General Photography Chat - Page 76

bulliver · #**1501** Posted **Jul 17, 2012, 2:36 AM**

Congrats giallo,

I've still not even tried the video on my D800, though, I think I used the video on my D90 exactly once in two and a half years.

Okayyou · #**1502** Posted **Jul 17, 2012, 1:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by diskojoe

How did I know this is what you would be posting? Have fun!

Congrats,
Did you buy it at Xing Guang? I picked up a lens there on Saturday. Maybe we crossed paths.

Robert Pence · #**1503** Posted **Jul 17, 2012, 2:50 PM**

Good steady camera work and smooth panning, Giallo; I assume you were using a tripod for that.

I shot video for several years and got some very good feedback on some of my work, and I'm feeling an itch to get back into it. I just sent my camcorder in for repair and service. You already may be way ahead of me on this (your photography on the forums is superb!), but I'm taking the liberty to throw out a couple of observations gained through experience:

Whenever possible, a tripod is a must for watchable video; excessive camera movement and zooming too fast while shooting make video that's hard to watch. A fluid head on a tripod helps make smooth, even pans.

Close-in shots of people and other frame-filling subjects in motion almost always will appear sharper than broad shots filled with non-moving finely-detailed structures.

giallo · #**1504** Posted **Jul 17, 2012, 4:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Okayyou

Congrats,
Did you buy it at Xing Guang? I picked up a lens there on Saturday. Maybe we crossed paths.

The hell? That's exactly where I was on Saturday. Small ball of water. You still in SH?

Thanks for the advice, Robert. After using my hands for a few panoramas, I soon realized that I was far better off with my tripod.

Okayyou · #**1505** Posted **Jul 18, 2012, 2:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by giallo

The hell? That's exactly where I was on Saturday. Small ball of water. You still in SH?

Thanks for the advice, Robert. After using my hands for a few panoramas, I soon realized that I was far better off with my tripod.

No, just did quick stopover last weekend. I'm down in Guangxi province now. I was a little nervous buying a lens there, not knowing if it would be legit. Got the 17mm TS, it's real. Super sharp.

mr.John · #**1506** Posted **Aug 16, 2012, 3:01 PM**

More Leica madness..a $8,000 camera that only shots in B&W
http://www.lozeau.com/en-CA/products...a-m-monochrom/

diskojoe · #**1507** Posted **Aug 16, 2012, 7:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr.John

More Leica madness..a $8,000 camera that only shots in B&W
http://www.lozeau.com/en-CA/products...a-m-monochrom/

Did you just hear about this? Thats been out for a while or I at least heard about it a while back. Couple ups and downs. Since its only bw you get more effective pixels since there are only 2 colors instead of three but if you blow out an area its is really blown and even raw can not save it. I saw test shots taken with it and was not very impressed with what I saw.

brickell · #**1508** Posted **Aug 17, 2012, 1:02 PM**

Why is my lens always dirty?

Doady · #**1509** Posted **Aug 26, 2012, 7:29 PM**

Does anyone know why my monitor is displaying posterized colors instead of smooth gradations? Like in black and white photos, I see only like 8 shades of grey instead of 256 (the maximum for 8-bit color). I'm trying to get back into photography and this shit isn't helping.

Okayyou · #**1510** Posted **Aug 26, 2012, 8:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doady

Does anyone know why my monitor is displaying posterized colors instead of smooth gradations? Like in black and white photos, I see only like 8 shades of grey instead of 256 (the maximum for 8-bit color). I'm trying to get back into photography and this shit isn't helping.

Check the color depth of your monitor, I think you can find it in the graphics properties. It should be set to 24 or 32 bit. If that doesn't work check your graphic card settings.

Doady · #**1511** Posted **Aug 26, 2012, 8:49 PM**

Ya, it is "32-bit" right now. I thought maybe it was a colour profile conflict between Adobe Gamma and AMD Control Centre, but even after disabling Adobe Gamma, the colours are still posterized.

My monitor is an IPS panel too, so it can display the full 16.7 million colours (including 256 shades of grey), and I bought it because of that. But the colour palette is even worse than a TN panel right now. Even less than 16-bit depth too. I can't edit photos like this.

Edit: Come to think of it, I noticed the lack of smooth gradations in the fifth photo contest entry as well (which I mistook for excessive JPEG compression), and that was before Adobe Gamma. So the reason must be something else. The problem is very noticable when it is monochromatic,, e.g. blue skies look blotchy, etc.

Doady · #**1512** Posted **Aug 27, 2012, 3:22 AM**

okay, I figured it out, it was due to the flawed ICC profile Dell provides for my monitor. If I use the sRGB profile instead, the problem is fixed. Now I can edit photos again!

If you don't count family pictures, Kijiji for sale ads, and the images to sent to Amazon to illustrate the damage they did to my The Last Story limited edition box due to their poor packaging, the last time I photographed anything was on July 1st, 2010.

Doady · #**1513** Posted **Aug 31, 2012, 1:06 AM**

Has any got any emails from art galleries about representation? I got one and checked up on them and apparently if my portfolio is "accepted" it will only cost me at least $3850 USD up front for exhibition.

(hint: they reportedly "accept" anyone who is willing to pay)

Apparently, these sort of galleries are referred to as "vanity" galleries and not taken seriously by anyone. From what I've read, reputable galleries don't email everyone like this and they take only commission from the artists they represent, no up-front costs.

Has anyone else gotten this sort of email?

diskojoe · #**1514** Posted **Aug 31, 2012, 1:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doady

Has any got any emails from art galleries about representation? I got one and checked up on them and apparently if my portfolio is "accepted" it will only cost me at least $3850 USD up front for exhibition.

(hint: they reportedly "accept" anyone who is willing to pay)

Apparently, these sort of galleries are referred to as "vanity" galleries and not taken seriously by anyone. From what I've read, reputable galleries don't email everyone like this and they take only commission from the artists they represent, no up-front costs.

Has anyone else gotten this sort of email?

NO.

Most gallery owners I know are small time and charge showing fees. but they will be like $40 for a 7x10' space with group of artist and they throw a party and only take a small cut, like 10% of sales. Not a bad deal. $3850 is for fucking morons that have no talent. Talented artist dont need this or are broke from buying art supplies.

Doady · #**1515** Posted **Aug 31, 2012, 8:37 PM**

Normally, "gallery representation" (as is supposedly being offered to me) means that the gallery actually believes the artist's work is great and actively promotes them and stuff. It's more than just a place to display artwork. But if people have to pay $3850 minimum, it's just about the money, not about artistic value. I don't think the gallery that emailed even looked at my photos (no hits were recorded)! And plus, when a gallery gets guaranteed money like that there is no incentive to promote the artist or sell anything, the art doesn't matter at all. It's a big scam, basically. Just a warning...

I do want to display my photos though. I was thinking for awhile to get a new camera (namely, the Fuji X-PRO1, as I'm still using an 8 year old point-and-shoot), but maybe I would be happier to get a serious photo printer like Epson R3000 instead. And who knows, maybe one day I will sell a print too, lol.

ThatDarnSacramentan · #**1516** Posted **Sep 5, 2012, 6:19 PM**

I got an e-mail from some editor at Conde Nast asking permission to run one of my photos in the next issue of GQ Italy. I have my reservations after the last time a magazine ran one of my photos (Namely, Business Insider Magazine, who just ripped it off of Flickr).

diskojoe · #**1517** Posted **Sep 7, 2012, 12:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThatDarnSacramentan

I got an e-mail from some editor at Conde Nast asking permission to run one of my photos in the next issue of GQ Italy. I have my reservations after the last time a magazine ran one of my photos (Namely, Business Insider Magazine, who just ripped it off of Flickr).

Tell them to send you a licensing contract specifying the size of the image they want to use, the circulation numbers, the region (local, italy, any other countries), and specifics about what exactly it will be used for and what they are willing to pay you. If they dont offer cash tell them to fuck off.

ThatDarnSacramentan · #**1518** Posted **Sep 7, 2012, 3:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by diskojoe

Tell them to send you a licensing contract specifying the size of the image they want to use, the circulation numbers, the region (local, italy, any other countries), and specifics about what exactly it will be used for and what they are willing to pay you. If they dont offer cash tell them to fuck off.

1. I'll look up the contracting stuff.
2. 6x7 cm (which would require some cropping).
3. It's for GQ Italy, which circulates throughout that country.
4. Apparently, they're doing a story on California's highways (for some reason).
5. $100.

I'm definitely doing my research on this.

diskojoe · #**1519** Posted **Sep 12, 2012, 1:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThatDarnSacramentan

1. I'll look up the contracting stuff.
2. 6x7 cm (which would require some cropping).
3. It's for GQ Italy, which circulates throughout that country.
4. Apparently, they're doing a story on California's highways (for some reason).
5. $100.

I'm definitely doing my research on this.

$100 seems a little low but for one time use its not too horrible.

ThatDarnSacramentan · #**1520** Posted **Sep 12, 2012, 2:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by diskojoe

$100 seems a little low but for one time use its not too horrible.

The total amount will be $125. I just have to fill out their licensing form, mail it in, and everything should be cleared. All in all, I'm content.