Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Swimwear Shoot with Hasselblad H3D II  (Read 44043 times)
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #80 on: June 10, 2008, 11:14:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I read the manuals on other peoples' behalf

Nick-T
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200853\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Nick,

Of course you do.

Most photographers can't read.

JR
Logged

Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2371


« Reply #81 on: June 11, 2008, 01:09:11 AM »
ReplyReply

That's why we Hasselblad users do not have to read manuals Nick. We have got you
« Last Edit: June 11, 2008, 01:30:52 AM by Dustbak » Logged
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #82 on: June 11, 2008, 06:14:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Actually no you can't.  I am new to the business with few clients and I doubt they would be happy if I posted commercial material.

If you wanna see pictures of my horses then you are more than welcome? 

If it becomes mandatory to do so then I will happily unregister.  I get enough spam as it is without leaving myself more open.

Okey dokey?

Jo S.x

PS And its Jo, not Joe.  Important difference. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200567\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


How come it's ok for other commercial photographers to post their work online and in books? Do they get special permission from Donald Trump and AMD, as Joe McNally, Brian Peterson, et al. comes to mind?
« Last Edit: June 11, 2008, 06:21:58 AM by dwdallam » Logged

josayeruk
Guest
« Reply #83 on: June 11, 2008, 07:53:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
How come it's ok for other commercial photographers to post their work online and in books? Do they get special permission from Donald Trump and AMD, as Joe McNally, Brian Peterson, et al. comes to mind?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200891\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've no idea.

I'm simply explaining my circumstances.

Jo S.x
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #84 on: June 11, 2008, 09:48:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
How come it's ok for other commercial photographers to post their work online and in books? Do they get special permission from Donald Trump and AMD, as Joe McNally, Brian Peterson, et al. comes to mind?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200891\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Its a question of contract.  I can publish, for self promotion only and limited to my web site and limited run comp cards, within the first year that the ad is first published.  I can also publish the entire ad for self promotion, which is a sort of limited license to reproduce the client's copyrighted derivitive work, which is of course derivitive of my copyrighted photo I shot for the client.  

I show commercial work in my commercial book, but I don't think commercial work shows much because you are shooting someone elses comp.  Would you or anyone want to see a lifestyle ad for a cell phone carrier?  I don't want to see it and I shot it.  Editorial work is often "embargoed", which means it can't be published for a certain amount of time, including on the web.  Hell, I rarely post anything in the forums because these are gear forums, not photo forums.  Even the "recent works" thread is usually about the gear, not the image.  Which is why no women post.  They don't care about the gear, much.  They just like the picture.  

There is also the question of remaining anonamous.  If you post an ad you shot, it is much easier to figure out who you are by searching PDN's "who's shooting what" etc.  I've witnessed the inner workings of an ad agency as they researched a photographer on the web.  They found some forum entries that were, well, negative and argumenative, then asked why he spent so much time on forums and they laughed at him.  He didn't get the gig.  A very nice female photographer who has NO web presence other than her web site, awards, news stories and interviews got the job.
Logged
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #85 on: June 11, 2008, 01:14:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Its a question of contract.  I can publish, for self promotion only and limited to my web site and limited run comp cards, within the first year that the ad is first published.  I can also publish the entire ad for self promotion, which is a sort of limited license to reproduce the client's copyrighted derivitive work, which is of course derivitive of my copyrighted photo I shot for the client. 

I show commercial work in my commercial book, but I don't think commercial work shows much because you are shooting someone elses comp.  Would you or anyone want to see a lifestyle ad for a cell phone carrier?  I don't want to see it and I shot it.  Editorial work is often "embargoed", which means it can't be published for a certain amount of time, including on the web.  Hell, I rarely post anything in the forums because these are gear forums, not photo forums.  Even the "recent works" thread is usually about the gear, not the image.  Which is why no women post.  They don't care about the gear, much.  They just like the picture. 

There is also the question of remaining anonamous.  If you post an ad you shot, it is much easier to figure out who you are by searching PDN's "who's shooting what" etc.  I've witnessed the inner workings of an ad agency as they researched a photographer on the web.  They found some forum entries that were, well, negative and argumenative, then asked why he spent so much time on forums and they laughed at him.  He didn't get the gig.  A very nice female photographer who has NO web presence other than her web site, awards, news stories and interviews got the job.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200910\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm 100% sure they gave her the job because they liked her pictures better.
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #86 on: June 11, 2008, 01:34:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm 100% sure they gave her the job because they liked her pictures better.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200953\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That too!  She is a fantastic photographer, shoots with an old Mamiya AF and an OLD 500 EL.  But the first guy was essentially ruled out as a candidate from his web presence (they didn't even ask him to submit a bid) which had them looking at other people. In fairness, his stuff was pretty good too.
Logged
Dale Allyn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


WWW
« Reply #87 on: June 11, 2008, 04:26:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've witnessed the inner workings of an ad agency as they researched a photographer on the web. They found some forum entries that were, well, negative and argumenative, then asked why he spent so much time on forums and they laughed at him. He didn't get the gig. A very nice female photographer who has NO web presence other than her web site, awards, news stories and interviews got the job.

Quote
That too! She is a fantastic photographer, shoots with an old Mamiya AF and an OLD 500 EL. But the first guy was essentially ruled out as a candidate from his web presence (they didn't even ask him to submit a bid) which had them looking at other people. In fairness, his stuff was pretty good too.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200954\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sounds like more of an argument for using good etiquette and treating others with respect on forums, rather than an argument for hiding one's real name.

 
« Last Edit: June 11, 2008, 05:50:48 PM by DFAllyn » Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #88 on: June 11, 2008, 06:31:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sounds like more of an argument for using good etiquette and treating others with respect on forums, rather than an argument for hiding one's real name.

 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200974\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Perhaps, but my take away is that the only face I want to present to a client is one I craft, and I'd like to post without worrying about how it reflects in a google search.
Logged
Dale Allyn
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


WWW
« Reply #89 on: June 11, 2008, 06:38:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Perhaps, but my take away is that the only face I want to present to a client is one I craft, and I'd like to post without worrying about how it reflects in a google search.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200995\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I wasn't being critical of your anonymity (although for some people it can lead to less-the-stellar posts), but suggesting that one's on-line "personality" ought to be polite and respectful as though people were sitting in a room and talking with each other.

Wishful thinking, I know.

Cheers,

Dale
Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #90 on: June 11, 2008, 06:45:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I wasn't being critical of your anonymity (although for some people it can lead to less-the-stellar posts), but suggesting that one's on-line "personality" ought to be polite and respectful as though people were sitting in a room and talking with each other.

Wishful thinking, I know.

Cheers,

Dale
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200996\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I didn't take it as criticism at all, and I agree that people should keep it polite, even when others aren't.  Really.  This place has (mostly) avoided the nasties due to, in my opinion, the fact that many of the people here are professionals or are somehow more evolved than the broader net of a dpreview.

T
« Last Edit: June 11, 2008, 06:47:00 PM by TMARK » Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3535



WWW
« Reply #91 on: June 11, 2008, 06:56:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
See attached... [attachment=6977:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200783\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Seeing as I said
"A well designed programme shouldn't need very careful persual of the manual, in fact I seem to recall it doesn't even mention that you have to import images already on your machine and already visible in programme, which caught a few people out."
and as that page of manual is about importing files to your machine [which is what you would expect] from an card/camera/imagebank and does not mention anything about importing images already on your computer, it simply illustrates my point.
Now if Phocus did not display the images on my computer within programme, one would think, maybe it's like Aperture/Lightroom and you need to import images into the software. But it does display your images that are on your hard drive and that is why it is subsequently a tad confusing. Besides it's not actually imorting, but converting the files to an editable form, which is not the normal way of dealing with camera files.
The problem with many manuals is they are written by people who are very familiar the programme and they often forget to mention funamental things which can be very important and which are not known by new users.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2008, 07:26:45 PM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3535



WWW
« Reply #92 on: June 11, 2008, 07:09:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In addition to it actually being in the manual,
Where? It's not on page linked above.

Quote
the notion that a well designed program shouldn't require someone to read a user manual is...hmmm...a questionable viewpoint in my mind.
I didn't say one shouldn't read manuals, I was talking about a very, very basic attribute/operation of the  programme that is not obvious. For a more thorough understanding of programmes, yes a manual read is invaluable. But when the basics are confusing it's a good litmus test of the thought that went into a programme. Obviously if it's an area you don't anything about at all, then that's a different issue. Photoshop which apparently is insanely complicated, I managed to use that when I was still new to computers, so 15years later, I don't expect to stumble on getting an image into a programme. Having said that I asked an Apple chap a few ago on how one imported all your images on one's hard drive without doing it one folder at a time and he said it couldn't be done. And he was someone certified to train users in the programme, yet he didn't lknow what I consider to be a basic function.

Quote
They write the manual for a reason. Or would you rather they just not include one?    [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200798\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well you obviously didn't bother to read my posts properly either, as I complained about something missing from manual, so rather obviously I read it. So why then infer I'm against manuals?
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3535



WWW
« Reply #93 on: June 11, 2008, 07:23:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I didn't take it as criticism at all, and I agree that people should keep it polite, even when others aren't.
Online and real world arguments usually occur simply when people don't read posts carefully enough before replying or listening to what is said before answering. To illustrate, my two responses directly above were to people who didn't read carefully enough before responding.

Quote
This place has (mostly) avoided the nasties due to, in my opinion, the fact that many of the people here are professionals or are somehow more evolved than the broader net of a dpreview.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=200997\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Or that that most people here don't hide their identity!
Any photographer who comes up with weak excuses as to why they cannot show their work [and ones on another thread were really pathetic], is not someone who can be taken as seriously as those who who show their work, after all for all we know it's the pet cat posting.    
Besides, there's nothing to stop you showing  say personal work if your commercial work is 'sensitive' or too 'boring'. Though saying nothing you do professionally can be shown online is somewhat hard to believe. And if you are worried about being seen in a bad light via what you say on forums, be nice and there's no problem.  
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
TechTalk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #94 on: June 11, 2008, 09:10:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Online and real world arguments usually occur simply when people don't read posts carefully enough before replying or listening to what is said before answering. To illustrate, my two responses directly above were to people who didn't read carefully enough before responding.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201002\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oh my poor dear friend. You struggle so valiantly to illuminate the world about you so that the blind may see what you see with such keen clarity.

But you struggle on despite being surrounded. Surrounded by the careless and clueless.

You're under siege my friend by careless and clueless software designers, careless and clueless technical writers, careless and clueless responders to your posts. How do you manage to tolerate so much mindless indifference to your mighty efforts to enlighten?

Give me some time to catch up with my other obligations and I'll see if I can join in your noble cause. I'll be back soon. I promise.
Logged
pprdigital
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #95 on: June 11, 2008, 11:04:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Where? It's not on page linked above.

 I didn't say one shouldn't read manuals, I was talking about a very, very basic attribute/operation of the  programme that is not obvious. For a more thorough understanding of programmes, yes a manual read is invaluable. But when the basics are confusing it's a good litmus test of the thought that went into a programme. Obviously if it's an area you don't anything about at all, then that's a different issue. Photoshop which apparently is insanely complicated, I managed to use that when I was still new to computers, so 15years later, I don't expect to stumble on getting an image into a programme. Having said that I asked an Apple chap a few ago on how one imported all your images on one's hard drive without doing it one folder at a time and he said it couldn't be done. And he was someone certified to train users in the programme, yet he didn't lknow what I consider to be a basic function.

Well you obviously didn't bother to read my posts properly either, as I complained about something missing from manual, so rather obviously I read it. So why then infer I'm against manuals?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201000\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You know, jjj, I started to write that I....respectfully....disagree. But upon further consideration, I'm gonna give you a point. File>import seems to have a certain level of acceptance in our industry. It is by no means universal, though. On that level, anything other would appear alien I suppose. There is a File>import in Phocus, but thus far, it has been greyed out in my use of the program. Perhaps someone has seen it enabled? Or maybe File>import is in place, awaiting activation in Phocus 1.1 for some reason.

I'm going to open my perspective and say that seeing files on a cf card in the program show up and not being able to do anything with them without reading the manual has....some merit. Is it a sin? I don't know. Maybe it could be more intuitive.  But now that you know, I don't see the big deal. I don't feel it means the program is poorly thought out - hardly the case. And, it's version 1.0. It's a start, and I feel it's a very good start. Some pretty considerable programs that are now considered smooth running machines fared about the same on V1.0 releases.

And yes, I did bother to read your post. Since the item you site is not actually missing from the manual, I think it's logical to presume you haven't read it.

Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php
Logged

Steve Hendrix
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #96 on: June 11, 2008, 11:37:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You know, jjj, I started to write that I....respectfully....disagree. But upon further consideration, I'm gonna give you a point. File>import seems to have a certain level of acceptance in our industry. It is by no means universal, though. On that level, anything other would appear alien I suppose. There is a File>import in Phocus, but thus far, it has been greyed out in my use of the program. Perhaps someone has seen it enabled? Or maybe File>import is in place, awaiting activation in Phocus 1.1 for some reason.

I'm going to open my perspective and say that seeing files on a cf card in the program show up and not being able to do anything with them without reading the manual has....some merit. Is it a sin? I don't know. Maybe it could be more intuitive.  But now that you know, I don't see the big deal. I don't feel it means the program is poorly thought out - hardly the case. And, it's version 1.0. It's a start, and I feel it's a very good start. Some pretty considerable programs that are now considered smooth running machines fared about the same on V1.0 releases.

And yes, I did bother to read your post. Since the item you site is not actually missing from the manual, I think it's logical to presume you haven't read it.

Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201046\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Steve,

Obviously you have a vested interest in learning all that is possible with the respective softwares to the brands you represent and should be commended for that.

Also for all of us that do professional imaging of our own photography we know that no single program, either propiretary to the manufacturer or 3rd party is perfect.

Still, if I understand the Hasselblad system correctly (and I'm not an expert on Hasselblad), for the files to work in 3rd party programs they need to be first converted to a dng . . . am I corrrect in this assumption?

Also if I understand this correctly, Hasselblad has multiple file formats for their previous legacy cameras?

Now this may seem like a small matter, but if your busy and work with a variety of clients and retouchers the first thing you find that workflow doesn't really stop at the processing stage.

Many clients and retouchers require a universal raw file even if the finished image is 90% ready for publication.

I routinely use multiple retouchers in our work, even on one image.  One is good on skin, the other hair, or even a third in image recontruction and manipulation.

Though a processed tiff can and should suffice, the added advantage of having a raw file available allows the retoucher to add detail in highlights or pull out some extra shadow if needed, or even do a mild form of hdr.

Even if I do all the post work myself, I also use other processors for a specific look.

RD is different than C-1 which is also different than lightroom.  Having to convert one or many dozens of files under deadline is more than a small issue.

As Hasselblad goes forward with their focus software I suggest they keep this in mind and change the original raw format so it will work in lightroom, photoshop, RD, C-1 and all the third party processors.

If I'm wrong on the hasselblad file format then I stand corrected.

JR
Logged

pprdigital
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #97 on: June 12, 2008, 12:07:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Steve,

Obviously you have a vested interest in learning all that is possible with the respective softwares to the brands you represent and should be commended for that.

Also for all of us that do professional imaging of our own photography we know that no single program, either propiretary to the manufacturer or 3rd party is perfect.

Still, if I understand the Hasselblad system correctly (and I'm not an expert on Hasselblad), for the files to work in 3rd party programs they need to be first converted to a dng . . . am I corrrect in this assumption?

Also if I understand this correctly, Hasselblad has multiple file formats for their previous legacy cameras?

Now this may seem like a small matter, but if your busy and work with a variety of clients and retouchers the first thing you find that workflow doesn't really stop at the processing stage.

Many clients and retouchers require a universal raw file even if the finished image is 90% ready for publication.

I routinely use multiple retouchers in our work, even on one image.  One is good on skin, the other hair, or even a third in image recontruction and manipulation.

Though a processed tiff can and should suffice, the added advantage of having a raw file available allows the retoucher to add detail in highlights or pull out some extra shadow if needed, or even do a mild form of hdr.

Even if I do all the post work myself, I also use other processors for a specific look.

RD is different than C-1 which is also different than lightroom.  Having to convert one or many dozens of files under deadline is more than a small issue.

As Hasselblad goes forward with their focus software I suggest they keep this in mind and change the original raw format so it will work in lightroom, photoshop, RD, C-1 and all the third party processors.

If I'm wrong on the hasselblad file format then I stand corrected.

JR
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=201054\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

James:

Hasselblad (and formerly Imacon) has provided .FFF files as the eventual raw file format from very early on. 3FR has been an in-camera format (and DNG also, briefly) that utilizes a lossless compression scheme. So the actual raw file format has maintained itself up through today.

DNG was abandoned as an in-camera raw format due to write limitations and proved more resource-needy than was desired for rapid camera operation. Instead, the DNG format became an upon import option (or save to DNG at a later stage also). The DNG save still exists in Phocus.

Currently, the .FFF file is supported by Aperture - I'm not sure about Raw Developer. It's been a while since I've checked in with Brian. I do know that he supported the iXpress products in the past.

I agree universality (is that a word?) is a positive, and I hope that all of the medium format participants continue to strive for this. Slowly, slowly, it is becoming more universal. Not so long ago, none of the file formats from medium format products were compatible with any program but their own.

I also hope they continue to develop their own software programs.

Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php
Logged

Steve Hendrix
BJNY
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1112


« Reply #98 on: June 12, 2008, 12:23:06 AM »
ReplyReply

deleted
« Last Edit: June 12, 2008, 12:24:44 AM by BJNY » Logged

Guillermo
James R Russell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 984



WWW
« Reply #99 on: June 12, 2008, 12:26:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
James:


I agree universality (is that a word?) is a positive, and I hope that all of the medium format participants continue to strive for this. Slowly, slowly, it is becoming more universal. Not so long ago, none of the file formats from medium format products were compatible with any program but their own.

I also hope they continue to develop their own software programs.

Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Maybe, but with every Leaf, Phase, Canon and Leica file I have and presently use the files have worked in almost every processor I've tried  and I currently use CS1, CS3, LR, RD, C-1v4, so at this stage I wouldn't say, Canon, leaf, Leica, Phase files are an issue with 3rd party converters.

(Well I haven't tried Leaf in CS4 but the rest work as described.)

I know that anytime anyone says anything lately about hasselblad it's considered a big knock and it comes with a lot of blowback from certain people, but my comments are based on working with a lot of experience with varied client requests.

In fact on of the few retail projects we shoot is all processed in house by the retailer's pre press division (and they do a very good job).

They primarily work in C-1,  sometimes CS3 and will accept shot settings or side car files for refernce as they try very hard to match the vision the photographer intended.

To have to convert, then process, then deliver to a client like this adds days to the workflow and I think you can see the liability to hasselblads file formats.

Regardless, my point of this is to be constructive because it seems that since hasselblad is chaning their software, the logical step would be to develop a file format that is more universal, rather than proprietary.

I think you of all people know how overwhelmed most of us are with post production and anyting to make it easier is more than a plus, today it's mandatory.

This shoot was with two different cameras and processed mostly in lightroom, some in C1 V4 and  I could process the files side by side to match.

[a href=\"http://www.russellrutherford.com/desert_editorial/]http://www.russellrutherford.com/desert_editorial/[/url]

JR
« Last Edit: June 12, 2008, 12:44:49 AM by James R Russell » Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad