# What camera i would use for specific shoots..



## donny1963 (Feb 11, 2016)

I had a guy ask me what camera i would use for specific shoots, and that was an easy question to answer..

In all the years i been doing photography, i have covered just about every type of photography out there, with the exception of wild life...

For Portrait depending what kind of portrait. If i was intending to publish the portrait, i would use a Hasselblad H5D,   because nothing beats that camera really, as far as quality and sharpness.

if the portrait was for lets say family portrait or children portrait, then i would use my Nikon D810,  that would be fine..

for Landscape, again, if i was intending to publish it then i would use the hasselblad..

For shooting weddings most of the time the Nikon D810 would be great..  If it was a high-end wedding maybe for a celeb or wealthy then you would want to use the hasselblad..

Alot of people don't understand the major difference in quality using the hasselblad vs a full frame camera like the Nikon D810 or the canon 5D mark III.

The Hasselblad is much better, sharper better quality, the dynamic range is greater so the color is richer and better.
I've listened to people say a nikon D10 will do just as good a job, but that is not true at all.

If you don't understand the difference or believe me just watch this video from one of the best photographers in the world..


----------



## Derrel (Feb 11, 2016)

We're you the person hyping Hassy,Hassy,Hassy,Hassy for nude figure sets last month...even though 95 out of 100 of the ones sold and published are shot with a d-slr?


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 11, 2016)

Derrel said:


> We're you the person hyping Hassy,Hassy,Hassy,Hassy for nude figure sets last month...even though 95 out of 100 of the ones sold and published are shot with a d-slr?



Maybe i did talk about the hassy before,  i never said that other camera's can't do the job, but what i did say was that the hassy is the best and med format camera's are far  superior to DSLR  any qualified professional photographer would agree with that, DSLR's can't compete with the high dynamic range and sharpness the hassy can deliver,  and the price of one compared to the DSLR is so much more of course, but there is a reason for that, when you ever use one you will see where all the extra $$ went.

And there is a reason why Playboy used only a hassy to create thier pictures, not just for the magazine but for other medium.

People did try and argue that DSLR camera's can do just as good a job, but that is so laughable,  if they could do just as good a job why would one spend 40,000.00 for such a camera if a 3,000.00 Camera can do the same thing?
that's nonsense, it's not the amount of money that makes the camera great, that's not what i'm saying the point was there is a reason why a good hassy is 40k and the best dslr are 4 to 5 k at most..
and one other example,  with a hassy you can take a photo at 800 ISO and print it more then 20 feet tall with out noise in it, a DSLR could never produce such quality at 800 ISO in a print that large,   not even close,  the hassy can because of the size of the recording sensor, and the high dynamic range.
also another great thing about that camera it has no flash sync limitations, that gives you so may options in what you can do.
any way that video i posted explains all that and the photographer who created it is one of the best anywhere, he is a well know photographer and trainer.
you can't say what karl taylor stated on that video is not true...

Donny


----------



## spiralout462 (Feb 11, 2016)

Show me the pics!  This thread is pretty worthless without them


----------



## jcdeboever (Feb 11, 2016)

Hassy, smashy... where's my Pentax K1000... I'm sure they're fine camera's if you got the money for one. I knew a real fine photographer in my day (he passed away) and the guy could get a good photo out of a toy camera. He always told me it is not the camera but the person behind it. I believe him because I keep throwing money at gear and my pics still suck.


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 11, 2016)

jcdeboever said:


> Hassy, smashy... where's my Pentax K1000... I'm sure they're fine camera's if you got the money for one. I knew a real fine photographer in my day (he passed away) and the guy could get a good photo out of a toy camera. He always told me it is not the camera but the person behind it. I believe him because I keep throwing money at gear and my pics still suck.



of course you still have to have some skill in photography to get great pictures consistently.  If you doing poorly in photography, getting a better camera isn't going to make you a better photographer,   for instance just because i go out and buy a $500.00 frying pan isn't going to make me a better chef,.
But, if you understand the essence of how photography works, and have a decent knowledge in lighting then you have something to work with and of course being able to see a great picture before you take the picture and figure out how your going to do it, that is going to help you a great deal.

I'm not saying that the camera makes the photographer great, i was just saying have the superior equipment to work with does help.
another aspect of photography is the ability to apply composition how to frame your picture, they are so many variables of this to cover.
best thing you can do is take some classes from some one who is qualified to teach you, and to take some photography lighting classes.

they are tons of photographers who give tutorials on this, but select who's tutorials you watch selectively, they are some out there claiming to know what they are talking about but have no portfolio,  i always believe if your going to watch experts tutorial videos see what there work looks like, if they can't show any great images they done then what makes them qualified to be able to help you produce great images if they can't even accomplish that.
Karl Taylor is one who i watch if there is something i would like to learn about,. no matter how good you are or how great you think you are, there is always something more to learn.. Every good photographer learns something new every day..
check out Karl Taylor's videos i think you will find his video's helpful.

Karl Taylor

Take Better Photographs Quickly - Better Photography Tips by Karl Taylor Photography Courses.


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 11, 2016)

spiralout462 said:


> Show me the pics!  This thread is pretty worthless without them


I can't post his pictures on here, that belongs to him, but you can see all that stuff below,

this guy does shoots for Hollywood, Gaming industry,
some of the shoots he does just to produce cost more then a $100,000.00  some of them not all..




*www.karltaylorportfolio.com*
Karl Taylor

Take Better Photographs Quickly - Better Photography Tips by Karl Taylor Photography Courses.

here is some great stuff he did on video,
Film/Video


----------



## Derrel (Feb 11, 2016)

I can't go to the store this weekend...I do not have a Maserati...


----------



## Tim Tucker (Feb 12, 2016)

I have to admit that I got a little bored and didn't read all your post. Once I read the first line I really only skimmed the rest.
It is a well known phenomenon that technology stifles creativity. Very simply, when you rely on the technology, (i.e. the camera), to take the shot you tend to let the technology take care of the details and you cease to look quite so hard at what your doing. You stop observing and when you stop observing you also stop understanding.
This is demonstrated very nicely in your third sentence of your original post. You think it's the camera that creates a sharp image so you've stopped looking and consequently don't understand the principles of sharpness in images.

Here are two examples that will throw a spanner in the works and show that it's you who doesn't understand photographic principles because you rely on technology so you've simply stopped looking and understanding the results:

1) Take any image that looks sharp on your screen and zoom in on it. Go to 200% and see the sharpness disappear. Underlying principal: no image is sharp they only *appear* sharp when viewed a a certain size and distance. It's really as simple as that, understanding that images only possess *apparent sharpness* and not *actual sharpness* will lead you to the inevitable question, "what is it that makes images *appear* sharp?" You observe and you understand.

2) Here is a shot of mine that I've posted before, and I'll post again because it demonstrates something very interesting. It clearly demonstrates that sharpness is not absolute but relative and as much a function of your subject as it is the camera. Shot with a D600 and a mid 70's manual focus Nikkor lens. The plane of sharp focus is very definitely on the foreground window pane, I know it is because I took the shot and that's exactly what I focussed on. Now look at the pier in the lower right and you'll see that even at this re-size it appears slightly softer. Now look at the water through the two lower left panes and you'll see that it appears sharper and more in focus to a distance far beyond that of the pier. _How can something that's further out of focus appear sharper than something clearly further in focus in the same shot?_  The technology, (i.e. the camera and lens), is constant across the frame so the effect of the greater apparent sharpness of the water is clearly independent of this. And if I can show you a shot where something that's *clearly out of focus* can look apparently sharp how much of an effect do you think sensor resolution really has? You observe and you understand.






I'll not go into the relative merits of different formats, only point out that they have different *relative* merits, differing strengths and weaknesses. If you observe you will understand. After all the claims you re-post are probably made by people who are trying to sell you a more expensive camera.


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 12, 2016)

Tim Tucker said:


> I have to admit that I got a little bored and didn't read all your post. Once I read the first line I really only skimmed the rest.
> It is a well known phenomenon that technology stifles creativity. Very simply, when you rely on the technology, (i.e. the camera), to take the shot you tend to let the technology take care of the details and you cease to look quite so hard at what your doing. You stop observing and when you stop observing you also stop understanding.
> This is demonstrated very nicely in your third sentence of your original post. You think it's the camera that creates a sharp image so you've stopped looking and consequently don't understand the principles of sharpness in images.
> 
> ...




I do agree with your post,  obviously if you rely on technology then everything about photography goes away, at least for me, what got me hooked on photography was the challenge,  i stared before the Digital days, and when i started shooting models,  i didn't have a digital camera, i started shooting models in 1995.
i used a nikon coolscan to scan my slides, Yes i said slides, i use Fuji Velvia ISO 50, because if the extra sharpness, how ever, doing so the trade off was in light, in order to get a proper exposure with that i had to have more light, and when shooting in slides, slides are unforgiving if you make a mistake, you have very little adjustments you can make to correct any errors,  with print how ever they can fix that to a point,  but with the slides, " what you see is what you get"
The reason i used that film was because of the sharpness,  see Fuji Velvia was sappose to be for landscape because it was saturated , maybe too saturated, but i developed a system that worked for me, i use that on a NIkon F5 , using  Minolta Portrayer softening filter.
Weather it was in the studio or out on location i used that.
How ever just Because i love the Hassy , doesn't mean i rely on technology,  i use that to my advantage and do shoots i could never do before with DSLR, for instance take advantage of the fact there is no Flash sync so i can be more created with light, and the ability to get 28% more light into my camera then i could with a DSLR system....   And and since camera's went digital NO DLSR camera will do true iso 50 speed.. Which is what i loved to used back in the days before digital the best i get is 64 ISO with my NIKON D810,  yes i can set it to 50, but that is not true ISO 50..  The Hasselblad does.. Of course i can afford to own one, because they range in the 40,000.00 for just the body, but i have a friend who has one and i uses his, or there is this place close by that rents professional equipment out, and i take advantage of that when i have a project going..

here is a picture done back before digital days and that was done with iso 50 slides,,
i have to reduce the size because this form says the images are too large so..

View attachment 115723 View attachment 115724


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 12, 2016)

now here is something done with digital camera..


----------



## tirediron (Feb 12, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> I had a guy ask me what camera i would use for specific shoots, and that was an easy question to answer..
> 
> In all the years i been doing photography, i have covered just about every type of photography out there, with the exception of wild life...
> 
> ...


 Are you applying for Ken Rockwell's position with Hasselblad?


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 12, 2016)

tirediron said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > I had a guy ask me what camera i would use for specific shoots, and that was an easy question to answer..
> ...





ha funny, nope,  not promoting it, but love the camera..


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 12, 2016)

of course i love doing Black&White not sure if i'm able to post nudity on here, but i like the texture with black&whiteView attachment 115731


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 12, 2016)

Not sure if posting a nude pic is ok, but    I love the texture of black&White..

*Sorry, but nudity is restricted to the Nude/NSFW forum.  Thanks.*


----------



## thereyougo! (Feb 12, 2016)

Nudity or no, I'm not sure what it has to do with the subject.  Plus on that one there is an awful lot of dead space around her, and the trees are a bit of an eccentric backdrop from my point of view...


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 12, 2016)

What you're using it for will have a huge factor on which camera.  Most people also don't realize that AF system on most MF cameras suck compare to high end 35mm DSLR's (especially in low light), on top of bulky in size, slow frame rate, among other things.  So, pros and cons for each tool.  In the end, it's the photographer's experience and creative vision that clients will go after.

On that note, experience doesn't always mean creativity.  Some people shoot their entire life time and still don't have it.  Those are the ones that always bring up their experience.  LOL  Let your work speak for itself.  If you have to bring up your experience every time, most likely your work sucks.


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 12, 2016)

Vtec44 said:


> In the end, what you're using it for will have a huge factor on which camera.  Most people also don't realize that AF system on most MF cameras suck compare to high end 35mm DSLR's (especially in low light), on top of bulky in size, slow frame rate, among other things.  So, pros and cons for each tool.  In the end, it's the photographer's experience and creative vision that clients will go after.
> 
> On that note, experience doesn't always mean creativity.  Some people shoot their entire life time and still don't have it.  Those are the ones that always bring up their experience.  LOL  Let your work speak for itself.  If you have to bring up your experience every time, most likely your work sucks.



Not all tho,  just because some one would bring up thier experience don't mean they suck lol.
experience is needed, you said it your self,.  *"In the end, it's the photographer's experience and creative vision that clients will go after."*

i doubt some one with out any experience would be very creative,  some maybe..
it's the vision,  for me any way, it's what i see before i click the shutter, it's an idea, besides, when you talk about creativity , that could mean anything any way.
Because, you would ask creative in what way?  creative, in the lighting?, the composition?  or maybe both..
the comment the other guy left about     * "awful lot of dead space around her, and the trees are a bit of an eccentric backdrop from my point of view..."*

that's just an opinion, and personal taste, doesn't mean the picture isn't any good.   the way i see it,  its' all about what the photographer was going after is what counts..


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 12, 2016)

thereyougo! said:


> Nudity or no, I'm not sure what it has to do with the subject.  Plus on that one there is an awful lot of dead space around her, and the trees are a bit of an eccentric backdrop from my point of view...




that's just an opinion, and personal taste, doesn't mean the picture isn't any good. the way i see it, its' all about what the photographer was going after is what counts..


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 12, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> Not all tho,  just because some one would bring up thier experience don't mean they suck lol.
> experience is needed, you said it your self,.  *"In the end, it's the photographer's experience and creative vision that clients will go after."*
> 
> i doubt some one with out any experience would be very creative,  some maybe..
> ...



The consistency of my work is mainly due to the experience that I have.  Long time photographers are typically consistent with their work.  Creativity is more or less a mindset, and photography just happens to be a medium to express that.  People can be creative in other mediums.  I paint, I draw, I sketch, I make things way before photography.  I don't need photography experience to have a creative mindset.  I need the experience if I want to express it in that medium.  They are two different  things.  This is why in wedding photography industry, often older photographers (experience) are left behind by younger photographers (less experience but lots of creativity).


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Feb 12, 2016)

I use a Kodak easyshare. Best dr of them all


----------



## thereyougo! (Feb 12, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> > Nudity or no, I'm not sure what it has to do with the subject.  Plus on that one there is an awful lot of dead space around her, and the trees are a bit of an eccentric backdrop from my point of view...
> ...



My main point is that these images have bugger all to do with the thread's title.  You may be the OP, but you still have to stay largely relevant to the thread's title or start a new thread that is relevant to what you want to say...


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 12, 2016)

thereyougo! said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > thereyougo! said:
> ...


more then often a topic changes during the converstations,, i can't  help it if a tread shifts to another..
If your going to join in a forum you would have to get use to that, because it happens often..
:/


----------



## Tim Tucker (Feb 13, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> that's just an opinion, and personal taste, doesn't mean the picture isn't any good. the way i see it, its' all about what the photographer was going after is what counts..



Not really. It's not about what you intend to do but what you actually produce, and the best judge of whether you've succeeded in your endeavour is other people's opinion. My personal opinion is that I didn't like it, my _unbiased_ opinion is that it exhibited a number of problems both technically and in the way you edited and presented it. 

What people actually see is not always what you think that you're presenting. For instance, _absolutely totally unbiased and without implying any criticism_, what I see is this. I see you talking about as lot of expensive cameras and how you wouldn't use crop frame for this or that, but the only photos I see that you've posted are all taken with the Canon D50. You talk of extensive work with models but I've only seen a few shots that are poorly posed, over edited and utilise direct onboard flash. I don't see a great understanding of editing techniques or composition. The two 'model' shots that were shot on film not only show sophisticated lighting and a neutral colour balance that was missing from the work you've otherwise posted, but are also jpegs that have been passed through Camera Raw and exhibit a number of artefacts that are inconsistent with having been scanned from slides.

Now I don't doubt what you say, I'm just pointing out that what others see is not always what you think you're presenting, as is the case of the nude with the bush.


----------



## thereyougo! (Feb 13, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> > donny1963 said:
> ...



Are you a professional patroniser or have you just started out?  

I have been a member of this forum for nearly 6 years and I am well used to topics going 'off piste' so to speak - am sometimes guilty of it myself.

As the OP it's kind of your responsibility to keep things on track as much as possible.  Throwing out a lot of NSFW photos without bothering to check the rules of the site (and this site's rules are pretty visible) fails Forum 101.  You didn't make it clear what point you were making with the photos.  The NSFW section is pretty easy to find.  I would give you a link, but you're so clever you won't need it 

I'm with Tim on the actual images.  An opinion is an opinion, but once you put it an image out there, people are going to make their own opinions felt based on how you present and re-present your work.  To me the BW nude looked grey and a little lifeless, and the trees didn't add anything at all.  You don't feel that way, and that is fine  I just wasn't sure what point you were making with the images as it didn't seem to be saying how relevant the image was to the choice of camera used.


----------



## SCraig (Feb 13, 2016)

Tim Tucker said:


> Not really. It's not about what you intend to do but what you actually produce, and the best judge of whether you've succeeded in your endeavour is other people's opinion. My personal opinion is that I didn't like it, my _unbiased_ opinion is that it exhibited a number of problems both technically and in the way you edited and presented it.


I tend to disagree with this for a couple of reasons, however I freely admit that I may be taking it out of context since I didn't bother to read the entire thread.  I get bored easily.

First, an "Unbiased Opinion" is a misnomer in my opinion since the two words can be, and frequently are, mutually exclusive.  I feel that to be "Unbiased" a statement must be grounded in fact however an "Opinion" may be based strictly on conjecture or one's personal interpretation.  A statement can be a personal opinion or it can be unbiased but I don't feel that it can be an unbiased opinion.

Second, I feel that what one intends to do with a photograph *IS* the most important concept.  Unless one is creating a photograph for sale or on commission their personal view of the photograph is *ALL* that matters.

I can create a photograph that is mathematically correct in that the exposure, contrast and saturation are exactly where they should be, but if it's not what I "Want" then it doesn't matter.  If I want to produce something that is misty or hazy I might cut back on the contrast and saturation.  It may not be technically correct, but it may well be what I wanted to see.  If I am producing the photograph for my own personal enjoyment then what I want is all that matters.  Whether other people view it as lacking contrast or saturation is secondary to me as long as the photograph shows what I wanted it to show.  The photograph may not be technically correct but from my point of view it expresses what I wanted. I do agree that there are certain aspects that are either right or wrong though, and they should be avoided.  JPEG artifacts, halos around subjects, blown highlights, etc.  These truly are technical aspects and are not perceptual.

Composition and presentation are yet another matter.  There are no cut-and-dried "Rules" in photography, only "Accepted Methods".  I can create a photograph that is composed the way I want it to be and it can then be ripped to shreds by others as not being properly composed.  Who is right and who is wrong?  In my opinion, if I like the photograph I'm right and they are wrong yet in their minds they are right and I'm wrong.  It's all a matter of perception.

I personally detest the pastel, hazy, washed out look that is so prevalent these days.  I also detest over-saturated HDR, black-and-white, and selective colorization.  If someone else enjoys looking at them does that make them right and me wrong, does it make me right and them wrong, or does it matter not at all?  Unless I'm paying them to create a photograph the way I want it to be then it matters not in the slightest.

This is not to say that the opinions of others are not important, nor does it mean that we cannot learn from the experience and advice of others.  Far from it, I feel that the opinions of others are quite important.  I do feel that one must decide for themselves how a photograph should be presented and from that perspective decide whether the advice they are receiving will benefit the photograph.  I listen to the advice I receive but that doesn't mean I'll use it every time.  In the end my photographs are mine and I am the only one I have to please.

Again, I am of the opinion that what one plans to do with a photograph is quite important.  If they plan to sell it or are creating it for someone else then the opinions of those receiving the photograph are critical and they are what need to be considered.  If, on the other hand, one is creating a photograph for their own enjoyment then the opinions of someone else are secondary to the result.

Just my personal opinion .....


----------



## Tim Tucker (Feb 13, 2016)

SCraig said:


> I tend to disagree with this for a couple of reasons, however I freely admit that I may be taking it out of context since I didn't bother to read the entire thread.  I get bored easily.
> 
> _Snip_.....



Again, not really. You might want to read my entire post as I'm talking about the difference between the image you try and present and the image others actually see, the very essence of perception.

Technically correct has nothing to do with settings on the camera but how well you actually look and see the results you post. This is as simple as not even seeing colour casts on your images or presenting heavily over-sharpened images as artistic choice rather than a gross misunderstanding of how we see and perceive relative acutance.

I'm keeping this post shorter than my last short post in the hope that you'll get to the end of it.


----------



## thereyougo! (Feb 13, 2016)

What about biased or unbiased lol 

Sure you can have your own view on how you present your media. I don't think Tim is disagreeing with this and neither am I. It depends whether you want the image to speak to people and if so how. If it doesn't speak to people the way you intended then you have to investigate why if you care whether it is speaking to people. 

All of this discussion is fine but is completely irrelevant to the OP but since the OP himself doesn't care about OT it doesn't matter, though I suspect it will kill the thread. It's like a Monty Python show.


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 13, 2016)

Tim Tucker said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > that's just an opinion, and personal taste, doesn't mean the picture isn't any good. the way i see it, its' all about what the photographer was going after is what counts..
> ...


hey, hate to tell ya, but your wrong, it's not all with the Canon 50D, the last 2 i posted was with a NIKON F5, not a cannon, sorry..
and you said i poorly posed them, first off the lingerie pic i posted here won a Lingerie contest, so again what your seeing is your opinion, and i don't believe i'ts an unbiased opinion, i think your trying to impress some one and try to critic a picture, i know the difference, trust me i been round the block probably a few more times they you have..
and i have looked at your postings to other on here, 90% of them is negative, are you in your own mind the only one that does something correctly?
have you ever sent a positive message about some ones work, if you did i all your postings i didn't see it, must be on some other forum.


what i posted on here was for the message and not to impress any one with what i done, if i done that i would have posted my other stuff.
And your opinion of how i work with models is so wrong, i use to pose models for a publishing company for lingerie and wedding garments..
And did that for 3 years, i'm quite sure i knew what i was doing.. :/
By the way that poorly posed lingerie picture won a lingerie contest at a couple of places,,   And was published on a couple of websites.
Yes they are old, back in 1999 is when i believe them pictures was taken, what What was you shooting in 1999??


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 13, 2016)

thereyougo! said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > thereyougo! said:
> ...




I didn't mind it going off track, it happens,  and it's not a bad, thing, every have a conversation with a group of guys in person? do you keep with the same subject or change it afer a couple min?  most change it,, most people move on in a conversation, it's how things work.
it's not a bad thing, in fact it's normal..
I'm not going to direct every one on how and when to keep on topic. it's up to every one else if they choose to change the topic a bit, conversations move on.
No big deal..


----------



## thereyougo! (Feb 13, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> > donny1963 said:
> ...



But it was you who was dragging it off subject. Tim does in fact make positive feedback. He can be critical but that's much better than saying 'nice'


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 13, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> what i posted on here was for the message and not to impress any one with what i done, if i done that i would have posted my other stuff.
> And your opinion of how i work with models is so wrong, i use to pose models for a publishing company for lingerie and wedding garments..
> And did that for 3 years, i'm quite sure i knew what i was doing.. :/
> By the way that poorly posed lingerie picture won a lingerie contest at a couple of places,,   And was published on a couple of websites.
> Yes they are old, back in 1999 is when i believe them pictures was taken, what What was you shooting in 1999??



To be honest, for the amount of experience that you claim to have, your posted work so far looks amateur or dated at best.  Some of the basic fundamentals of cropping, composition, and lighting are just really bad.  I wouldn't say it to someone who's just starting out, we all started out somewhere but since you have so much experience those things should have been corrected at least in your 2nd year of shooting.


----------



## Tim Tucker (Feb 13, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> hey, hate to tell ya, but your wrong, it's not all with the Canon 50D, the last 2 i posted was with a NIKON F5, not a cannon, sorry..
> and you said i poorly posed them, first off the lingerie pic i posted here won a Lingerie contest, so again what your seeing is your opinion, and i don't believe i'ts an unbiased opinion, i think your trying to impress some one and try to critic a picture, i know the difference, trust me i been round the block probably a few more times they you have..



LOL, is this the right room for an argument?  I'm not sure which won the award but the first shows the gaffer tape holding the top of the canework together and the edge of the set to the left, the second looks as though it was shot from slightly off set as well, all you have to do is look and it's really plain to see. I would really rather have you on this site as an experienced photographer, not as someone making claims and blowing smoke and shall always give you the benefit of doubt. But this is a forum of photographers practiced in the visual art, or the art of looking and seeing. Don't expect them not to notice things you plainly put in front of their eyes.
As a serious and honest response to your question, in 1999 I was still shooting a Nikon F2 and had just purchased my Marion & Co half plate off a friend. Here are the very beasts and as well as I can remember images I took with them around 1999. Both originally developed and printed in the bathroom, but scanned in comfort at a later date.  (These are shots I took of my actual cameras).

My Nikon F2 which I still have:






One of the shots I took with it in 1999 (fully clothed but with a bush of sorts):





My Marion & Co half plate which I still have and use:





And one of the shots I took with it (this is a scan of an actual finished print):





I really wish for a more constructive exchange in future threads, the very best of shooting.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 13, 2016)

Vtec44 said:


> To be honest, for the amount of experience that you claim to have, your posted work so far looks amateur or dated at best.  Some of the basic fundamentals of cropping, composition, and lighting are just really bad.  I wouldn't say it to someone who's just starting out, we all started out somewhere but since you have so much experience those things should have been corrected at least in your 2nd year of shooting.


I have to agree!  To be brutally frank, the three images you posted back on the first page are the types of images that look like 'before' examples in a posing workshop.


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 13, 2016)

I had a Nikon F2 before the F5, the F5 really just had more bells and whistles, both camera's did just as good a job.
I really didn't like the F5, i made a mistake in getting it, because after i used it, i found it to be big and awkward, to use, it was huge, and made it more difficult to move around, and then if you had a zoom lens on it it made it even more heavy.
I'm glad now the Camera's i got are not that huge. but they are nice pictues there..
But as far as the pictures you mention, they was not from a digital..
The top is Nikon F5
The bottom Digital
I know nudity isn't allowed on this forum, so i posted these.


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 13, 2016)

tirediron said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > To be honest, for the amount of experience that you claim to have, your posted work so far looks amateur or dated at best.  Some of the basic fundamentals of cropping, composition, and lighting are just really bad.  I wouldn't say it to someone who's just starting out, we all started out somewhere but since you have so much experience those things should have been corrected at least in your 2nd year of shooting.
> ...



that's Because they was before, as i posted those was the un-edited pictures.


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 13, 2016)

here is a couple  more untouched images..
done with a crop sensor camera....


----------



## thereyougo! (Feb 13, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> > donny1963 said:
> ...



But it was you who was dragging it off subject. Tim does in fact make positive feedback. He can be critical but that's much better than saying 'nice'


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 13, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> I had a Nikon F2 before the F5, the F5 really just had more bells and whistles, both camera's did just as good a job.
> I really didn't like the F5, i made a mistake in getting it, because after i used it, i found it to be big and awkward, to use, it was huge, and made it more difficult to move around, and then if you had a zoom lens on it it made it even more heavy.
> I'm glad now the Camera's i got are not that huge. but they are nice pictues there..
> But as far as the pictures you mention, they was not from a digital..
> ...





donny1963 said:


> here is a couple  more untouched images..
> done with a crop sensor camera....



Yikes...


----------



## thereyougo! (Feb 13, 2016)

Does anyone have a popcorn making machine?  I hesitate to use the T word, but an OP that doesn't care about keeping his own topic on point is a bit odd.  Seriously Donny, if you want a different discussion, start a different thread.  I can see this one getting locked at some point.  Throwing in images as if they speak for themselves without actually bothering to say what they mean is really quite random in my view.

Kindly make your point, as throwing in some model pictures and then some NSFW images and then some landscapes makes for a rather odd thread.  What is the point in the photos?  What ARE you trying to prove? I'm confused.


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 13, 2016)

thereyougo! said:


> What is the point in the photos?  What ARE you trying to prove? I'm confused.



My guess is that the photos are suppose to show his skills as a long time and experienced photographer of many genres, based on how he always bring up how long he has been shooting then follow with some pictures.  However, I think it has the opposite effect since the quality of the photos is not up to par and all look amateurish.   I typically don't care but since this is a self proclaim expert, I expect a whole lot more.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 13, 2016)

I've been waiting to see some awesome Hasselblad digital medium format images thrown into the mix of this thread, you know, for discussion.


----------



## thereyougo! (Feb 13, 2016)

Let's hope he doesn't go out and pay for a hassie.  If he did it would remind me of an X Factor UK audition where a singer walked in and announced that he had spent £30k fitting out a studio in his house, and then when he sang he sounded like a very average karaoke singer.  Not terrible, but not good either.

Simon Cowell told him that his studio was a great investment.  Not for him, but to rent out to others who *could *perform.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 13, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Vtec44 said:
> ...


Fair enough; are the two above 'before' or 'after'?


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 14, 2016)

Vtec44 said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> > What is the point in the photos?  What ARE you trying to prove? I'm confused.
> ...



I don't claim to be an expert,  yeah i been doing it a long time, and the comment about it being  amateurish is not true, say what you want, i know that isn't true,  and nope i don't get opposite effects, from every one...
So who have you worked for? where have you got your work published?


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 14, 2016)

tirediron said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



What the landscape or the models??


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 14, 2016)

ya know any one can find something negative about a photo, even if it's a good photo.  like that one you posted the last one below..
watch..
that picture has too much sky, the top is too big it sets viewers eyes off the main focus of the picture, they don't know weather to focus on the sky or the ground, and they can't figure out weather it's black & White or Semi color?  it's greenish on the bottom.

see what i mean?
Every one's a critic, but very few are positive about it, except when it comes to there own work. :/


----------



## wezza13 (Feb 14, 2016)

C'mon guys, join date of Dec 2015, right after a known troll had been banned for the second time?

And this thread also appears to be some sort of wind-up....


----------



## tirediron (Feb 14, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> What the landscape or the models??


The two models; I missed the landscapes.


----------



## thereyougo! (Feb 14, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> ya know any one can find something negative about a photo, even if it's a good photo.  like that one you posted the last one below..
> watch..
> that picture has too much sky, the top is too big it sets viewers eyes off the main focus of the picture, they don't know weather to focus on the sky or the ground, and they can't figure out weather it's black & White or Semi color?  it's greenish on the bottom.
> 
> ...



If the weather is white it is probably snowing.  Whether it is too cold for you is another matter.  #spellinghitleralert.

Oh dear did I just invoke Godwin's law with that hashtag?  I guess that makes this thread over...


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 14, 2016)

Derrel said:


> I've been waiting to see some awesome Hasselblad digital medium format images thrown into the mix of this thread, you know, for discussion.





tirediron said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > What the landscape or the models??
> ...



the two models are before, well the first one is the second one is after.


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 14, 2016)

Derrel said:


> I've been waiting to see some awesome Hasselblad digital medium format images thrown into the mix of this thread, you know, for discussion.



i don't own a hasselblad but know people who do, i have used it for various stuff, or when ever i'm with him, here is a couple i done with it..


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 14, 2016)

wezza13 said:


> C'mon guys, join date of Dec 2015, right after a known troll had been banned for the second time?
> 
> And this thread also appears to be some sort of wind-up....



Are you trying to say i'm some one who was on here?
Nope, sorry never been on here, and yes serious about photography..


----------



## tirediron (Feb 14, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > I've been waiting to see some awesome Hasselblad digital medium format images thrown into the mix of this thread, you know, for discussion.
> ...


Soooo........  the cigarette butt is what?  An artistic detail carefully placed to add an air of informality?


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 14, 2016)

tirediron said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



No left it in there, that pic is only out of light Room, it's not out of photoshop.
In Photoshop i can mask it out.

I could have probably taken it out with Light Room as well maybe, but Photoshop would be my choice..
when i took that shot i didn't realize it before i took the picture, i was taking pictures fairly quick moving around.
Stuff like that happens in situations like that, you can't tell me you never taken a picture and after during post production you notice something you didn't want in the picture and then mask it out?


----------



## tirediron (Feb 14, 2016)




----------



## donny1963 (Feb 14, 2016)

tirediron said:


>



If you claim you never taken a picture and then realize later something was there you didn't notice later on, and then go and mask it out during post production, then that would be a lie.. Every photographer has had that happen one time or another..


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 14, 2016)

tirediron said:


>


by the way i like the 5212-Chennai picture, i love the tone of Black & White..
one of the best black & White picture's ive seen is the one i just posted, no i didn't do that one.
Tales From The Meadows


----------



## Derrel (Feb 14, 2016)

Lightroom is not the best software for cloning things out, but I imported the file to LR and cloned it out with two clicks. When I first got LR, after having had PS for 15 years, I felt pretty frustrated with the way Lightroom's clone tool worked, but I've since then become more comfortable using it for cloning out objectionable things, like sensor dust blobs, but also stray hairs, pores, pimples, and rough skin patches. I LIKE the easy way LR allows me to re-size the brush I'm using for doing my cloning.


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 14, 2016)

Derrel said:


> Lightroom is not the best software for cloning things out, but I imported the file to LR and cloned it out with two clicks. When I first got LR, after having had PS for 15 years, I felt pretty frustrated with the way Lightroom's clone tool worked, but I've since then become more comfortable using it for cloning out objectionable things, like sensor dust blobs, but also stray hairs, pores, pimples, and rough skin patches. I LIKE the easy way LR allows me to re-size the brush I'm using for doing my cloning.



I don't normally use Light Room to clone things out, it's not really good for stuff like that, and i don't use clone much any more to take things out,  i would rather use masking for something like that depending, i been using Photoshop for years, but now just lease both Light Room & Photoshop, why spend a  all that money on both and have to pay for a newer release, when all i do is lease both for $10.00 a month and when a new release comes out i get it..
I do a ton of things with Photoshop, been using it for years,  everything i do in Photoshop for that type of thing is create layers and masks and layers for every step i do, and then group them later on if i like. 
there is always more to learn with Photoshop and Light Room,  i got books on them and have taken classes from experts , one of my favorite's is
Photoshop Tutorials & Photography   this guy is an expert with both and you can learn just about anything about that subject with him.


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 14, 2016)

Derrel said:


> Lightroom is not the best software for cloning things out, but I imported the file to LR and cloned it out with two clicks. When I first got LR, after having had PS for 15 years, I felt pretty frustrated with the way Lightroom's clone tool worked, but I've since then become more comfortable using it for cloning out objectionable things, like sensor dust blobs, but also stray hairs, pores, pimples, and rough skin patches. I LIKE the easy way LR allows me to re-size the brush I'm using for doing my cloning.



By the way light room is mainly for re-touching / post production,  it has a tool you can use to remove spots and stuff like that, but it's horrible to remove objects or major editing like that, it can be done but why bust your cookies like that when you can do it much faster and easier with Photoshop, each software has it's place and area, and light room is not one of them for that type of editing.
it's mainly for like what it says light room , what you would do in a photo lab, ie,  fixing exposures, color balance, editing blacks and whites and color saturation and even lens manipulation.

I shoot some green screen portraits and fashion shoots and use that to create backgrounds i took separately, like if some one would like a portrait of there children in background maybe christmas pictures, or what ever, or even models i taken and really don't have the means to bring them there and later put them in backgrounds i done.  That is where photoshop comes in.   or if i took a picture out in the city and want to remove annoying objects in it like a lamp post or what ever i use photoshop. or created stuff like these images i'm posting.

they are a couple other very good ones i done but can't post it here because it has nudity in it..


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 14, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> I don't claim to be an expert,  yeah i been doing it a long time, and the comment about it being  amateurish is not true, say what you want, i know that isn't true,  and nope i don't get opposite effects, from every one...
> So who have you worked for? where have you got your work published?



I've shot for Macy's as their house photographer, yeah that Macy's.  My work has been published on Wedding Wire, The Knott, Borrowed and Blue (yeah you know some of the world's largest wedding blog networks).  I shoot film (Kodak Portra 400 and 800 to be specific).  I'm traditionally trained (Bachelor of Arts with an emphasis on digital art).  I'm an active member of Nikon Professional Services.  If your work sucks, it doesn't matter how long you've been shooting.  So I don't go around parade that information.  If I do, my photographs better be EPIC vs similar photographers.  LOL


----------



## Tim Tucker (Feb 14, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> i don't use clone much any more to take things out,  i would rather use masking for something like that depending,



Yep, I'd use masking as well, then you'd be able to see what's behind it.


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 14, 2016)

tirediron said:


> Soooo........  the cigarette butt is what?  An artistic detail carefully placed to add an air of informality?



Yep, this is one of the many amateur mistakes that I was referring to.  We all have done when we started out.


tirediron said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...




Yep, this is one of the many amateur mistakes that I was referring to.  We all have done when we started out.


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 14, 2016)

Tim Tucker said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > i don't use clone much any more to take things out,  i would rather use masking for something like that depending,
> ...



I love using layer masks, lets say i got a portrait of a model's face, and i want to paste an object maybe a logo or something, and when i paste the logo and i got the portrait of the model on the left side of the picture and i want the logo to run from left to right of the picture but part of the log is blocking her face, well i can just add a layer mask on that log and then start painting the logo black and it will make it appear that it's behind her rather in over her..
so that's a really cool way to place objects or other pictures in, with out it blocking your main subject,  kind of hard to explain but that is just one of the instances that i would use layer masks to edit or remove objects..
NOTE allways use layers, that way you have the freedom of just effecting what ever your layering instead of the entire picture.
It makes it easier and quicker.


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 14, 2016)

Vtec44 said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Soooo........  the cigarette butt is what?  An artistic detail carefully placed to add an air of informality?
> ...



Not just amateur's make them mistakes,  every one does from time to time, even the best of the best can make that mistake.
nobody is above making a mistake, or to good,  and that specific mistake is really a minor one, takes about 1 minute or less to fix.

I took classes at the Cambridge School Of Photography, one thing i have learned, and know,  that with every photographer, the ratio of a photographer of creating an Ordinary picture, vs an extraordinary picture is not as high as most people think.  In fact after going out on a shoot taking maybe 200 pictures,  you find that your satisfied with maybe 25% of them on a good day depending on how you shoot and what you was doing. Not saying 75% of them would be bad, but the 25% is what you find to be really great and want to use for what ever you did that photo shoot for., like i said depending , if your at a studio and doing a portrait for a customer your going to go over the images with them and  probably only use half if that, that's a different situation.
But lets say for example you go out travel somewhere and shoot landscape, waterfalls, or what not,  and you end up taking a couple hundred though out the day.
And then later you find you really like  probably about 20 to 30 of them and the rest you would either put aside or do nothing with them ever.
Any one who takes a couple hundred pictures and says then went home and all 200 of them or 190 of them was epic pictures and perfect, is full of crap,
I don't care if your Irving Penn...

If you don't know who Irving Penn was, he was photographer known for his fashion photography, portraits,he worked for Vogue magazine, Harper's Bazaar, Saks Fifth Avenue, and did independent advertising work
You could see a lot of his nude work at, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

if you do a Wikipedia on him, his carrier accomplishments are impressive, the list goes on.

He used  a variety of equipment - Leica and Nikon cameras, 4" x 5" or 8" x 10" Deardoff view cameras, or Rolleiflex or Hasselblad cameras.

His most famous stuff was "Cuzco Children"  "Pablo Picasso"

Photographed,  President John F Kennedy, celebrities, like Marilyn Monroe, Al Pacino, Robin Williams, Bill Gates, Cindy Crawford, Gruco Marks, Albert Einstein, Bette Davis, Mel Brooks, the list goes on.

born 1917, died 2009, lived in New York..

Now that was an epic photographer.


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 14, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> Not just amateur's make them mistakes,  every one does from time to time, even the best of the best can make that mistake.
> nobody is above making a mistake, or to good,  and that specific mistake is really a minor one, takes about 1 minute or less to fix.



You'll NEVER see random trash stuff in the portfolio of an experienced photographer.  Dirty feet, crooked vertical and horizontal, cropping joints.   A really small minor one which takes a bout 5 seconds to fix, but you didn't fix it before using it as a show piece.  If it was shot on film, that trash would have been removed prior to the photo.  It shows your amateur mind set.  An photographer with extensive experience would not do something like that.



> I took classes at the Cambridge School Of Photography, one thing i have learned, and know,  that with every photographer, the ratio of a photographer of creating an Ordinary picture, vs an extraordinary picture is not as high as most people think.  In fact after going out on a shoot taking maybe 200 pictures,  you find that your satisfied with maybe 25% of them on a good day depending on how you shoot and what you was doing. Not saying 75% of them would be bad, but the 25% is what you find to be really great and want to use for what ever you did that photo shoot for., like i said depending , if your at a studio and doing a portrait for a customer your going to go over the images with them and  probably only use half if that, that's a different situation.
> But lets say for example you go out travel somewhere and shoot landscape, waterfalls, or what not,  and you end up taking a couple hundred though out the day.
> And then later you find you really like  probably about 20 to 30 of them and the rest you would either put aside or do nothing with them ever.
> Any one who takes a couple hundred pictures and says then went home and all 200 of them or 190 of them was epic pictures and perfect, is full of crap,



It's called curating your images.  It's nothing new or surprising.  I'm not sure why do you even go from taking a few classes to the success ratio. 




> I don't care if your Irving Penn...
> 
> If you don't know who Irving Penn was, he was photographer known for his fashion photography, portraits,he worked for Vogue magazine, Harper's Bazaar, Saks Fifth Avenue, and did independent advertising work
> You could see a lot of his nude work at, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
> ...



Irving Penn is irrelevant to this conversation, so is Ansel Adams, Benjamin Von Wong, and the likes.

Like I said, we all started somewhere.  When you parade your experience, awards, length of shooting, etc. then post sub par work.  You attracted attention to yourself, so expect people to look at your work closely and set the bar much higher.   LOL


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 14, 2016)

Vtec44 said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > Not just amateur's make them mistakes,  every one does from time to time, even the best of the best can make that mistake.
> ...



I don't see that i parade anything, just give information..

And that is not true, Irving Penn was very relevant to my point, what i just saw, was you shifting a point i just made..
That's ok i know how to shift back..


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 14, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> I don't see that i parade anything, just give information..



I will give you information right back.  The quality of your work does not match with the experience you claim to have.  IMHO, you should stop telling people your "extensive" experience.  Maybe then you'll improve your work by starting to actually learn from some of the members on this forum.  

Up to you...


----------



## thereyougo! (Feb 15, 2016)

donny1963 said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > donny1963 said:
> ...



I find it hilarious that you're trying to teach Derrel and others how to do post production. A decent photographer edits before he shoots so there is no need to clone.  How? Remove the cigarette butt before shooting. Intrusive wire? Others may differ but I tend to not shoot at all if it is too intrusive. 

You are no expert and your patronising almost condescending tone is I suspect starting to annoy people I suspect. It certainly makes you come across as an arrogant know-it-all that knows pretty much bigger all.

It also shows you have failed another forum 101 for getting the best from a forum. You haven't bothered to get to know members on here before you teach them PP basics. Derrel is one of the most well known and respected users on here and it's completely passed you by.

Step back from trying to teach others and you might learn something.


----------



## donny1963 (Feb 15, 2016)

thereyougo! said:


> donny1963 said:
> 
> 
> > Vtec44 said:
> ...


----------



## Overread (Feb 15, 2016)

And I think that is quite enough.


----------

