Recent Professional Works

[Hulyss]

Thanks for that, but from seeimg this on LuLa, as here and now, how can you tell? If I right-click and go to properties I just get size and date. Does the image have to be in Photoshop for the Metadata to be seen?

Rob C

Hello Rob,

To answer your question, not really.

If you use Firefox, you should try this add-on : https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/fxif/

After that, all exif can be available via you browser only via a right click

[Rob C]

Hello Rob,

To answer your question, not really.

If you use Firefox, you should try this add-on : https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/fxif/

After that, all exif can be available via you browser only via a right click

Thanks, I currently use Explorer and did download Firefox once, I think, as well as Chrome or something that sounds similar; wasn't too thrilled though, so reverted to the Windows standard...

Ciao -

Rob C

P.S. As a thought: if even embedded info. can be removed at the tickle of a mouse, what's really the point? I always add a copyright line within my published shots - that can be removed easily too, so where the advantage of one removable device against another? Perhaps the real solutiuon is as with those anti-copying devices built into new recorders etc: all software, PS included, should be designed not to allow the stripping away of EXIF/Meta stuff.

[Rob C]

Sorry to have caused this section to drift off-topic with my personal problems!

;-)

Rob C

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Sorry to have caused this section to drift off-topic with my personal problems!

I would say this section drifted into "anything goes" as of recently, by apparently "popular demand." It's neither predominantly medium format, nor professional, nor recent works  anymore anyway.

[KLaban]

P.S. As a thought: if even embedded info. can be removed at the tickle of a mouse, what's really the point?

The metadata means that folk can identify the owner/copright holder; this would include potential clients.

I and - and many others - have been able to see that metadata, i.e. ownership and copyright info, has been deliberately removed. With this knowledge we've been able to take the transgessors to the cleaners.

If you - or anyone else - post images without at least the copyright details embedded in the file you are in effect creating orphan works of your own works. 

[Ed Foster, Jr.]

Sorry to have caused this section to drift off-topic with my personal problems!

Well, not really, Rob. Keith provided an excellent reminder for all who post on the Web. Despite being meticulous about metadata, I have noticed that in the heat of battle, if you will, I have overlooked that most important detail.

Ed

[ChristopherBarrett]

Chris,

Nice screen grabs.  Looks like Wes Andersons, Moonrise Kingdom.

BC

Heh, a client of mine said our previous short reminded him of Wes Anderson.  I think we're heading in the right direction.

[marcman]

Photographed Chef Susur Lee for the My Food My Way campaign in December. Here is one of the selects.

[georgem]

Isn't it always that way? Always has been for me.

Is it? My experience is different. Where I work, it appears that much of architectural photography is uninteresting, cliche'd and even technically flawed. I see many standardized views without any apparent forethought, or care for light. I really wonder how could architects accept that work, much more display it.


I think maybe in my previous post I came across as offending. My apologies if I did, that was not my intention.

[Hulyss]

Fresh capture in a shop : Already 1000 units in display.  My last photo-work for a band ended on 130000 CD/DVD units so I wish them good luck The Claspers are a little band of teens (around 14/15) who just start. In parallel of the professional activity I help for free little bands (who are young and without budjet) to have professional visuals and particular typo. (Oh ! and for the grumpy one, this is a medium format visual work ... but as the OP said, I could have done this even with a compact)

@ marcman:

I'm a little disturbed by the mirror reflection in your photo. There is really a mirror in this kitchen ?? (I ask because I never seen it).  

[tikal]

Hi Guys,

I did this as a collaboration with a local Hair Designer.

Thanks!

Rollei Hy6 - 80mm Xenotar
Ilford 100

[HarperPhotos]

Love it!

[Rob C]

Another calendar, this one the first of three for Barbour Threads.

Hasselblad 500 C with 4/150 Sonnar and Ektachrome 64.

Shot in my first studio which still has some fond memories attached to it. Not scanned, copied on lightbox with D700.

Rob C

P.S. My Ps 6 doesn't allow me to check if Metadata is properly attached. When I try to check it only shows me a single line of it, so can't tell if the rest of the info is included. It did have it on the jpeg when seen in Nikon NX2... if it's not here, could someone be kind enough to let me know so I can try a different approach to getting it out of NX2 and into the right folder without losing anything? Thanks.

P.S. 2. Seems to have taken on a redder look, for some reason. Oh well, time for a walk.

[Scott Hargis]

Fresh capture in a shop : Already 1000 units in display.  My last photo-work for a band ended on 130000 CD/DVD units so I wish them good luck The Claspers are a little band of teens (around 14/15) who just start. In parallel of the professional activity I help for free little bands (who are young and without budjet) to have professional visuals and particular typo. (Oh ! and for the grumpy one, this is a medium format visual work ... but as the OP said, I could have done this even with a compact)

@ marcman:

I'm a little disturbed by the mirror reflection in your photo. There is really a mirror in this kitchen ?? (I ask because I never seen it).  

Very likely they're running cooking classes in there. It's a really great way for a group of people to see clearly what the chef is doing.

[chaosphere]

Nice shot Tikal, good variety of grays.

[tikal]

Thanks I really appreciate it!

[K.C.]

I did this as a collaboration with a local Hair Designer.

Great image !

I've shot a lot work for hair stylists and salons. Emphasizing the hair and simultaneously creating an image that stands on it's own is a tough job. You've excelled at it.

[opgr]

P.S. 2. Seems to have taken on a redder look, for some reason. Oh well, time for a walk.

The image blackpoint seems (and measures) very greenish. Is that by design?
(plz don't tell me that is to emulate some kind of filmlook).

[Rob C]

The image blackpoint seems (and measures) very greenish. Is that by design?
(plz don't tell me that is to emulate some kind of filmlook).

Hadn't noticed that - only noted that the skin (and the pearls) seemed to turn out redder than before I added the Metadata (if it's there!) to the jpeg used to post here; if it's green, then that's probably a result of trying to compensate for magenta at some stage further back in the overall process. The original file was made quite some time ago - I can't really remember what I did to it.

The file comes from copying Ektachrome on the D700; no, I don't try to emulate any 'filmic' look at all - just to produce something that looks reasonably nice to me on the monitor.

I'm wondering to myself if the reddish tint hasn't been induced by taking a sRGBIEC1966-2.1 file back into Nikon Capture NX2, which might be working in a different colour space; this occurs to me because I noticed that on trying to open the final jpeg to check for Metadata once the file was back within Photoshop 6, PS6 announced that it was the wrong file type for the current setting (the sRGB one above). I had to go through the Save As process again to make it open once more to allow me to check it out. Maybe that upset my colours...

Do you think there's a possible logic here?

Rob C

[opgr]

The file comes from copying Ektachrome on the D700; no, I don't try to emulate any 'filmic' look at all - just to produce something that looks reasonably nice to me on the monitor.

Okay, so maybe it is a combination of factors. I can't comment on the Nikon software, as I don't have any experience with it, but if PS is complaining, then there may certainly be something fishy happening.

Additionally, if you use your camera to reproduce a reflective print, then the most important step, and the most difficult step I'm inclined to add, is to "calibrate" the blackpoint. You have to somehow try to obtain neutral blacks before doing anything else, because reproducing a reflective medium will also mean reflective blacks. And those blacks will have a colorcast which is far more sensitive to balancing than lighter grays and white. And changing the blackpoint will have a significant effect on the overall result.

The preferred order of steps would be:

1. neutralize blacks and select the absolute black point location
2. neutralize the entire graybalance

#1 above defines the origin of all the mathematical multiplications and other BS necessary to make a pleasing picture. If the origin is out-of-whack, then anything subsequently is going to be a juggling act between different parts of the image going out-of-whack.