This content has been marked as final. Show 91 replies
The technique is well known, easy enough to understand. My question as to the "ease" relates to the film, especially when you say
i "You then test this adjustment."
Are you shooting Polaroid? Or does your film go back to the lab before you see the exposures?
"Are you shooting Polaroid?"
I was wondering the same thing. Even black and white takes a minimum of 30 seconds and preferably longer, and if that means taking your film holder in and out of the camera, even if your film is double-stick taped in, you risk mis-registration in that process.
Scan and auto align.
I've used that process many times, except I am setting lights so that but one exposure is necessary.
Most of the time Auto Align is pretty good but there have been plenty of times when high res files tripped it up and it's more like Auto Almost Align. Thankfully there's still PT Gui.
"I've used that process many times, except I am setting lights so that but one exposure is necessary."
You did see the thread I started a couple of weeks ago on product photos. We really did set the lights so it was all captured in one exposure. It took hours, actually 4-5 per shot and at one point I had 18 C-Stands holding lights, gels, reflectors, flags and scrims. A great way to study lighting is to go to the movies and try and figure out how they light each scene, remembering that, for the most part, they have to light it right in camera.
I do study film, and have for years.
Recently, I happed on the DVD's for "Have Gun, Will Travel". My SO, who is a graduate in graphic design watch a couple of episodes with me then suddenly exclaimed "Now I see where you got your lighting ideas from!
It was a favorite at the time I was really developing my photo POV, the crossing of art and description.
You use a press shutter, self cocking no need to touch the camera just the cable release.
You leave the film and holder in the camera and you do not need to shield the film from the light except with the shutter.
You expose the sheet several times if need be could be even twenty or thirty times.
You move the lights around, adjust the power and how many times you want them to fire and yes you use polaroids. No need to take the polaroids out of the camera. You do have to have experience with this and be able to judge, but that like all things comes with experience though I have never had such a problem.
So the film stays in the camera and you expose it and then you look at the polaroids and she how you now want to adjust the the lights, the output power, the number of times they fire the distance and location from the subject.
From what you right here and you have written it before you do not relate to this technique at all even though it has been around from a time before they even had such a thing as a shutter.
You have it all worng and if I was thinking the way you were I would have to jump on digital myself.
Obfuscation guarantees misunderstanding.
"From what you right here and you have written it before you do not relate to this technique at all even though it has been around from a time before they even had such a thing as a shutter. "
See, there you go again. You have no idea of what I've done and what techniques I've used. All I know from your writing is that you're god's gift to everything photographic. Once again, all you can do is tell us how great you are what how the rest of us don't know what the **** we're doing. Give it a break Wade. You're not all that.
From your response about taking the film holder out of the camera aback and putting it back in it is clear you do not know as you do not take the the film holder out of the camera back as there is no need to. And you clearly have never used a press shutter or you would know the advantages and know how the technique works which you clearly do not understand.
Lawrence has already stated several times that he has never used a press shutter. Therefore I understand and appreciate though he thinks this works as some variation on a technique he might use he is mistaken.
If you listened Peter you would see how this technique offers you a great deal of flexibilty in the field that digiatl photography unfortunately steals from you.
Yu are not as experienced as you think you are and the majority of architectural photographers are not aware they can use this technique to do many things they often struggle with and never actually accomplish. It is a very old technique and it is tried and true.
If digital offered this possibility in the field then it woud be cool.
I actually think the D3 does this to some extent but I did not explore so I am only guessing or hoping.
But it is way different from your interpretation, and it is amusing to see how you react because I know my business much better then you know my business and it seems to really bother you.
You know if I were discussing techniques for matters you are familiar with I might inquire as to what the advantages of the method you are describing rather then tell you something to the effect you know nothing about your business. But that is not the way you go about it you are an expert at everyone field.
And of course you are not.
But I am pleased to know that you think I don't know my business because paris is calling, again. So it doesn't really matter.
But since I find that people overseas find it easier to relate to my work then people here in the States I can understand the way you view anything I might say. I say so be it.
I actually have used it Wade, but so what? I didn't own one. I used it when I rented a lens with that shutter. I googled Press shutter to find out what it was, and immediately recognized it.
BTW, their reliability isn't as good as the more common version. One I tried stuck and wouldn't re-cock fully. They also take more effort to shoot. The energy to re-cock has to come from somewhere.
look. It's results that matter. You use Mac. I use PC. There is no way in hell to know which machine processed which image from the results. But you can get all holier than thou because I don't use Safari, and think it refers to a trip in the Sahara.
Lawrence I use this shutter everyday for almost twenty years now, you are not really telling that they are not reliable and hard to work with and all that other stuff.
It is an invaluable tool, easy to work with and offers so many more possibilities.
And I do use them every day that I shoot and for almost twenty years.
You're missing out on a lot of opportunities by not incorporating this tool into your approach.
Sory you never learnt about its advantages.
>It is a very old technique and it is tried and true.
Very well, Wade. Show us an example, please?
Jeez Wade. Can you read in context? Lawrence and I were having a discussion about what might be in your head, as you hadn't revealed it at that point. I was SURMISING.
I don't own one of those shutters but I have used them and am familiar with them. I also know that when you're careful, it's easy enough (because I've done it so often) to recock a Copal shutter as many times as you want and not have the camera move. You don't need a self cocking shutter to work your technique, you only need good technique. Do you think you invented this stuff? You sure act like it.
Again, I'm not sure why you're finding this information so threatening. As I've mentioned before, we're here to share information, techniques and images, and help each other, not keep secrets and make others feel inferior. Everyone else seems to be okay with that concept, except, perhaps, you. Why do you suppose that is?
I'm missing nothing, Wade, no thing. No opportunities. No nuttin'!
(I'm absolutely certain that on my deathbed, I will not be saying "I shudda used Press shutters".)
As Peter stated, cocking the shutter is a no brainer. If you mess up my alignment cocking the shutter, I sure would not want you loading the film holder in the back! :D
This sounds like a primal scream.
Not quite, Wade, but keep it up and I may fake it.:D
I've done shots both ways - where I re-cocked the shutter many times as Wade does with his Prontor or Copal "Press", but I've also done quite a few projects where I either moved the same film to several different cameras in order to build the image I wanted, and others where I would shoot part of a scene outdoor, say at dusk, leaving enough unexposed area to expose another image in a studio later. All techniques that are more or less not so important today, but good to know when you think about how to accomplish the same thing digitally. There was even an early Drum! Magazine cover where I photographed Jason Bonham in the studio and photographed a supplied postcard of his dad, John Bonham (Led Zeppelin) and took both images into the darkroom and exposed them one at a time on to a piece of Ektachrome duping film, fading one into the other in a way now seems childishly simple but then was rather unpredictably difficult.
I'm not hearin' any screams here in L.A.
Probably regret this but here goes <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=11DGNlG5ywe1XIlIwFh5Thm7ijEt0" /></a> <img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/11DGNlG5ywe1XIlIwFh5Thm7ijEt0_thumb.jpg" border="0" /> <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1JQ0vwmSbrZqrbORz8Xa2PTnhF3yEK0" /></a> <img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1JQ0vwmSbrZqrbORz8Xa2PTnhF3yEK0_thumb.jpg" border="0" /> <br /> <br />It is a very old technique and tried and true. Not much to it.
Why would you regret it? If you really want to be helpful to anyone else who might want to know, telling the world what you did might be appreciated. Not for Lawrence or me, but for people lurking through this mess of a thread.
If someone wants to know and asks I will respond
I want to know (although I already think that I DO know exactly!) and I think many others would benefit from understanding what was involved in taking those interior shots.
Actually, you have captured the real-life essence and atmosphere of those interiors which is something that the photographer who we discussed in the other thread does not do.
Well we all see things differently i guess, and who is right or wrong. Wade continually talks down to just about everyone that comes here, and then tries to make it seem like we are all unenlightened and are just not capable of seeing a real artist at work. certainly the other guy referenced was not perfect,but as far as the two shots wade shared, i am not particularly impressed. Now he will come back and rehash how i like perfection and am chasing some elusive dream,but to me those shots are flat and unexciting.
I certainly am not saying they are worthless,but for all the constant reminding we get how great he is and how everyone around the world worships the ground he walks on, i honestly keep waiting to see these jaw dropping shots, and then i see something he finally posts, and i think this is what all the fuss was about?
I must temper my comments with the fact that i have never attempted to do architecture in the sense we are referencing,and would never pawn myself off as someone experienced in that genre, but i know what i like and dont like, and i have seen enough images to know what the cream of the crop are doing,and i cant remember the last time i saw something wade posted,and said holy ****,how on earth did you create such atmosphere and beauty in a room.
Perhaps i should have just stayed away from this forum, but as i have read topics over the past weeks, i find wade berating guys like peter,that i know are tops in the profession,and i think what the sam hill is wrong with this guy that he cant find a way to at least be friendly to the regulars here. He could offer advice in his field of expertise, without trying to belittle everyone else that comes here to interact with like minded creative people. At this point i feel like there must be numerous photographers who would make this place a joy to interact,but who stay away because of his ********. I swore the days of him getting under my skin were over, but he has a knack of not only putting himself on a pedestal,but also trying to minimize every other person who comes along.
Well said, Donald.
Thank you Donald.
Donald neither of those two photographs are jaw dropping.
To you those re both rather flat valid criticism that's they way you see it.
To Peter and Lawrence neither one of you have ever used a press shutter, and fooling anyone.
Noir do you understand the technique, at all. And Lawrence should be familiar with it.
Jaw dropping is not some you or anyone else is going to obtained, it is a dream and you are only confirming to yourself that your frustrations come from not being able to realize this elusive dream.
You can confirm it as being a dream go and research all the masters of photography or if you wish ten great master of photography.
And then select from their work one photograph that actually is jaw dropping,.
Yes Surprise there are none!
But good luck Donald in your quest, I hope you do realize this goal of yours at least in your dreams. You will definitely at least feel better.
But I have to admit that yes you have taught me something here on the forum, it wasn't what i thought I would get out of the forum, but I did actually learn some very valuable things.
I thank you all.
Donald, I agree with you. 100%
In my opinion, the best way to deal with a troll is to ignore him.
Agreed. I've deleted my comments here.
Can't stand it anymore ... coming out of lurk mode ...
As I've said before, talk is cheap. You're not going to impress me with obscure technical jargon wrapped around an indecipherable post. SHOW ME that you know what you're talking about photographically and you'll gain my photographic respect. In 7-8 years, our resident legend-in-his-own-mind has yet to do that. Not once.
The two images that are supposed to illustrate to us mere mortals what we can't possibly understand? WEAK! For all the posturing and talk of self-cocking shutters, the lighting in the living room shot is terrible. Not just flat, but BAD. And what the heck is that dark mess on the left? The bathroom image is marginally better but I suspect that's only because there was benefit of spill because of the close quarters (or lots of natural light). Even so, the point where Wade called it done would have only been the beginning for a any photographer with a decent understanding of light. Both of those images could have been vastly better with an experienced DSLR shooter who knows light.
While some of the work of the photographer referenced in the other thread is a bit gawdy for my taste (some of it I really like), it's quite evident he could light circles around our resident architectural "expert". While I might not care for the treatment, I can still respect the knowledge required to achieve the results.
Wade trying to teach Peter something about photography ... LOL ... that's a good one!
Thanks wade, i will keep trying to get better and consider the endeavor of trying to do my best and do photography that people can appreciate and enjoy,as being a character trait i can be proud of. You seem to imply that a person who strives to do the best they can at whatever point they are at photographically, is something to be apologetic for. Most normal people try to be cordial with people they interact with on a regular basis, but for some unknown reason,you seem to not be interested in doing that.
One could ignore your posts,but then lurkers would come to believe everything you say as correct,because no one disagrees. With all the endless rambling you do about using your prehistoric equipment and using techniques that no digital system could ever replicate, i find you to be about the most one dimensional photographer i have seen in a long time. Here is a news flash for you, THE WORLD DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND YOU OR ARCHITECTURAL PHOTOGRAPHY.
Maybe you need to spend a few months abroad were you are more appreciated, according to you of course. maybe the fresh spring air in paris will allow you to clear your head and you can return here to contribute some good ideas for a change.
I had a feeling you'd chime in sooner or later. All along I had hoped that Wade would give examples that would help anyone who was interesting in WHY you might use a particular technique or piece of equipment and show how it actually improved the image. So far I've seen nothing that approaches that. To show an image and claim that it could only be made by using a certain technique, without showing the same (presumably inferior) image made without is asking the veiwer to make a leap of faith, and that's a pretty big leap in this case. The opportunity was there for Wade to actually redeem himself and share some useful information and he let us down with insults. I'm inclined to think that he feels threatened by the fact that several of us actually do understand what he's doing (or at least trying to do) and that it isn't all that unique. It then becomes easier to tell us that we can't possibly understand or know, without actually understanding or knowing what we do know.
FWIW, I just finished the '08 version of the Manhattan Beach Wine Auction poster and when I get back in the studio and can pull a composite version I'll post it, as it's a fun image that I think everyone will enjoy.
Does it come with some wine?:D
Please do post it Peter. Always a pleasure seeing your work.
I will Nick. I'm going to try and organize it in a way that will help people thinking about trying those types of images. It's actually one that when I look at the final result and think that if asked to reproduce something similar, I might say no, and yet, it doesn't look all that complicated at first. Okay, enough tease, gotta go wash the little white car now.
I am looking forward as well.
Stravinsky's portrait by Newman is excellent
but this is jaw dropping:
(and there are other pictures that I like even more)
[but some are mine :]
>You can confirm it as being a dream go and research all the masters of photography or if you wish ten great master of photography. <br />And then select from their work one photograph that actually is jaw dropping,. <br />Yes Surprise there are none! <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=14vCZyWhE1NLf8BWKSBHDbOqSOmRSL0" /></a> <img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/14vCZyWhE1NLf8BWKSBHDbOqSOmRSL0_thumb.jpg" border="0" /> <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1H9icnSus56fHboBAsRQdVecGxkt2e1" /></a> <img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1H9icnSus56fHboBAsRQdVecGxkt2e1_thumb.jpg" border="0" /> <br /> <br />Perhaps it's just me, but that's some pretty jaw-dropping ****! (Pardon my French.) <br /> <br />Credit: The late, great Eddie Adams
Excellent use of uplight to communicate the sinister.
I don't remember it being a color print.
I saw a video of that shooting not long ago. It was just as horrifying, but maybe because I knew the still i was pre-conditioned.
shep, to me (from a photographic point of view) the pictures you posted are not better than puppy shots.
the subject matter is jaw dropping for sure
(but not the photography)
[which is good, but not more than that]
I feel the same way. they were taken under extraordinary circumstances, which certainly makes for some dramatic images, but i would not say its amazing photography. just a terribly sad moment captured on film. I wonder how one finds themselves in that situation and actually shoot that shot,knowing whats going to happen.