Pages: 1 ... 209 210 [211] 212 213 214   Go Down

Author Topic: Recent Professional Works  (Read 1276694 times)

opgr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1122
    • theimagingfactory
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4200 on: January 31, 2013, 03:34:10 AM »

Kia ora,

This is one of a number of panorama's I took last Sunday for a client of mine.

If you would like to download a high res version go to the link below.

http://www.yousendit.com/download/UW14OU1SZ1BUWUROUjhUQw

Mauri ora

Simon

Finally!

There is a colorspace problem (at least using Safari on Mac). The image seems to have Adobe RGB attached and looks fine when the profile is honored, but if I click the thumbnail, a new window opens where the image shows in horrible colors. Apparently the colorprofile isn't properly honored then.

EDIT:
it seems that the rather extensive EXIF data is reporting "uncalibrated" for colorspace. So, while the image has Adobe RGB attached, the EXIF colorspace apparently takes precedence…

EDIT 2:
The image I see on screen looks very similar to what I get if I *asign* ProPhoto to the original jpg. ? ? ?
« Last Edit: January 31, 2013, 07:31:34 AM by opgr »
Logged
Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory

opgr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1122
    • theimagingfactory
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4201 on: January 31, 2013, 03:38:34 AM »

Two images from a series repurposed, for editorial.

You scared me! For a moment there I thought you were going all Hipstamatic on us… ;-)

Logged
Regards,
Oscar Rysdyk
theimagingfactory

bcooter

  • Guest
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4202 on: January 31, 2013, 03:42:39 AM »

I am.

I'm just waiting for the Iphone 10, with 44 mpx, or the new Nikon F1, that doubles as a phone, mp3 player and watch.

BC
Logged

HarperPhotos

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1310
    • http://www.harperphoto.com
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4204 on: January 31, 2013, 12:32:33 PM »

Thanks Yair.
Logged
Simon Harper
Harper Photographics Ltd
http://www.harperphoto.com
http://www.facebook.com/harper.photographics

Auckland, New Zealand

bcooter

  • Guest
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4205 on: February 01, 2013, 05:43:42 AM »

Just cleared embargo.




BC
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15935
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4206 on: February 01, 2013, 11:43:27 AM »

BC

As ever, nice work with a beautiful model. One of those rare moments when a girl looks as if she's just been poured into her skin, it fits her so well.

On top of that - or should that be below that? - I find myself drawn to the wet, reflective visual glamour going on around the feet and ankles: it's so beautifully textured, that sheen, that you feel you could touch it!

Rob C



 
« Last Edit: February 01, 2013, 02:44:50 PM by Rob C »
Logged

bcooter

  • Guest
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4207 on: February 01, 2013, 02:36:46 PM »

Regarding your profile image. Be careful on top of that red ladder. Don't fall down with or without a camera in your hands.

Best,
Johannes

Rob,

Thanks for the kind words.

Jsch

There are a lot worse ways for a photographer to go than falling off a ladder, though I guess falling off a ladder looks pretty stupid in your bio.

IMO

BC
Logged

ChristopherBarrett

  • Guest
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4208 on: February 01, 2013, 03:10:00 PM »

Two images from a series repurposed, for editorial.

BC

Love these two, James.  They remind me of the patina you would get on Type 52 or 55 if you didn't coat them and left them sitting out for a while.
Logged

bcooter

  • Guest
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4209 on: February 01, 2013, 03:14:29 PM »

Thanks CB.


They are polarizing.  Some people love them, some hate them . . . I love them so what the heck.



BC
Logged

Martin Ranger

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 188
    • My Website.
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4210 on: February 01, 2013, 05:35:42 PM »

Well, since it seems to be retro-Friday.



Fuji X-E1 (please don't shoot me :) )
Logged
Martin Ranger
Seattle, WA

www.martinrangerimages.com

James Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 505
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4211 on: February 01, 2013, 06:46:36 PM »

I'll join in on the theme :) 

Logged

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4212 on: February 01, 2013, 07:46:46 PM »

Liking these pictures, but a funny thought occurred to me.

One day, our grunged-up pictures will be discovered by someone with layers of additional /real/ grunge on them (assuming someone still prints these).  They'll make the effort to "restore" them only to find that they have a layer of grunge baked into them from the start. 

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5883
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4213 on: February 01, 2013, 07:59:57 PM »

James,

This static/dynamic pair kind of reminds me of a Before/After series :)
I like the dynamic one a lot.

Edmund







BC
« Last Edit: February 01, 2013, 08:01:52 PM by eronald »
Logged

haefnerphoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 677
    • http://www.jameshaefner.com
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4214 on: February 01, 2013, 08:11:07 PM »

Love these two, James.  They remind me of the patina you would get on Type 52 or 55 if you didn't coat them and left them sitting out for a while.

Chris, Wasn't type 52 B/W?  These are pretty desaturated but still have color

By the way, is it just me that thinks the gal with the gun running has a little too much voodoo done to her face?
« Last Edit: February 01, 2013, 08:16:02 PM by haefnerphoto »
Logged

bcooter

  • Guest
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4215 on: February 01, 2013, 08:35:20 PM »

Chris, Wasn't type 52 B/W?  These are pretty desaturated but still have color

By the way, is it just me that thinks the gal with the gun running has a little too much voodoo done to her face?

OK Jim I'm gonna start picking on your stuff.

Actually I agree and just changed it, though there is very little clean up on the face.  The small web resolution changes a lot of the look.

the whole idea of that image is to look like she came out on the set in an overdone hollywood production.

Edmund, Rob, thanks for the kind words.

BC

P.S.  I love everyone's polaroid looks, that girl shot with the x1 by Martin is stunning same with the black and white by James.  

Really both beautiful.

Ahh.......retro friday.

« Last Edit: February 01, 2013, 08:54:14 PM by bcooter »
Logged

haefnerphoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 677
    • http://www.jameshaefner.com
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4216 on: February 01, 2013, 09:34:01 PM »

James, I like the shot and really like the other 3 you've posted recently, it just looked overdone to me.  I fight that all the time with my cars and occasionally my architecture, when is it time to stop the imaging?  Actually, the idea is to not have it apparent at all but because so often we shoot one part here, one part there, the time spent making it look right is considerable and even then there are many times the image ends up ever so slightly off.  There are many reasons for this but I think the primary reason is that our clients don't want to spend the money to do it correctly (which is time consuming).  I have been reviewing work of mine from when I shot film and even though it still was retouched the effort to make the image perfect right out of the camera was considerable and it shows.  There are a few examples in the Pro Discussion of what I'm talking about. 

bcooter

  • Guest
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4217 on: February 02, 2013, 03:10:50 AM »

Jim,

Understand what you mean, though this was a different type of editorial where we staged a "hollywood star" throughout a day or two.

Sony Movie Lot, Beach, Car repair, our studio.



If budget and time had permitted we would have shot a behind the scenes look, i.e. in the trailer, on a larger set, more crew, more extras, but time, budget well those are always limited.

Would have loved to shot a Peter Lindberg type of gig with old Maxwells, black and white, dusty backgrounds, huge crews, but the world doesn't allow much of this anymore.

So, some images need to look really worked, some more real, some dirty, some in between.

Shot fast more sessions than shown in two days.  Great talent, great but small crew.

I like it, I'm proud of it, but would always like to do more, (who wouldn't?) but it is what it is.

IMO

BC

P.S.  8 images with a p21+ and P30+ on our Contax, 2 with a 1ds 3 and an 85mm, 1 with a Nikon D3 and our 200mm f2 (the running image).
« Last Edit: February 02, 2013, 03:13:10 AM by bcooter »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15935
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4218 on: February 02, 2013, 04:30:44 AM »

"Would have loved to shot a Peter Lindberg type of gig with old Maxwells, black and white, dusty backgrounds, huge crews, but the world doesn't allow much of this anymore. --- BC"

That's an interesting statement.

I've seen a lot of P.L. fashion work, and also his Pirelli(s) (I think he did two: one desert and one movie lot?) and your comment raises a sense of disbelief in my mind. How on Earth does it take a big budget and crew to do what he's known for doing, in the way you described? I've done a lot of location fashion in my career, in many different countries, and I always travelled very light: at the most, apart from the model(s) my wife came along (much as does yours) and helped out in all the different ways a person can. Being alone was the single greatest advantage that I thought that I had: I was left to get along with it and make the best of what I'd been given to shoot. Rarely, I had a client along too - very rarely.

My wonder is this: why should shooting basic, which is what the style tries to emulate, be anything but what it is at face value? If you have the models, the clothes, where's the problem? It seems to me that the key to these sorts of shoot are to be found in access to the interesting locations. Those deserted factories are everywhere in the industrialised world; the snag is having someone let you in to do your thing. I really believe that photography has become a bloated experience that appears to have gathered unto itself an overweight production system about which many complain but few appear to do anything about to reduce. Does the size of crew bear some imaginary relationship to status or ability in client minds? I only ask because I've been out of it for a helluva long time now, and it strikes me as pretty much insane.

P.L's work (in that particular style you referred to) looks simple and can be done simply. Why should it be any more expensive than any other location shoot?

Note: I'm not referring here to you own shoot, by the way, but to the concept of simplicity having to be super-expensive relative to anything else.

Rob C

bcooter

  • Guest
Re: Recent Professional Works
« Reply #4219 on: February 02, 2013, 05:02:09 AM »

"Would have loved to shot a Peter Lindberg type of gig with old Maxwells, black and white, dusty backgrounds, huge crews, but the world doesn't allow much of this anymore. --- BC"

That's an interesting statement.

I've seen a lot of P.L. fashion work, and also his Pirelli(s) (I think he did two: one desert and one movie lot?) and your comment raises a sense of disbelief in my mind. How on Earth does it take a big budget and crew to do what he's known for doing, in the way you described? I've done a lot of location fashion in my career, in many different countries, and I always travelled very light: at the most, apart from the model(s) my wife came along (much as does yours) and helped out in all the different ways a person can. Being alone was the single greatest advantage that I thought that I had: I was left to get along with it and make the best of what I'd been given to shoot. Rarely, I had a client along too - very rarely.

My wonder is this: why should shooting basic, which is what the style tries to emulate, be anything but what it is at face value? If you have the models, the clothes, where's the problem? It seems to me that the key to these sorts of shoot are to be found in access to the interesting locations. Those deserted factories are everywhere in the industrialised world; the snag is having someone let you in to do your thing. I really believe that photography has become a bloated experience that appears to have gathered unto itself an overweight production system about which many complain but few appear to do anything about to reduce. Does the size of crew bear some imaginary relationship to status or ability in client minds? I only ask because I've been out of it for a helluva long time now, and it strikes me as pretty much insane.

P.L's work (in that particular style you referred to) looks simple and can be done simply. Why should it be any more expensive than any other location shoot?

Note: I'm not referring here to you own shoot, by the way, but to the concept of simplicity having to be super-expensive relative to anything else.

Rob C




I hate taking this section of the thread off topic, but maybe that's just the way it goes.

You may not have had client's on set but PL did.  Plus knowing celebs, about a million directives thrown at his producer.  Ever deal with a star's agent, manager, personal assistant?  That hair and makeup person you would hire for ___fill in the blanks___ will triple because they usually want their special person flown in at their special person's rate.
Look at that IWC Schaffhausen watch spread with Kevin Spacey and Kate Blanchett.  Those two are expensive and powerful.  Every prop from cars, to boats, to vintage cameras have to be sourced, found and placed.  Then add the catering for the talent and for that type of talent is about double the day unless they're normal folk and most stars are not normal folk.

Rob, you've shot with models on location, done it well,  had a lot of latitude,  but when you get that level of involvement from that many people, managers, agents, just the wardrobe truck is probably larger than 90% off any lighting truck in Hollywood.

The good news is having that talent to toss the names out gets you a lot of free wardrobe, but it takes a a lot of pressers and seamstress to get it ready.

I might be wrong, I wasn't there, but I can tell you what nearly everything in this business costs and that watch project he shot costs a bunch, or his producer pulled some amazingly good favors.

All that talent has brands to protect and the retouching, regardless of what was really paid and regardless of how real it looks at retail value is higher than 99.99999% of any shoot shown on this forum.

The only thing that would lower the price is if it was a movie set and he was allowed a day or so just to use anything they had on set and shoot what he wanted, but advertising rarely works that way.

I'm not excusing the shoot I did, I like it and I have almost free run of the Sony Lot due to a great business relationship, but that doesn't allow me to go onto any sound stage and start shooting, or grab someone's arriflex and use it as a prop.

Everything we shoot we have to bring in.  Hell the errors and omissions insurance and liability riders, city permits (yes you sometimes have to cut permits in culver city even on a movie lot) on our shoot can be as much as a small crew.

This is now a very expensive business.

IMO


P.S.  One note, Europe usually is a lot easier and cheaper to shoot this style of project than America.  People will let yo use a restaurant without 22 waivers and a letter from the marketing department.

Police don't hassel you on every corner like in the U.S. and there is usually a respect for the art that I don't see in L.A.



BC
« Last Edit: February 02, 2013, 01:53:57 PM by bcooter »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 209 210 [211] 212 213 214   Go Up