Shoot now, focus later.

[EpyonXero]

https://www.lytro.com/

Pretty interesting technology but I wonde what the max resolution is, there arent any large picture on their site.

[AquaPython]

give me an R

[Archren]

I heard about this from my large format photography professor. Intriguing, yes.. but I'm not going to throw my lot in with it until I see more from it. It certainly gives more aesthetic latitude with a given image, but since it's a fixed f/2 aperture, it might limit you in terms of depth of field (that is, in landscape photography and getting everything in focus). At least that's the impression I'm getting from the examples they show on the website.

Me, I actually enjoy having to make decisions on how to compose a shot before I snap the shutter. There are some applications where that may not be as practical - sports, combat, etc. - in which a Lytro could certainly have its uses.

[Kaneman]

Wedding photographers everywhere are shitting their pants...

[AquaPython]

it seems to me that there are only 4-5 focus levels in all of there sample pictures. Its not like a manual focus ring, for example, where you could have every possible level of focus. It may have some applications, but, at this stage, it is not doing everything it claims it can do, or it should do. Plus, no interchangeable lenses.

[Tmall]

350 pictures to 8gb? Isn't that 22mb a picture?

[marko138]

give me an r
rrrrrrr.

[Smittie61984]

Wedding photographers everywhere are shitting their pants...

They should have shit their pants years ago. Some broke college art major could do it for half easily. Especially with DSLR cameras becoming so cheap.

[Kaneman]

They should have shit their pants years ago. Some broke college art major could do it for half easily. Especially with DSLR cameras becoming so cheap.

I still get paid pretty good for weddings based on my portfolio, but I agree with you wholeheartedly. Hell, most of the expensive equipment I use like my remote flashes, flash bracket, battery extender, etc. etc. are mostly for show just so I can look more prepared than the other 8 people who showed up with the same DSLR camera body as me!

[Particle Man]

give me an R

Shit, is it national talk like a pirate day already?

[marko138]

Shit, is it national talk like a pirate day already?
Nah, he's talking about this shizzzz:


http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m95/markgraves138/repost.jpg

[Archren]

I still get paid pretty good for weddings based on my portfolio, but I agree with you wholeheartedly. Hell, most of the expensive equipment I use like my remote flashes, flash bracket, battery extender, etc. etc. are mostly for show just so I can look more prepared than the other 8 people who showed up with the same DSLR camera body as me!

Makes me almost want to bring a field camera to shoot wedding portraits. :lol: Beat THAT, Random-Uncle-With-DSLR!

[Trip]

I like random uncle. He gets the shots the couple didn't know what was happening and the photog doesn't have the family knowledge to even realize the significance and take the shot.

[AquaPython]

Last wedding I was at, the photog team was walking around with some big glass. a couple 200+mm lenses and some shorter ones obviously as well, like the 24-70 L

[Archren]

I like random uncle. He gets the shots the couple didn't know what was happening and the photog doesn't have the family knowledge to even realize the significance and take the shot.

Personally I don't have a problem with it, other than the portraits - everything else is fair game, IMO.

That being said, depending on the uncle or friend with a fancy DSLR, whether or not they really know how to use the camera is another story entirely. I had a DSLR for two years before I started this bachelor program. I'm not even a full year into it, but I'm already shocked at just how much I did NOT know about my camera and how to compose photographs, how to work with models, how to use lighting, et cetera, ad nauseum. So much to the point where coworkers have asked me to shoot their weddings, and while I agreed to do it, I refuse any payment they offer because I don't consider myself a "pro" just yet.

[Kaneman]

I like random uncle. He gets the shots the couple didn't know what was happening and the photog doesn't have the family knowledge to even realize the significance and take the shot.

No, a good wedding photographer knows the family dynamics, who is who, who is dying soon, what events are significant, so on and so forth. Certainly not to say random uncle can't get some great shots though.

[Trip]

Personally I don't have a problem with it, other than the portraits - everything else is fair game, IMO.

That being said, depending on the uncle or friend with a fancy DSLR, whether or not they really know how to use the camera is another story entirely. I had a DSLR for two years before I started this bachelor program. I'm not even a full year into it, but I'm already shocked at just how much I did NOT know about my camera and how to compose photographs, how to work with models, how to use lighting, et cetera, ad nauseum. So much to the point where coworkers have asked me to shoot their weddings, and while I agreed to do it, I refuse any payment they offer because I don't consider myself a "pro" just yet.

That's nice, you can know all that shit, but if you still aren't in the right place at the right time knowing the right dynamic, you can still miss the shot.

No, a good wedding photographer knows the family dynamics, who is who, who is dying soon, what events are significant, so on and so forth. Certainly not to say random uncle can't get some great shots though.

BS - sorry, you can't memorize the entire guest list and know exactly what is going on. If you do, you must only shoot a few weddings a year for people you know. That's all I was saying was random uncle sometimes get the shots that the couple will love the most.

[Papa_Complex]

No, a good wedding photographer knows the family dynamics, who is who, who is dying soon, what events are significant, so on and so forth. Certainly not to say random uncle can't get some great shots though.

A good wedding photographer is as much a manager, as a photographer. You don't need to have specific knowledge, if you can co-opt someone who does have it.

As to the interactions between people, it seems that a fair number of wedding photogs don't do candids. They stick to the rote routine shots, with their personal touches to them, and leave it at that.

[Smittie61984]

Since there seem to be some camera people on here I have a question. High-speed cameras or slow-motion cameras (whatever you call it). Can you get a camera that'll take or shoot a video where you can slow it down for high-detail slow motion stuff (like you see on mythbusters). Or are they out of reach expensive becuase you have to get a MIT engineer to whip one up for you. I'm not needing one that'll let me watch a nuclear explosion unfold over a 5hour period. But kind of like the Isle of Man TT slow motoin stuff or what they used on Jackass 3.

[Papa_Complex]

The high speed camera, that's used by Mythbusters, is in the $6K to $10K range. There are cheaper alternatives, but you won't be getting that quality of video.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/195836/casios_high_speed_digital_camera_fun.html

[Smittie61984]

Thanks. I've been wanting one for a bit when I accidently slowed down some clips in some kayaking video I was making. I had a contour HD filming at 60fps and I slowed it down to 30fps somehow. When I saw that i made another video in slow motion. Looks pretty cool but I'd love to do it at 1000fps.

I did see a canon that looked like a DSLR camera that did it at I think 3000fps or would do it in HD. Ran about $1000 which is about hte max I'd spend.

I'd get in too much trouble with those mythbuster cameras. Those things are fucking sweet as hell. Oh my god/allah/darwin/etc the shit I'd try and film with that.

[Trip]

As to the interactions between people, it seems that a fair number of wedding photogs don't do candids. They stick to the rote routine shots, with their personal touches to them, and leave it at that.

Yep, lots of the same stock wedding photos going around. I have some of my own. Kyle's wife seated in the crowd actually took my favorite one of the day.

[defector]

If I want piles and piles of titty and ass shots, I'll call random uncle. Everything else, not so much. :lol:

[Trip]

If I want piles and piles of titty and ass shots, I'll call random uncle. Everything else, not so much. :lol:

I told you random uncle's pictures were the best. :lol:

[EpyonXero]

Thanks. I've been wanting one for a bit when I accidently slowed down some clips in some kayaking video I was making. I had a contour HD filming at 60fps and I slowed it down to 30fps somehow. When I saw that i made another video in slow motion. Looks pretty cool but I'd love to do it at 1000fps.

I did see a canon that looked like a DSLR camera that did it at I think 3000fps or would do it in HD. Ran about $1000 which is about hte max I'd spend.

I'd get in too much trouble with those mythbuster cameras. Those things are fucking sweet as hell. Oh my god/allah/darwin/etc the shit I'd try and film with that.

There are some affordable high speed cameras put there:
http://www.amazon.com/Casio-Exilim-EX-FH20-Digital-Optical/dp/B001HCTKZQ

It can do high speed but at the expense of resolution.

[AquaPython]

I can modify my android to take 30+ FPS, but that doesnt mean, those pics are worth a damn, and definitely does not mean i will be running out to purchase a Casio camera.

[marko138]

That's nice, you can know all that shit, but if you still aren't in the right place at the right time knowing the right dynamic, you can still miss the shot.



BS - sorry, you can't memorize the entire guest list and know exactly what is going on. If you do, you must only shoot a few weddings a year for people you know. That's all I was saying was random uncle sometimes get the shots that the couple will love the most.

It's clear to me that you hate photographers and you hate pictures.

[Trip]

It's clear to me that you hate photographers and you hate pictures.

Actually I love GOOD photos. I really dislike a lot of computer editting that is done to photos beyond some of the necessary clean up stuff. Especially poorly done HDR. If you are using HDR to enhance the light without distorting the photo, great. If you are making the photo look like a drawing or fucking with the colors, bad.

I don't hate GOOD photographers either.

[marko138]

Actually I love GOOD photos. I really dislike a lot of computer editting that is done to photos beyond some of the necessary clean up stuff. Especially poorly done HDR. If you are using HDR to enhance the light without distorting the photo, great. If you are making the photo look like a drawing or fucking with the colors, bad.

I don't hate GOOD photographers either.
I don't believe you.

[Papa_Complex]

Actually I love GOOD photos. I really dislike a lot of computer editting that is done to photos beyond some of the necessary clean up stuff. Especially poorly done HDR. If you are using HDR to enhance the light without distorting the photo, great. If you are making the photo look like a drawing or fucking with the colors, bad.

I don't hate GOOD photographers either.

It's a big debate, on photography forums, as to when a photo is no longer a photo, but has become 'digital art.' I'm a bit of a purist and documentarian. I do very little work on my shots trying to get exactly what I want right out of the camera, as much as possible. I don't clone things out, nor do I add things in. I do a little exposure compensation, maybe alter saturation a bit, a little unsharp mask, and occasional noise reduction. I don't generally spend more than a minute on editing each picture and, quite frequently, I just upload them exactly as they came out of the camera.

The more a picture is worked on the more obvious it is to me, and the less I tend to like it.

[Trip]

It's a big debate, on photography forums, as to when a photo is no longer a photo, but has become 'digital art.' I'm a bit of a purist and documentarian. I do very little work on my shots trying to get exactly what I want right out of the camera, as much as possible. I don't clone things out, nor do I add things in. I do a little exposure compensation, maybe alter saturation a bit, a little unsharp mask, and occasional noise reduction. I don't generally spend more than a minute on editing each picture and, quite frequently, I just upload them exactly as they came out of the camera.

The more a picture is worked on the more obvious it is to me, and the less I tend to like it.

That's the same way I feel, nicely worded. About the only real editing I tend to like a lot is black and white when it's applied to the right photo.

[Particle Man]

Nah, he's talking about this shizzzz:


http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m95/markgraves138/repost.jpg

I know. I was making a funny.

Harrrrrr

[marko138]

I know. I was making a funny.

Harrrrrr
Aye.