saw an awesome camera you wanted to take a photo of, but oh no! Your settings were slightly off from a photo you took before (if you're shooting manual) or your camera made a mistake with the exposure (if you're shooting auto, or manual). You get home and start looking at the photos and see your mistake. At least to me, it's pretty obvious which file I'd rather try to save.
Some people may think, "but you made other adjustments to the RAW file that you didn't to the JPEG." This is a valid argument. But I just did what I normally would have to a RAW file, and the camera did what it normally would have to a JPEG. This is the beauty of shooting RAW. You have that much more control over the final image.
For those of you wondering, this is what the unedited RAW file looked like before editing.
And this is what the JPEG looked like before editing.
If you can't tell a difference between these two photos, I would strongly suggest going out and trying it for yourself.
If you're unsure which file format I use, this was the first time I've ever shot a JPEG with a dSLR.
JPEGs are compressed files, which means the camera makes the adjustments to the photo you taken by making guesses as to what you want. The benefit of these files is that the information that isn't used by the camera is then thrown away, which menas smaller file sizes. JPEGs also don't require any post processing to be done to them. In my opinion, as well as many other photographers, JPEGs usually don't look very good. If you're going to be using a dSLR and using JPEG files, I don't really know why you wouldn't just buy a nice point-and-shoot.
RAW files are unedited by the camera, and all of the information is there for the photographer to work with. Having all of the information is ideal for editing photos. The downside to RAW files is that they must be edited. Unedited RAW files are flat and almost never look good if nothing has been done to them.
Here are examples of a RAW file and a JPEG. I've underexposed by about two stops to demonstrate how much better a RAW file looks compared to a JPEG when photos need to be "saved."
The first file is the JPEG. The second file is the RAW file which was exported as a JPEG. The only thing that was done to the JPEG was an increase in exposure of +4. The adjustments made to the RAW file were what I generally always do to my RAW files, which is an adjustment to contrast and clarity. The RAW file's exposure was also increased by +4.
As you can see, the JPEG file lost a lot of detail on the left hand corner of the camera. There's also a lot of noise in the JPEG file. It's also easier to fix the white balance in a RAW file. If you decide to switch from JPEG to RAW now, that doesn't mean you don't have to try your best to get as much right in the camera as possible.
This type of situation was as much of a real-world-situation that I could think of while not getting up from my computer. This type of thing would happen if you were walking around, saw an awesome camera you wanted to take a photo of, but oh no! Your settings were slightly off from a photo you took before (if you're shooting manual) or your camera made a mistake with the exposure (if you're shooting auto, or manual). You get home and start looking at the photos and see your mistake. At least to me, it's pretty obvious which file I'd rather try to save.
Some people may think, "but you made other adjustments to the RAW file that you didn't to the JPEG." This is a valid argument. But I just did what I normally would have to a RAW file, and the camera did what it normally would have to a JPEG. This is the beauty of shooting RAW. You have that much more control over the final image.
If you can't tell a difference between these two photos, I would strongly suggest going out and trying it for yourself.
If you're unsure which file format I use, this was the first time I've ever shot a JPEG with a dSLR.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
3 Legged Thing Tripods
One day, I decided it was time to purchase a tripod. Anyone who has decided the time has come to purchase a tripod has probably faced the same daunting task that I did when I first started to look around and was bombarded by the hundreds of different options.
For reasons I can't remember, the company 3 Legged Thing caught my eye. For those of you who aren't familiar with this company, here is a short video of the tripod I decided to go with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0mnZNY2pHY
I waited anxiously for what seemed like years for my new tripod to arrive. When it did, I tore open the box to find a very nice carrying case. I opened the case, and pulled out my new tripod, which is the Adrian model. I think the tripod cost me around $200 on sale. $200 is a steal, considering the ballhead I got with Adrian alone costs $180.
After playing around with the new toy for a few minutes, it didn't take me long to realize that there might be a problem with my new tripod. The legs would come loose whenever I would move them. I wasn't sure if this was normal or not, so I went to the most reliable source I know; the Internet.
Sure enough, I wasn't the only one who was experiencing this problem. I then proceeded to contact the company. After multiple emails, and a few days of waiting, I finally got a response. The response basically asked me what the problem was, and told me that it was most likely the washers that were causing the problem. The company asked for my address and sent me out a new set of washers.
The washers came at some point while Devan and I were in Disney world, and I threw those badboys on. The new washers fixed two of the three legs, and I decided that was good enough. I didn't really want to go through the hassel of contacting the company again, and then waiting, and being without a tripod, if I needed to send it back.
However, I woke up to this email this morning: Hi Dan,
I’ve just had an email from B&H about your review. I have trawled back through our emails and I am a little confused, but very much want to sort things out for you.
From what I understand we’ve sent you some replacement components for your tripod, and then received the question below:
Chris then responded on the 18th Jan that the washers were to go on the outside.
After this I am not sure what has occurred? I see from your review that you have referenced this happening to other people, but actually there is only one other instance, and the customer in question had not responded to any of our emails. It is very difficult for us to resolve a situation without any contact.
Putting this behind us, I am still uncertain as to the current situation with your tripod. What I would like to do, regardless of this, is to replace your whole kit with our new Evolution 2 version. If this is at all possible, please can you let me know where you would like it sent and I will make this happen immediately.
On behalf of my staff, please accept my apologies for any failings on our part in this process. We are a small company (just five of us) and try very hard to treat each individual customer as we would wish to be treated ourselves. Sometimes we fail, as humans are prone to. There are no excuses for this – I really do want to resolve this issue. Regardless of the review on B&H, or any other internet forum, my only concern is that you have a working product that you have confidence with.
Please send me your address and I will arrange the replacement.
I have copied in Yoel Berkowitz at B&H for their information.
Kind regards,Danny LenihanChief Executive Officer
For reasons I can't remember, the company 3 Legged Thing caught my eye. For those of you who aren't familiar with this company, here is a short video of the tripod I decided to go with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0mnZNY2pHY
I waited anxiously for what seemed like years for my new tripod to arrive. When it did, I tore open the box to find a very nice carrying case. I opened the case, and pulled out my new tripod, which is the Adrian model. I think the tripod cost me around $200 on sale. $200 is a steal, considering the ballhead I got with Adrian alone costs $180.
After playing around with the new toy for a few minutes, it didn't take me long to realize that there might be a problem with my new tripod. The legs would come loose whenever I would move them. I wasn't sure if this was normal or not, so I went to the most reliable source I know; the Internet.
Sure enough, I wasn't the only one who was experiencing this problem. I then proceeded to contact the company. After multiple emails, and a few days of waiting, I finally got a response. The response basically asked me what the problem was, and told me that it was most likely the washers that were causing the problem. The company asked for my address and sent me out a new set of washers.
The washers came at some point while Devan and I were in Disney world, and I threw those badboys on. The new washers fixed two of the three legs, and I decided that was good enough. I didn't really want to go through the hassel of contacting the company again, and then waiting, and being without a tripod, if I needed to send it back.
However, I woke up to this email this morning: Hi Dan,
I’ve just had an email from B&H about your review. I have trawled back through our emails and I am a little confused, but very much want to sort things out for you.
From what I understand we’ve sent you some replacement components for your tripod, and then received the question below:
Hi,
I've received the washers. Which washers am I suppose to replace with these? The inside, or the outside?
After this I am not sure what has occurred? I see from your review that you have referenced this happening to other people, but actually there is only one other instance, and the customer in question had not responded to any of our emails. It is very difficult for us to resolve a situation without any contact.
Putting this behind us, I am still uncertain as to the current situation with your tripod. What I would like to do, regardless of this, is to replace your whole kit with our new Evolution 2 version. If this is at all possible, please can you let me know where you would like it sent and I will make this happen immediately.
On behalf of my staff, please accept my apologies for any failings on our part in this process. We are a small company (just five of us) and try very hard to treat each individual customer as we would wish to be treated ourselves. Sometimes we fail, as humans are prone to. There are no excuses for this – I really do want to resolve this issue. Regardless of the review on B&H, or any other internet forum, my only concern is that you have a working product that you have confidence with.
Please send me your address and I will arrange the replacement.
I have copied in Yoel Berkowitz at B&H for their information.
Kind regards,Danny LenihanChief Executive Officer
It's reasons like these that make me happy that I decided to go with a smaller company. I'm not sure what's going to happen with my old tripod, yet; I'm assuming I'll have to send it back to them. Either way, I'm getting a brand new tripod, which is a newer version, sent right to my door. If they send the tripod the same way they sent me the replacement washers, it'll be no cost to me, and it'll arrive within the next week or so. I am very excited, happy, and honestly, somewhat surprised, that the company has reached out to me in an attempt to make things right.
As far as B&H goes, don't do business with them. I ordered hundreds of dollars worth of things from them, including two flashes that they said were functioning. I received the flashes, and one of them clearly didn't work. They refunded me my money, but not the shipping and handling. I will not do business with them again, and I suggest you don't either.
Update: Danny just emailed me back. Turns out I even get to keep my old tripod.
Update: Danny just emailed me back. Turns out I even get to keep my old tripod.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Post 34
Back when I first wanted a dSLR, I did what a lot of people probably do. I went to a website, and I sorted the items from lowest price to highest price. I had been begging my parents for one for months, and I finally decided that if I really wanted one, I'd just have to buy it myself (even though my younger sister got a dSLR for Christmas).
One of the first dSLR kits I came across was made by Pentax. It was considerably less than the Nikon or Canon kits that seemed to be pretty much the same thing. The Pentax even came in colors like red, white, green, and black.* I had my mind set on the Pentax, and I began saving my money. I figured for $200 or so less, the Pentax must be a steal.
Eventually, the money I was saving for the Pentax got spent on something else. I most likely spent it on something I needed, like another bass, or a guitar. I'm glad I never got around to purchasing the Pentax, though. There are a lot of people out there who are very proud that they own a dSLR that isn't a Nikon or a Canon, and that's great! Most likely, though, the people who don't own a Nikon or Canon dSLR probably aren't professionals, or at least don't plan on becoming professional photographers, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
However, if your end-goal is to become a professional photographer, or to take the best photos possible and you don't have a dSLR yet, go with Nikon or Canon.** There is a reason these two brands are the biggest in the world of dSLRs. Aside from having a rich history in camera and lens manufacturing, these two companies offer you something that companies like Pentax and Sony can't; lenses.
On Adorama.com, there are currently 57 Pentax lenses, and 55 Sony lenses. Compare that to the 209 Nikon lenses and the 228 Canon lenses available. Not only is this a huge difference in the amount of options you'll have if you go with Nikon or Canon, but Nikon and Canon are both known for their professional glass. I don't remember ever hearing about Pentax or Sony being praised for their lenses, and there's probably a reason for that.
*If you want to be taken seriously as a photographer, avoid colored cameras.
**Try to avoid buying your dSLR with the kit lens, too. The kit lenses are usually junk, with poor optics, quality, and plastic mounts. Trust me, I started with a D3100 with the kit lens. Save the money you would have spent on the kit lens and get something better that you won't end up replacing in a few months.
One of the first dSLR kits I came across was made by Pentax. It was considerably less than the Nikon or Canon kits that seemed to be pretty much the same thing. The Pentax even came in colors like red, white, green, and black.* I had my mind set on the Pentax, and I began saving my money. I figured for $200 or so less, the Pentax must be a steal.
Eventually, the money I was saving for the Pentax got spent on something else. I most likely spent it on something I needed, like another bass, or a guitar. I'm glad I never got around to purchasing the Pentax, though. There are a lot of people out there who are very proud that they own a dSLR that isn't a Nikon or a Canon, and that's great! Most likely, though, the people who don't own a Nikon or Canon dSLR probably aren't professionals, or at least don't plan on becoming professional photographers, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
However, if your end-goal is to become a professional photographer, or to take the best photos possible and you don't have a dSLR yet, go with Nikon or Canon.** There is a reason these two brands are the biggest in the world of dSLRs. Aside from having a rich history in camera and lens manufacturing, these two companies offer you something that companies like Pentax and Sony can't; lenses.
On Adorama.com, there are currently 57 Pentax lenses, and 55 Sony lenses. Compare that to the 209 Nikon lenses and the 228 Canon lenses available. Not only is this a huge difference in the amount of options you'll have if you go with Nikon or Canon, but Nikon and Canon are both known for their professional glass. I don't remember ever hearing about Pentax or Sony being praised for their lenses, and there's probably a reason for that.
*If you want to be taken seriously as a photographer, avoid colored cameras.
**Try to avoid buying your dSLR with the kit lens, too. The kit lenses are usually junk, with poor optics, quality, and plastic mounts. Trust me, I started with a D3100 with the kit lens. Save the money you would have spent on the kit lens and get something better that you won't end up replacing in a few months.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Post 33
A few days ago, I wrote a post about the announcement of the Nikon D7100, and how I wasn't all that excited about the new camera that will surely replace my beloved Nikon D7000. Over the past few days, Iv'e been reading about the camera more, and watching YouTube videos from various sources to see what other people have to say about the new dSLR.
While reading through comments on Facebook and reading through the comments on YouTube videos, a misconception seemed to be affecting a number of people. This misconception being that the Nikon D7100 is an "upgrade" to the D7000.
Yes, the D7100 is an improved version of the D7000, with it's more megapixels, more focus points, and slight button/layout changes, but for some reason, some people are getting upset because the D7100 isn't an "upgrade" to the D7000.
The D7100 is exactly that compared to the D7000, an improved version. For people to think that the next version of a specific camera is going to be an "upgrade" is a bit unrealistic. When I think of a camera being an upgrade, there have to be big reasons to run out an buy it. Honestly, a newer version of a camera will never be that. Especially considering how many awards the D7000 has received since it was first released, there is no reason for Nikon to completely churn out a new camera, and if they did, it probably wouldn't be called the D7XXX; the new camera would most likely have an entirely new name. As far as I know, the D7100 is going to be $1200 for the body only, which is the exact same price the D7000 was a few months ago. Also, it still sounds like the D7100 will be a "pro-sumer" camera, or at least the top-of-the-line consumer camera.
If every new camera a manufacturer came out with, then eventually, the prices of their cameras would be ridiculous. If a camera company was expected for the bodies they make to replace older models, then eventually the prices for new bodies would be ridiculous.
For instance, the D3000, which was Nikon's entry-level dSLR was released in 2009 for $600. In 2010, Nikon's new entry-level dSLR, the D3100, was released for not much more. In 2012, Nikon released their newest entry-level dSLR, the D3200. These cameras weren't meant to be complete overhauls of these cameras. They were simply "updated" versions to stay current with other companies, most specifically Canon, and were a way to keep progress going in the world of dSLRs. None of these cameras posses anything that would cause someone who owned a previous model to run out and buy a the one that just came out, unless you owned a D3000 and went to a D3200, which wouldn't make much sense, anyway. If you really want to upgrade, go out and buy the camera that's the next level up. If I had a D3100, and I wanted to upgrade, the smallest jump I would make is to a D5200. I would go from Nikon's entry level camera to their "mid-level" camera, because even though the D3200 would be newer than the D3100, the D3200 is still an entry level camera, just like how the D7000 was the top-of-the-line consumer camera, the D7100 is the new top-of-the-line consumer camera. If the D3100 was meant to be an "upgrade" to the D3000, then that means Nikon would have to raise the price of the D3100, and if the D3200 was a replacement for the D3100, then the price of the D3200 would have to be increased. Eventually, companies would be putting out "entry-level" dSLRs that started at thousands of dollars.
So no, the D7100 will not be an upgrade to those who already own a D7000, but it should have never been thought of that to begin with. If you own a D7000, then an upgrade would be a D600, which I'm personally not fond of, a D700, if you can find one, a D800/D800E. a D3x/s. or a D4. Cameras that are meant to replace older versions of a camera will always be in the same category.
While reading through comments on Facebook and reading through the comments on YouTube videos, a misconception seemed to be affecting a number of people. This misconception being that the Nikon D7100 is an "upgrade" to the D7000.
Yes, the D7100 is an improved version of the D7000, with it's more megapixels, more focus points, and slight button/layout changes, but for some reason, some people are getting upset because the D7100 isn't an "upgrade" to the D7000.
The D7100 is exactly that compared to the D7000, an improved version. For people to think that the next version of a specific camera is going to be an "upgrade" is a bit unrealistic. When I think of a camera being an upgrade, there have to be big reasons to run out an buy it. Honestly, a newer version of a camera will never be that. Especially considering how many awards the D7000 has received since it was first released, there is no reason for Nikon to completely churn out a new camera, and if they did, it probably wouldn't be called the D7XXX; the new camera would most likely have an entirely new name. As far as I know, the D7100 is going to be $1200 for the body only, which is the exact same price the D7000 was a few months ago. Also, it still sounds like the D7100 will be a "pro-sumer" camera, or at least the top-of-the-line consumer camera.
If every new camera a manufacturer came out with, then eventually, the prices of their cameras would be ridiculous. If a camera company was expected for the bodies they make to replace older models, then eventually the prices for new bodies would be ridiculous.
For instance, the D3000, which was Nikon's entry-level dSLR was released in 2009 for $600. In 2010, Nikon's new entry-level dSLR, the D3100, was released for not much more. In 2012, Nikon released their newest entry-level dSLR, the D3200. These cameras weren't meant to be complete overhauls of these cameras. They were simply "updated" versions to stay current with other companies, most specifically Canon, and were a way to keep progress going in the world of dSLRs. None of these cameras posses anything that would cause someone who owned a previous model to run out and buy a the one that just came out, unless you owned a D3000 and went to a D3200, which wouldn't make much sense, anyway. If you really want to upgrade, go out and buy the camera that's the next level up. If I had a D3100, and I wanted to upgrade, the smallest jump I would make is to a D5200. I would go from Nikon's entry level camera to their "mid-level" camera, because even though the D3200 would be newer than the D3100, the D3200 is still an entry level camera, just like how the D7000 was the top-of-the-line consumer camera, the D7100 is the new top-of-the-line consumer camera. If the D3100 was meant to be an "upgrade" to the D3000, then that means Nikon would have to raise the price of the D3100, and if the D3200 was a replacement for the D3100, then the price of the D3200 would have to be increased. Eventually, companies would be putting out "entry-level" dSLRs that started at thousands of dollars.
So no, the D7100 will not be an upgrade to those who already own a D7000, but it should have never been thought of that to begin with. If you own a D7000, then an upgrade would be a D600, which I'm personally not fond of, a D700, if you can find one, a D800/D800E. a D3x/s. or a D4. Cameras that are meant to replace older versions of a camera will always be in the same category.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Nikon D7100 Announcement
Ah! How exciting!
When the Nikon D7000 was introduced in 2010, there was a lot to be excited about. The D7000 was priced like a D90, which the top of Nikon's "consumer" line, but had a lot of the attractive features of the entry level "professional" model, the D300.
I got myself a Nikon D7000 in August of 2012. By this point, February 20th, I've taken over 10,000 photos with the camera, so I'm pretty familiar with it. I love the D7000. There isn't a thing I would change about the D7000, except for I would swap out the sensor with a full-frame sensor, and I wish the buffer size was just a little bigger. I don't motor drive often, but when I do at 6 fps, the buffer fills up pretty quickly. Other than those two issues, though, the D7000 does everything I could ever want it to.
The D7000 is old though, in terms of dSLRs, and I figured it would only be a year or so until a replacement came out when I purchased my D7000 in August. When the Nikon D600 came out, which many argue is a D7000 with a full-frame sensor, I thought that the D600 could quite possible be the replacement for the D7000. Also, when the D600 came out, which is described as an "inexpensive" full-frame camera, I thought that if there was a replacement for the D7000, it would almost certainly have a full-frame sensor.
Apparently, I was wrong about the sensor.
From what I've read so far, I'm not incredibly disappointed that I didn't wait the six months for the D7100. The only things that really seem to have changed from the D7000 to the D7100 are the amount of megapixels and the amount of focus points.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I hate ridiculous amounts of megapixels. I shot with a D70 for six months or so, and that camera only had 6.1 megapixels. I can't say there was ever a time I said to myself, "wow, I wish I had more megapixels." As far as I'm concerned, megapixels are now just a selling point for people who think it matters. The only reason anyone would need that many megapixels is if they're printing enormous prints, or need extremely detailed photos, in which case they would probably be shooting with a medium format camera, anyway. Also, more megapixels means worse low-light performance and bigger file sizes; no thanks.
The D7000 has 39 focus points while the D7100 will have 51. To be honest, the layout of the focus points is a little strange. They're clustered in the middle. I can only hope that the focus points of the D7100 are spaced out a little more. 51 focus points arranged the same way as the D7000's would be ridiculous.
Other than those two improvements, though, the D7100 seems almost identical to the camera it is replacing. Same ISO range, same maximum shutter speed, same minimum shutter speed, both have two SD card slots, same frames per second. Even the button layout looks the same. I did notice the mode dial can be locked. I definitely approve of that...
If I didn't have a D7000, and was still considering upgrading, I don't know which model I would go with. I would probably try to find a used D700, or something. Everything has either too many megapixels, or the features have been cut in order to keep the price down.
Unfortunately for Nikon, an increase in megapixels and an increase in focus points will not cause me to ditch my D7000. If you've been considering upgrading to a D7000, though, now would be the best time to do it. The price has already been dropped, which was a good indicator it was going to be replaced soon. Otherwise, feel free to dish out the extra cash for more focus points, larger file sizes, and worse low-light performance.
When the Nikon D7000 was introduced in 2010, there was a lot to be excited about. The D7000 was priced like a D90, which the top of Nikon's "consumer" line, but had a lot of the attractive features of the entry level "professional" model, the D300.
I got myself a Nikon D7000 in August of 2012. By this point, February 20th, I've taken over 10,000 photos with the camera, so I'm pretty familiar with it. I love the D7000. There isn't a thing I would change about the D7000, except for I would swap out the sensor with a full-frame sensor, and I wish the buffer size was just a little bigger. I don't motor drive often, but when I do at 6 fps, the buffer fills up pretty quickly. Other than those two issues, though, the D7000 does everything I could ever want it to.
The D7000 is old though, in terms of dSLRs, and I figured it would only be a year or so until a replacement came out when I purchased my D7000 in August. When the Nikon D600 came out, which many argue is a D7000 with a full-frame sensor, I thought that the D600 could quite possible be the replacement for the D7000. Also, when the D600 came out, which is described as an "inexpensive" full-frame camera, I thought that if there was a replacement for the D7000, it would almost certainly have a full-frame sensor.
Apparently, I was wrong about the sensor.
From what I've read so far, I'm not incredibly disappointed that I didn't wait the six months for the D7100. The only things that really seem to have changed from the D7000 to the D7100 are the amount of megapixels and the amount of focus points.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I hate ridiculous amounts of megapixels. I shot with a D70 for six months or so, and that camera only had 6.1 megapixels. I can't say there was ever a time I said to myself, "wow, I wish I had more megapixels." As far as I'm concerned, megapixels are now just a selling point for people who think it matters. The only reason anyone would need that many megapixels is if they're printing enormous prints, or need extremely detailed photos, in which case they would probably be shooting with a medium format camera, anyway. Also, more megapixels means worse low-light performance and bigger file sizes; no thanks.
The D7000 has 39 focus points while the D7100 will have 51. To be honest, the layout of the focus points is a little strange. They're clustered in the middle. I can only hope that the focus points of the D7100 are spaced out a little more. 51 focus points arranged the same way as the D7000's would be ridiculous.
Other than those two improvements, though, the D7100 seems almost identical to the camera it is replacing. Same ISO range, same maximum shutter speed, same minimum shutter speed, both have two SD card slots, same frames per second. Even the button layout looks the same. I did notice the mode dial can be locked. I definitely approve of that...
If I didn't have a D7000, and was still considering upgrading, I don't know which model I would go with. I would probably try to find a used D700, or something. Everything has either too many megapixels, or the features have been cut in order to keep the price down.
Unfortunately for Nikon, an increase in megapixels and an increase in focus points will not cause me to ditch my D7000. If you've been considering upgrading to a D7000, though, now would be the best time to do it. The price has already been dropped, which was a good indicator it was going to be replaced soon. Otherwise, feel free to dish out the extra cash for more focus points, larger file sizes, and worse low-light performance.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Post 31
Buying a dSLR and expecting it to make great photos is like buying a paintbrush and expecting the paintbrush to make a great painting.
It seems that there are a lot of people out there buying dSLRs, but being unsatisfied with the photos they get. If you happen to be in this boat, I'm going to do my best to try to explain why you might not be getting the results you want.
First of all, if you're shooting full auto and just letting the camera do everything for you, then you might as well just get a point and shoot. Sure, a dSLR will start up quicker, and focus more quickly, but those are things I'd be willing to give up in order to save $500 or so. The image quality of a dSLR is better because of a bigger sensor, but unless you're shooting manual, the full potential of the camera most likely won't be used. Basically, if you're using your dSLR in "auto" mode, you're basically lugging around an overweight, overpriced point and shoot. DSLRs can make good guesses every now and then, but I don't even know how many times I saw people with dSLRs in Florida trying to take a photo of something in the dark with the built in flash, but the object they were trying to take a photo of was without any sort of doubt too far away for the pop-up flash to even be effective. Had they been shooting manual, they could have incased the ISO, opened up the aperture, and slowed down the shutter speed, which would have made those photos turn out much better. My guess would be they got a nicely exposed foreground and anything else in the photo that was further away than a few feet is just black.
The biggest reason why people can't get the results they want with dSLRs is because they don't do any sort of post processing. If you have a dSLR, you should be using RAW files and editing all of your photos. Besides good glass, post processing is an absolute requirement to get the most out of your dSLR. People are against editing their photos for two reasons, they're either too lazy to learn or do it, or they feel it's somehow unethical.
If your'e one of the people who are too lazy to learn or to edit your photos, then don't get a dSLR. Save your money.
For those of you who feel it's "unethical" to edit your photos, I don't even know where to begin. Let me start with Ansel Adams. Adams was a master in the darkroom, which is how he managed to created such amazing photographs. Adams would spend hours burning and dodging until he was satisfied with the photo. What Adams did in the darkroom is the same as editing your photos with a computer, now.
If you're shooting JPEGs, then your camera is editing your photos for you, anyway, so JPEGs are technically edited photos. The camera guesses how you want the photo to look, and then gets rid of the data that wasn't used. A small amount of editing can be done to a JPEG, but a RAW file will work much better for editing, because all of the data is there to work with. JPEGs are basically like french fries, while RAW files are like having a potato. The potato can be turned into many different things, including a french fry, if that's what you want. I'd like to see someone try to turn a french fry back into a potato.
Even when someone takes a photo with film and then takes the film to be developed somewhere, the film is technically edited, because the way the film is developed can have an effect on how the negatives look. More or less time with the developer, or fixer, or stopper will yield different results. So if you're against editing photos, for some reason, there's really no way to avoid it. Personally, I'd rather have control over the final product than have a camera try to guess what I want.
It seems that there are a lot of people out there buying dSLRs, but being unsatisfied with the photos they get. If you happen to be in this boat, I'm going to do my best to try to explain why you might not be getting the results you want.
First of all, if you're shooting full auto and just letting the camera do everything for you, then you might as well just get a point and shoot. Sure, a dSLR will start up quicker, and focus more quickly, but those are things I'd be willing to give up in order to save $500 or so. The image quality of a dSLR is better because of a bigger sensor, but unless you're shooting manual, the full potential of the camera most likely won't be used. Basically, if you're using your dSLR in "auto" mode, you're basically lugging around an overweight, overpriced point and shoot. DSLRs can make good guesses every now and then, but I don't even know how many times I saw people with dSLRs in Florida trying to take a photo of something in the dark with the built in flash, but the object they were trying to take a photo of was without any sort of doubt too far away for the pop-up flash to even be effective. Had they been shooting manual, they could have incased the ISO, opened up the aperture, and slowed down the shutter speed, which would have made those photos turn out much better. My guess would be they got a nicely exposed foreground and anything else in the photo that was further away than a few feet is just black.
The biggest reason why people can't get the results they want with dSLRs is because they don't do any sort of post processing. If you have a dSLR, you should be using RAW files and editing all of your photos. Besides good glass, post processing is an absolute requirement to get the most out of your dSLR. People are against editing their photos for two reasons, they're either too lazy to learn or do it, or they feel it's somehow unethical.
If your'e one of the people who are too lazy to learn or to edit your photos, then don't get a dSLR. Save your money.
For those of you who feel it's "unethical" to edit your photos, I don't even know where to begin. Let me start with Ansel Adams. Adams was a master in the darkroom, which is how he managed to created such amazing photographs. Adams would spend hours burning and dodging until he was satisfied with the photo. What Adams did in the darkroom is the same as editing your photos with a computer, now.
If you're shooting JPEGs, then your camera is editing your photos for you, anyway, so JPEGs are technically edited photos. The camera guesses how you want the photo to look, and then gets rid of the data that wasn't used. A small amount of editing can be done to a JPEG, but a RAW file will work much better for editing, because all of the data is there to work with. JPEGs are basically like french fries, while RAW files are like having a potato. The potato can be turned into many different things, including a french fry, if that's what you want. I'd like to see someone try to turn a french fry back into a potato.
Even when someone takes a photo with film and then takes the film to be developed somewhere, the film is technically edited, because the way the film is developed can have an effect on how the negatives look. More or less time with the developer, or fixer, or stopper will yield different results. So if you're against editing photos, for some reason, there's really no way to avoid it. Personally, I'd rather have control over the final product than have a camera try to guess what I want.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Diana+
Back when I was just beginning to learn about photography, my fiance and I went to the art museum in Milwaukee. We stopped in the gift shop, and something caught my eye. A Diana+. For those of you who don't know, the Diana is based off of medium format toy cameras that were made overseas in the 1960s and were designed to be cheap and put cameras in the hands of more people. The entire camera is made out of plastic, including the lens. The cameras are known for producing "dreamy," saturated photos. Of course, I didn't know any of this when Devan bought it for me. It's also worth mentioning that many of the Instagram filters are made to make photos look like the results of a Diana or other toy camera.
I picked up my first roll of film, which I think was around $6 for a roll, which I get 16 photos from. Medium format film is larger than the standard 35mm, which equals more detail and higher image quality. I find it extremely ironic that a camera that produces photos that have qualities that photographers often try to avoid uses film that professionals tend to use to get huge amounts of detail and requires relatively expensive film.
But, I love my Diana+. It's the only film camera I use, and the "controls" are pretty limited. There are three different aperture settings, four if you include the "pinhole" setting, which are "sunny, partly cloudy, and cloudy." The focal distances of the 75mm fixed focal length lens, which is about a 50mm lens in 35mm terms, are 1-2m, 2-4m, and 4m to infinity. The shutter speeds are either 1/60th of a second or a bulb setting. If I remember correctly, the aperture of the "cloudy" setting is f/8.
My first roll of film was color, which I took and got developed. Only one of those photos turned out, but I remained determined. I picked up all of the supplies I would need in order to develop the film by myself. I picked up a few more rolls, this time black and white film, and snapped away. I developed a roll in my bathroom, which was exposed to the light, and therefore, didn't turn out. I will admit this was my fault. I got frustrated and ended up turning the bathroom light on when I couldn't get the film onto the spool; 50 minutes sitting in a dark bathroom was too much.
Three or four rolls later, and I finally got some results. I did some research to find out some guidelines to use the Diana. At first, I would just set the aperture to the "sunny" setting and use the bulb setting, exposing manually and hoping for the best. It took a lot for me to finally just trust the camera and use the 1/60 shutter speed. For some reason, the idea of trusting the camera this much was hard to cope with. After I went out and just started shooting with the 1/60, I fell in love with the plastic camera.
I'm not sure what it is about the Diana. Maybe it's the simple operation compared to my dSLRs. Maybe it's the way the photos look. Maybe it's the lightweight of the plastic body that makes it so easy to carry around, Maybe it's developing process in my bathroom. Maybe it's the idea that I don't know what I'm getting, and won't know until the film is developed. More than likely, it's a combination of all of these that make me love my Diana so much.
I picked up my first roll of film, which I think was around $6 for a roll, which I get 16 photos from. Medium format film is larger than the standard 35mm, which equals more detail and higher image quality. I find it extremely ironic that a camera that produces photos that have qualities that photographers often try to avoid uses film that professionals tend to use to get huge amounts of detail and requires relatively expensive film.
But, I love my Diana+. It's the only film camera I use, and the "controls" are pretty limited. There are three different aperture settings, four if you include the "pinhole" setting, which are "sunny, partly cloudy, and cloudy." The focal distances of the 75mm fixed focal length lens, which is about a 50mm lens in 35mm terms, are 1-2m, 2-4m, and 4m to infinity. The shutter speeds are either 1/60th of a second or a bulb setting. If I remember correctly, the aperture of the "cloudy" setting is f/8.
My first roll of film was color, which I took and got developed. Only one of those photos turned out, but I remained determined. I picked up all of the supplies I would need in order to develop the film by myself. I picked up a few more rolls, this time black and white film, and snapped away. I developed a roll in my bathroom, which was exposed to the light, and therefore, didn't turn out. I will admit this was my fault. I got frustrated and ended up turning the bathroom light on when I couldn't get the film onto the spool; 50 minutes sitting in a dark bathroom was too much.
Three or four rolls later, and I finally got some results. I did some research to find out some guidelines to use the Diana. At first, I would just set the aperture to the "sunny" setting and use the bulb setting, exposing manually and hoping for the best. It took a lot for me to finally just trust the camera and use the 1/60 shutter speed. For some reason, the idea of trusting the camera this much was hard to cope with. After I went out and just started shooting with the 1/60, I fell in love with the plastic camera.
I'm not sure what it is about the Diana. Maybe it's the simple operation compared to my dSLRs. Maybe it's the way the photos look. Maybe it's the lightweight of the plastic body that makes it so easy to carry around, Maybe it's developing process in my bathroom. Maybe it's the idea that I don't know what I'm getting, and won't know until the film is developed. More than likely, it's a combination of all of these that make me love my Diana so much.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Post 29
For those of you who have somehow found my blog without the help of my Facebook page, please take a look at it.
Facebook Page
Flickr Page
Facebook Page
Flickr Page
Post 28
The other day I search-engined "what to do if you lose the photos from a wedding" for no apparent reason, other than I had some time on my hands. I read two different questions and responses from two different sources, and both situations were equally appalling.
The first one I read, was about a photographer who apparently formatted their memory card on site, and accidentally formatted the card they had just filled up. This resulted in them losing 900 photos, and then shooting over them. The only response I could think of was "how could you be so stupid?"
I'm not sure why anyone would format their card on location for any type of photo shoot. Formatting is something that should be done either when you're preparing all of your equipment, or right when you arrive at the event before any photos are taken in order to avoid this type of situation. I can only assume that this photographer either wasn't a "professional," or was just starting out as a pro and made a silly mistake. I think it's safe to say that this person won't make the same mistake again because they either learned their lesson, or they'll never be hired again because I feel that this type of thing would spread quickly throughout their market. An easy way to avoid this situation, other than not formatting your memory cards on location, would be to use smaller memory cards. For some reason, people think it's better to buy huge memory cards that can store thousands of photos and use that single one. I buy smaller cards for this exact reason. I'd much rather have a handful of 8GB cards that can hold 250 photos and lose one of those, than have a 128GB memory card and lose thousands. With my camera, I have two card slots. I put the 8GB cards in one, and a much larger card in the second slot. The photos go to both, and when I get to editing, I usually put the larger card into the computer.
The second one I read, was the bride of a wedding who was having trouble with the photographer who took photos of their wedding. The bride said that the photographer took the photos, but then went to visit her boyfriend for X amount of days, then went to Europe for some reason, and then a month or two after the wedding contacted the bride to let her know that she had lost all of the photos to the reception.
There are so many things wrong with this scenario and how the photographer handled the situation that I don't even know where to begin.
I guess the first thing I think the photographer should have done was let the bride know as soon as possible that the photos were lost. I'm hoping that the photographer wasn't just starting to edit the photos when they let the bride know she wouldn't be getting any photos from the reception.
The second thing that's wrong, and probably the worst, is that the photographer took time to do personal things before delivering the photos to the client. If you're a "professional," you're expected to deliver the photos in a timely fashion. Even if you're not a professional, and a friend asks you to take some photos for them and pays you, you should still deliver the images as soon as possible; not months later. If you're marketing yourself as a photographer, and you work for a client, then the client comes first. This is "Owning a Business 101," here. You don't go running around all over the world and then decide it's time to deliver what you promised.
These two situations are exactly why you should hire someone who knows what they're doing, and who you know will deliver what they promise. If I had to guess, I would say these two "pros" are your "uncle Fred" type of photographers, who have a nice camera, so people think that they're a professional photographer who can deliver professional work. Don't go for the most inexpensive photographer you can find if the event you need a photographer for is important to you, because, like with everything, you get what you pay for.
The first one I read, was about a photographer who apparently formatted their memory card on site, and accidentally formatted the card they had just filled up. This resulted in them losing 900 photos, and then shooting over them. The only response I could think of was "how could you be so stupid?"
I'm not sure why anyone would format their card on location for any type of photo shoot. Formatting is something that should be done either when you're preparing all of your equipment, or right when you arrive at the event before any photos are taken in order to avoid this type of situation. I can only assume that this photographer either wasn't a "professional," or was just starting out as a pro and made a silly mistake. I think it's safe to say that this person won't make the same mistake again because they either learned their lesson, or they'll never be hired again because I feel that this type of thing would spread quickly throughout their market. An easy way to avoid this situation, other than not formatting your memory cards on location, would be to use smaller memory cards. For some reason, people think it's better to buy huge memory cards that can store thousands of photos and use that single one. I buy smaller cards for this exact reason. I'd much rather have a handful of 8GB cards that can hold 250 photos and lose one of those, than have a 128GB memory card and lose thousands. With my camera, I have two card slots. I put the 8GB cards in one, and a much larger card in the second slot. The photos go to both, and when I get to editing, I usually put the larger card into the computer.
The second one I read, was the bride of a wedding who was having trouble with the photographer who took photos of their wedding. The bride said that the photographer took the photos, but then went to visit her boyfriend for X amount of days, then went to Europe for some reason, and then a month or two after the wedding contacted the bride to let her know that she had lost all of the photos to the reception.
There are so many things wrong with this scenario and how the photographer handled the situation that I don't even know where to begin.
I guess the first thing I think the photographer should have done was let the bride know as soon as possible that the photos were lost. I'm hoping that the photographer wasn't just starting to edit the photos when they let the bride know she wouldn't be getting any photos from the reception.
The second thing that's wrong, and probably the worst, is that the photographer took time to do personal things before delivering the photos to the client. If you're a "professional," you're expected to deliver the photos in a timely fashion. Even if you're not a professional, and a friend asks you to take some photos for them and pays you, you should still deliver the images as soon as possible; not months later. If you're marketing yourself as a photographer, and you work for a client, then the client comes first. This is "Owning a Business 101," here. You don't go running around all over the world and then decide it's time to deliver what you promised.
These two situations are exactly why you should hire someone who knows what they're doing, and who you know will deliver what they promise. If I had to guess, I would say these two "pros" are your "uncle Fred" type of photographers, who have a nice camera, so people think that they're a professional photographer who can deliver professional work. Don't go for the most inexpensive photographer you can find if the event you need a photographer for is important to you, because, like with everything, you get what you pay for.
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Post 27
The most important equipment for a photographer is their camera. Any good photographer will then take the images they have captured with their camera and proceed to post processing. All of the current photographers I looked up to and learned from seemed to use Macs, so I followed suit.
At first, the idea of getting a Mac, more specifically an iMac, was a little off-putting. Compared to other desktop computers, the price for an iMac is significantly more. I figured I'd look into other brands and get something good enough. Besides, how much better could an iMac possibly be? I was certain I would be able to find a similar product from another manufacturer for much less.
(Quick note: the reasons I opted for a desktop were I almost always edit my photos sitting at home, anyway, desktops have larger displays, and desktops have more power for around the same amount of money.)
Currently, the most inexpensive desktop I could find was the HP Pavillion from Best Buy. This desktop has a 20" display, a 1.4 GHz dual core processor, 4 GB of RAM, and a 1 TB harddrive. Seems decent enough to me, especially at $500.
But take a look at the most inexpensive current iMac, and one realizes where the extra money is going to. The most inexpensive iMac comes with a 21.5" display, a 2.7 GHz Intel i5 quad core processor, 8 GB of RAM, and a 1 TB harddrive.
So between these two models, the only things that are similar are the display size, and the amount of harddrive space. Space is important, but external harddrives can be had for almost nothing. I picked up a 1.5 TB harddrive for less than $150, which will last me for who knows how long.
So let's try to find a model with similar specifications to the iMac.
The Asus 23" Touch-Screen All-in-One Computer has the exact same specifications as the iMac, power wise, and clocks in at $1,150. I'm sure Asus is a fine brand, but I'd rather go with a brand that is well established, especially for only $150 more...
Another thing I would like to point out is that, at least my iMac, has a glass screen and aluminum housing. I have the 27" model, with a 2.7 GHz Intel Core i5 quad core, 4 GB of RAM, and 1TB of harddrive space. When I was looking at computers a year or so ago, I came across similar findings that I did today. Computers from other brands were cheaper, but once I found computers that had similar specifications, they were almost the exact same price. Sure, you can get a computer with half the amount of processing power and a quarter of the processing power, but which one would you keep longer, and which one would you want to use everyday?
At first, the idea of getting a Mac, more specifically an iMac, was a little off-putting. Compared to other desktop computers, the price for an iMac is significantly more. I figured I'd look into other brands and get something good enough. Besides, how much better could an iMac possibly be? I was certain I would be able to find a similar product from another manufacturer for much less.
(Quick note: the reasons I opted for a desktop were I almost always edit my photos sitting at home, anyway, desktops have larger displays, and desktops have more power for around the same amount of money.)
Currently, the most inexpensive desktop I could find was the HP Pavillion from Best Buy. This desktop has a 20" display, a 1.4 GHz dual core processor, 4 GB of RAM, and a 1 TB harddrive. Seems decent enough to me, especially at $500.
But take a look at the most inexpensive current iMac, and one realizes where the extra money is going to. The most inexpensive iMac comes with a 21.5" display, a 2.7 GHz Intel i5 quad core processor, 8 GB of RAM, and a 1 TB harddrive.
So between these two models, the only things that are similar are the display size, and the amount of harddrive space. Space is important, but external harddrives can be had for almost nothing. I picked up a 1.5 TB harddrive for less than $150, which will last me for who knows how long.
So let's try to find a model with similar specifications to the iMac.
The Asus 23" Touch-Screen All-in-One Computer has the exact same specifications as the iMac, power wise, and clocks in at $1,150. I'm sure Asus is a fine brand, but I'd rather go with a brand that is well established, especially for only $150 more...
Another thing I would like to point out is that, at least my iMac, has a glass screen and aluminum housing. I have the 27" model, with a 2.7 GHz Intel Core i5 quad core, 4 GB of RAM, and 1TB of harddrive space. When I was looking at computers a year or so ago, I came across similar findings that I did today. Computers from other brands were cheaper, but once I found computers that had similar specifications, they were almost the exact same price. Sure, you can get a computer with half the amount of processing power and a quarter of the processing power, but which one would you keep longer, and which one would you want to use everyday?
Friday, January 18, 2013
Post 26
Greetings! It's been a while, hasn't it? This is largely due to my fiance and I being in Florida for the past week and a half. The photos from the trip can be seen here. http://www.flickr.com/photos/danpomykalski/sets/72157632539604640/
When I read about my favorite photographers, or read interviews with photographers, a common question that I see is, "what is your favorite part about photography."
I use to hide from this question. I wouldn't even address it, because there are so many wonderful things about photography that I love, it's hard to pick just one. It wasn't until I had to interview a professor for one of my classes that I was able to come up with an answer. Well, actually two answers.
Working for myself (taking photos of what I want and when I want) and working for a client (taking photos of what they want when they want) are more different than one may think. Usually, photographers do commercial photography in order to pay the bills, which is what I do. However, most photographers don't enjoy the commercial aspect of it for various reasons. Yes, I enjoy doing photography for myself, but people are right, and there's a reason photographers turn to commercial photography; photographing the things you like usually don't pay well. I can't say I've made much money selling photos I've taken on the street, at this point. But, I enjoy commercial photography as well. Maybe not as much as shooting for myself, but pretty close. My favorite part about photography is capturing those moments that make, even me, say "wow," once I pull them up on my computer screen, and then showing the world what I've accomplished. One of my favorite parts about commercial photography is handing over the photos to my client, and hearing how satisfied with the work I've done. Knowing that my client is happy, and that I was able to provide good enough images that the client feels as though their money didn't go to waste is almost more rewarding than capturing those shots that make me say "wow" for myself.
When I read about my favorite photographers, or read interviews with photographers, a common question that I see is, "what is your favorite part about photography."
I use to hide from this question. I wouldn't even address it, because there are so many wonderful things about photography that I love, it's hard to pick just one. It wasn't until I had to interview a professor for one of my classes that I was able to come up with an answer. Well, actually two answers.
Working for myself (taking photos of what I want and when I want) and working for a client (taking photos of what they want when they want) are more different than one may think. Usually, photographers do commercial photography in order to pay the bills, which is what I do. However, most photographers don't enjoy the commercial aspect of it for various reasons. Yes, I enjoy doing photography for myself, but people are right, and there's a reason photographers turn to commercial photography; photographing the things you like usually don't pay well. I can't say I've made much money selling photos I've taken on the street, at this point. But, I enjoy commercial photography as well. Maybe not as much as shooting for myself, but pretty close. My favorite part about photography is capturing those moments that make, even me, say "wow," once I pull them up on my computer screen, and then showing the world what I've accomplished. One of my favorite parts about commercial photography is handing over the photos to my client, and hearing how satisfied with the work I've done. Knowing that my client is happy, and that I was able to provide good enough images that the client feels as though their money didn't go to waste is almost more rewarding than capturing those shots that make me say "wow" for myself.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Post 25
It seems to me that one of the biggest complaints people have about photographers when they hire them, is paying for things they don't need. I think this problem arises when photographers charge people X amount of dollars for X amount of time and photos. I know I wouldn't want to pay for something I don't need. What if I only needed five photos, and an hour of time, but the photographer only has a package that is two hours of time and includes 10 photos, but the price is four times as much? No, thank you.
This is why I have decided to change the way I charge for sessions. I use to be the same way, and charge X amount of dollars for X amount of time. Instead, I will now determine what my client's budget is, how many photos they actually need, estimate the amount of time it will take, and then charge them accordingly, regardless of how much time it will actually take. This way, the clients receives exactly what they need at a price that works within their budget. Yes, this will take more time on both parts, but I think my clients will be happier with this format.
This is why I have decided to change the way I charge for sessions. I use to be the same way, and charge X amount of dollars for X amount of time. Instead, I will now determine what my client's budget is, how many photos they actually need, estimate the amount of time it will take, and then charge them accordingly, regardless of how much time it will actually take. This way, the clients receives exactly what they need at a price that works within their budget. Yes, this will take more time on both parts, but I think my clients will be happier with this format.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)