[chakalakasp]

congrats chakalakasp 🙂

I was wondering what type of lens(es) you were using to take those photos?

Shoot, I just now got to reading this thread. 🙂 I shot the wide stuff with a Canon EF-S 10-22. Great lens if you have a Digital Rebel or a 20D or a 30D. It effectively becomes a 16-35mm lens, which I loooovvveeee. Only downside is the price, around $700. You can get nearly the same thing for much cheaper, though, if you’re willing to buy Sigma; Sigma has a 10-20 for around $500, IIRC.

[chakalakasp]

I’m with veruca and Monkeybort in feeling that there is a significant amount of alteration. No matter how you might try to justify it it is not a straight forward photograph. Maybe you could post one of the exposures for this contest and save the HDR for an anything goes sort of theme.

Nah, I’ll just skip that HDR portrait shot for this next contest — for the most part, things I shoot in HDR only work in HDR, as I had the HDR process in mind during the shoot. Besides, I’ve got a bajillion non-HDR portraits, it’s just that one of my favs happens to be HDR. 🙂

[chakalakasp]

i think HDR done right produces a beautiful piece of art. the only issue i had with it with regards to farktography is that you’re combining more than one photo into the contents of a single. that could be interpreted as being against the rules. and i echo what monkeybort said about significant alteration.

but did love your HDR photos chakalakasp, they’re very well done.

Thanks veruca! The thing about HDR is that there really *is* no original photo — the HDR image is an algorithmic blend of several exposures of the same scene. The scene is still a temporally whole event, though; if anything changes in between frames, it shows up in the final (much like things that move during a long exposure show up during the final.) It’s a bit of a nuanced topic, as it boils down to the philosophy of photography and sorta forces you to see the medium in regards to the end, not the means. Most people agree that Ansel Adams was pretty awesome-sauce and few would call him a trickster with his photography, but much of what Ansel Adams shot would be disqualified from Farktography strictly because of the darkroom methods that he used. Ansel often attempted his own “HDR” by splicing togather multiple exposures of the same scene. If Ansel were around today, I shudder to think of the insanely awesome things he’d be doing with digital photography right now.

So, what’s the final word? No HDR? HDR? If I don’t hear anything, I’ll post an HDR photo tomorrow night but clearly label it so and then let the mods kill it or remove voting if you guys want. It’s one of the portraits that I’m more fond of. Thanks!

[chakalakasp]

Painterly indeed! Those are beautiful! That first one is breathtaking, and it reminds me a lot of the old Dutch and Flemish masters..maybe Van Eyck (sp)? What building/Church is that in the first shot? Beautiful work…

Thanks, Elsinore! I wish I had half as much talent as Van Eyck had in his pinkie. 😉 The church is actually a shrine of sorts erected on a hill between Omaha and Lincoln, It’s visible from the interstate (it’s north of the interstate), so if you’re ever coming through that way during daylight hours, you should hit the exit and go check it out. It’s free, and it’s well worth the journey.

[chakalakasp]

I’ll be honest with ya — I’m usually not an equipment snob. But Canon flashes really are better than everything else out there that’ll fit a Canon (unles you’re taking about a studio setup or something). In addition, Canon flashes “talk” to Canon bodies in a way that other flashes can’t, because Canon’s electronics system & firmware is OEM.

[chakalakasp]

Monopods are more fragile than walking sticks. If you buy one that’s not designed to also be a walking stick, there’s a reasonable chance that you will damage it.

There are products out there that can do both, BTW. I think Leki makes something like this.

[chakalakasp]

If you’re mainly doing slides and film, get a slide and film scanner. They’re much, much, much, much better at scanning slides and film. All of the modern ones will even digitally remove dust from the image as you scan. Unless you have a $20,000 oil-mount flatbed, you’re just not gonna get the same quality with a flatbed as you would with a slide scanner.

You should always try to scan the negative or the slide if you can, as opposed to the print, unless you want to post-process it with some old fashioned dark-room work instead of photoshop work.

BTW, if all you’re planning to scan is Polaroids and stuff, you can pick up a cheap $100 flatbed that’ll do that just fine.

This will do you quite well for a slide/neg scanner:

http://tinyurl.com/cmk4z

Or this, if you have more money:

http://tinyurl.com/b9xow

[chakalakasp]

Oops, forgot to log in. That was me. 🙂

[chakalakasp]

The rumors are that the 20D replacement may show up at the PMA show in February but I’m thinking more like Photokina in the fall. I know the D200 is built solid, but I’m not sure the 20d needs fixing, at least picture-wise. Maybe the new camera will be built like the EOS3.

Too bad about your Minolta gear, I thought they were the only ones who nailed the ergonomics. I hated getting rid of my 600si.

Nah, a 20D built like the EOS3 would cost another $600. The EOS3 is built like a tank. You can take that baby into the Sahara desert for a week and not get sand in it. I think it’s even designed to be rained on for a little while.

What I’d love to see is a cheap-built camera like the 20D with a full frame sensor. If the 20D had a full frame sensor and a spot meter, it would be the only 35mm camera I would ever need.

[chakalakasp]

You can get surprisingly good results just by mounting your flash inside a flash umbrella. That’s cheap (only the cost of the umbrella + stand + a gizmo to wirelessly fire the flash) and works pretty well for a ghetto rig. 🙂

[chakalakasp]

Yeah, inkjet prints don’t last for crap. Typical fade life of less than ten years, unless you buy archival inks and paper, something most people haven’t even heard of.

For online prints, I use MPIX.com. Their metallic paper is incredible — it’s like the old Fujichrome. I’ve used it to make prints for hangings and they’ve always come out great. I work for a newspaper, and the editor here thought the paper looked so good, he switched to them for all customer reprints. Hell, I’ve even had someone try to steal one of the photos that was hung in a bar — they do a great job with printing.

Only drawback with metallic paper is that, IMO, they don’t look great with skin tones. The metallic paper makes EVERYTHING look incredibly vibrant, and you usually want skin tones to be subtle.

Bonus is that shipping is flatrate and they’ll overnight Fedex you any sized order for $6.

Another good place to print is Adorama.com. I’ve had good luck with them, too; I’ve run wedding photos through them, and all the customers were really pleased.

I’d avoid Sam’s Club online photoprinting — pretty bad color on cheap paper. Others have said that they’re pretty good, but I definately disagree.

Go with MPIX metallic paper. Heck, if you don’t believe me, run five 8X10s through them. It’ll be like $14 after shipping. You’ll never print anywhere else. 🙂

[Author]

Posts