Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 83 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Re: Recent Professional Works 2  (Read 291486 times)
ACH DIGITAL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 394



WWW
« Reply #420 on: May 24, 2013, 09:14:14 PM »
ReplyReply

BC, beautiful fashion work.
Interesting portraits. Different I'd say.
Logged

Antonio Chagin
www.achdigital.com
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1206


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #421 on: May 24, 2013, 09:51:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you Antonio.

BC
Logged

georgem
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


WWW
« Reply #422 on: May 25, 2013, 01:09:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Totally drives me nuts, but it's a function of perspective.  If you made a mechanical drawing of the same composition from the camera position (to accurate scale) the circles would render with the same distortion.  Sometimes I do correct for this by rotating the camera until the round object is centered in the lens and then shifting the back to retain the same composition...  I did this just yesterday, but it's impossible when composing a 1 point perspective that is square to the architecture.

Actually the linear elements in the shot show the same degree of "distortion".  We just don't perceive it as much as we do with circles.

CB

Chris, why not fix it in post?
Logged

theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #423 on: May 25, 2013, 01:23:55 PM »
ReplyReply

BC, beautiful. Sorry to see you are not posting at GetDPI though...
Logged
GWStudioLA
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #424 on: May 26, 2013, 09:20:21 PM »
ReplyReply

p30+/Contax

Shot with HMI's, Winow Light and some cutters.



Red (the medium format of the digital motion world)

Shot at a trillion ISO with one small hand held led.

BC

So amazing! What inspired you?
Logged
jwheaton
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #425 on: May 27, 2013, 11:08:05 PM »
ReplyReply

My contribution today. Natural looking recipe for a Home and Kitchen client.



wow, excellent shot. may I ask how you lit it?
Logged
ACH DIGITAL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 394



WWW
« Reply #426 on: May 28, 2013, 07:46:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Sure, we used 4 diffusion screens like you see in the image, 2 soft boxes, one large to cover the back and top screens, one medium form the side and 2 raw lights that were used alternately depending on the ambience of the shot. Main power was the left one.

Logged

Antonio Chagin
www.achdigital.com
rogerxnz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 301


« Reply #427 on: May 28, 2013, 04:22:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Sure, we used 4 diffusion screens like you see in the image, 2 soft boxes, one large to cover the back and top screens, one medium form the side and 2 raw lights that were used alternately depending on the ambience of the shot. Main power was the left one.



Very cool, but where was the camera? I imagined the camera was above the centre of the image and looking down vertically but that would mean having the camera on an arm/bracket underneath the top screen and there does not seem to be enough room and you have not cut a hole in the top screen for the camera to poke through from above the screen.

There is a "spare" tripod in front of the table. Was the camera on that and was it a technical camera that you some how used tilts and shifts to get the top-down look?
Roger
Logged

Roger Hayman
Wellington, New Zealand
MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 922



WWW
« Reply #428 on: May 28, 2013, 05:02:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Look at the wine glasses, it's not a level overhead shot.
Logged
fredjeang2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 792



« Reply #429 on: May 28, 2013, 05:30:37 PM »
ReplyReply

p30+/Contax

Shot with HMI's, Winow Light and some cutters.



Red (the medium format of the digital motion world)

Shot at a trillion ISO with one small hand held led.

BC

Coot,

Watching the below sepia images, I have a question regarding Red if you see this post.

As everything is built on metadatas and therefore non-destructive, my doubt remains on the isos.

Let's take this scenario shoot on Red: if one decide to shoot pushing the isos to extreme levels on purpose (and not because it lacks light)
for ex to get a 16mm grain, and after that you give-up with the idea and want to revert to a clean image to do something completly different,
are the isos also non-destructive?
So for ex, can you take those high-isos images on RCX and going back to 800 the typical high-isos grain would disappear?
I ask this question because never had very high isos Red footage on edit.
 
« Last Edit: May 28, 2013, 05:43:09 PM by fredjeang2 » Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1697


« Reply #430 on: May 28, 2013, 06:04:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Totally drives me nuts, but it's a function of perspective.  If you made a mechanical drawing of the same composition from the camera position (to accurate scale) the circles would render with the same distortion.  Sometimes I do correct for this by rotating the camera until the round object is centered in the lens and then shifting the back to retain the same composition...  I did this just yesterday, but it's impossible when composing a 1 point perspective that is square to the architecture.

Actually the linear elements in the shot show the same degree of "distortion".  We just don't perceive it as much as we do with circles.

CB
may I ask ... why don't you just retouch it?
All your images are so absolutely wonderful minimalistic and straight... so why let the lens determine the final image?
Logged
Chris Barrett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 283


« Reply #431 on: May 28, 2013, 07:40:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Not so much, Fred.  The ISO is totally metadata, however... if you expose for 3200 in the field and lower the ISO to 800 in RC-X, you will def be 2 stops underexposed. I prefer to shoot a clean ISO 800 and add grain in post if I want it.

I like CineGrain for this, which are actually film scans at 4k and under.
Logged
Chris Barrett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 283


« Reply #432 on: May 28, 2013, 07:45:14 PM »
ReplyReply

may I ask ... why don't you just retouch it?
All your images are so absolutely wonderful minimalistic and straight... so why let the lens determine the final image?

Thomas, coming from film, we've always been accustomed to accepting the distortion.  It would be a hell of a retouch!  First you'd have to isolate the circular item.  Then you'd have to reshape it.  Then you'd have to rebuild the background where the reshaped item no longer overlaps.  Finally, you'd have to readjust other items, the chairs around the table for example, if their relationship is no longer appropriate.  That would require more outlining and background rebuilding.  All in all, it's not the sort of retouching that most of my clients would bother with given the cost.

Also... the more I think about it...  If you made a drawing of the same image, and rendered the objects more circular, it would feel like a mistake.  The distortion is actually correct for the given perspective.  It's actually about the physical realty of the view, not any function of lenses.  As an example, consider a table top front to back.  If you wanted to draw it in perspective, would you draw a circle or an oval?
« Last Edit: May 28, 2013, 07:56:26 PM by Chris Barrett » Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1553


WWW
« Reply #433 on: May 28, 2013, 08:11:42 PM »
ReplyReply

may I ask ... why don't you just retouch it?
All your images are so absolutely wonderful minimalistic and straight... so why let the lens determine the final image?

It is such a standard distortion in AP going back 75+ years that our clients accept it as a fact of life with WA views.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Chris Barrett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 283


« Reply #434 on: May 28, 2013, 08:20:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Here is a picture of a lunchroom.  Straight out of camera and unretouched.  No distortions, tho Wink

Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1553


WWW
« Reply #435 on: May 28, 2013, 08:23:43 PM »
ReplyReply

I LOVE the abstractness of this, but unfortunately only some of my more sophisticated clients would like it though.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
ACH DIGITAL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 394



WWW
« Reply #436 on: May 28, 2013, 08:34:56 PM »
ReplyReply

There should be a LIKE button on LuLa.
Logged

Antonio Chagin
www.achdigital.com
JoeKitchen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 749



« Reply #437 on: May 28, 2013, 08:37:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Here is a picture of a lunchroom.  Straight out of camera and unretouched.  No distortions, tho Wink


Cool shot, however I can not really figure out what is going on with the design.  Is that the intention. 
Logged

Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner
Chris Barrett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 283


« Reply #438 on: May 28, 2013, 08:40:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Hah!  We do actually have an overall shot of the lunchroom.  I rarely get to make shots like this, but the marketing person from the firm said that he will actually use this a lot!

Wink
Logged
JoeKitchen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 749



« Reply #439 on: May 28, 2013, 08:40:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Going back to distortion, I shot this last week for a friend of mine who is an interior architect.  Yes, the distortion does bother me a little, but the 2 point version just ... does't feel ... right.  Like why shoot a 2 point when a one point is possible?  BTW, I was not too keen on the owls, but, you know.   Wink
« Last Edit: May 28, 2013, 08:43:50 PM by JoeKitchen » Logged

Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner
Pages: « 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 83 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad