Recent Professional Works

[Rob C]

You posted your 250th post!

You see how dangerous is the web? Can put years on your shoulders.

Rob C

[Rob C]

Watching that video on interiors, I understand again why I have never really followed up any of the work of that sort that came my way. It would drive me (it did!) to distraction. It also connects with a post I've just made on another thread dealing with Industrial Heritage Architecture where I wondered aloud about the purchase of PCE lenses; guess I just answered my own doubts.

A devout follower of the three-minute path through photographic effort in any one direction, I couldn't do it.

I remember reading somewhere, in an interview with Sante D'orazio, that whenever he came upon a set with many lights he thought: not a good sign! Different (vastly) disciplines, but still relevant, I think, insofar as the mindset of the photographers' works/interests/psyches.

Rob C

[Dick Roadnight]

I suppose "professional" can mean utility as opposed to artistic.  Here's a typical shot used for project potodocumentation.

What make of Digiback did you use? ...A Hasselblad digiback and Phocus might have enable you to manage without HDR.

You could. perhaps have chosen a time when the daylight was less contrasty, or used reflectors or diffusers.

You could have done it with all flash, using a sheet of background paper or other diffuser in front of the aircraft... like a partial light tent.

...and it is pictorial... and many aircraft enthusiasts would like it on their wall.

[cunim]

Chris, I did as you suggested and I think the result is a better photo, but one that looks a bit less like what is sitting in my hangar.  Photographic quality or documentary integrity?  Hmmm.  I know, I'll keep both.

Dick, this was an H3D50 with Phocus.  Actually, I didn't use the HDR function in Photomatix.  From what I can tell, the highlights and shadows function can be set to be more subtle if one manually blends the glaring areas first. 

Thanks for the suggestions re managing the light.  This thing is fifty feet wide, 10 foot high, and occupies 2500 sq ft of floor.   Difficult to light with any equipment that I have.  Means using daylight or having some serious studio stuff.  For example, I have been told that hanging a couple of parachutes from the roof beams and pointing major lights up into those would give me a great effect.  I do have the parachutes, but the trained monkeys who generally hang them for me are on strike.

The time of day suggestion is great, and I have been experimenting with cloudy days, etc.  Will try in the evening and see what happens.

Ashley, loved the video.

Peter

[Dick Roadnight]

Thanks for the suggestions re managing the light.  This thing is fifty feet wide, 10 foot high, and occupies 2500 sq ft of floor.   Difficult to light with any equipment that I have.  Means using daylight or having some serious studio stuff.  For example, I have been told that hanging a couple of parachutes from the roof
Peter

You could use merge add, and get away with the lights you have.

You could close the hanger doors, hang some (fifty foot) background paper on it and use it as a reflector.

[JoeKitchen]

Anyway, glad you liked it - now I just need to figure out how to put it to use - which at the end of the day, is the main reason for doing it.

Ashley, do you operate a blog?  I think having a series of videos showing the obstacles interior photographers deal with would go a long way for those "on the fence" prospects.  Although I have just recently started going after hospitalities, the ones I have dealt with so far have had a hard time understanding why it takes so long to create an interior image (architects/designers tend to be much more educated).  Some don't look at it as he will be creating 4/5 interior images all of which will be usable, but he will be here all day and only create 4/5 interior images for us to choose from whereas the other guy is ...  This could be a good selling point, as long as you can get them to look at it.  

[ChristopherBarrett]

Day at the Park...


What's interesting about this one is that it's stitched together from 14 panels (2 rows of 7) so that we could print a 9 ft x 12 ft mural at 150dpi.  All captured while the Pirates were handing the Cubs their lunch.  Red rectangle indicates a 100% cropped section...  Tricky as hell, this one but fun too!

All on the blog.

[Dennishh]

"gratuitous camera porn"  WHAT AN AMAZING COMMENT Can't believe this is photographic in it's nature maybe some political bias here. I just love the images.

[Abdulrahman Aljabri]

Hi Joe
My 'Our job' is simply to produce images that others will want to use.

So I would usually work with a Stylist (female interior designer) - who would organise all of that and will have discussed it all with their marketing people, pryer to the shoot.

Her fee is included in the Licence fee or Package deal, by the way - so she gets paid on a percentage bases, just like me.
Which means, it's as much in her interest to get it right, as it is mine.

Anyway, glad you liked it - now I just need to figure out how to put it to use - which at the end of the day, is the main reason for doing it.

Here is another one I have worked on - YouTube / 21 Cherryvalley Park - which was recently done to help sell this property.

Its very good but I think its too difficult for the average viewer to understand what is going on. It just goes too fast and presents too much information for them to process. A better selling tool might be to choose one particular impressive before and after scene and build around it a flash presentation and then turn it to a video. With flash you will be able to present information in a very impressive and modern way.

Many of the difficult customers are not into substance but more into appearance. They are, in fact, calling a photographer because they want a photo to impress their potential customers. If you impress them with your presentation they are more likely to believe that you can create pictures that will impress their customers. Sad to say but many customers in this business (especially this region) are not making their judgment over substance but more often over a quick first impression.    

[Dick Roadnight]

http://ashleymorrisonphotography.wordpress.com ... for what it's worth.

"What it's worth" is some of the best interior photography...

...but my wife was not excited about the photography - she liked the interiors!

... and your work is great too, Abdul!

[JoeKitchen]

Personally.........I wouldn't worry about copyright issues of this unless you were going to put it on the cover of a book or poster or something. Anything you shoot of this and put in a blog or website will be lost in the tens of thousands of similar shots on peoples websites, blogs etc.

When the sculpture was new the park guards would stop photographers that looked like they were professionals and ask if they had a permit-same with the Juame Plensa fountain nearby, but AFAIK they quit doing that. They would mention that it was a copyrighted work. What does that mean for you? I truly have no idea, but I suspect trying to get a property release from the city of Chicago would be a lesson in endless frustration unless you were a big film production company with lawyers and money.

Being an ASMP member, I decided to e-mail the ASMP attorney for consultation on this issue.  He then in turn contacted a couple Chicago based intellectual property rights attorneys that work with photographers.  His reply was that there is no clear answer for selling a license for this image for commercial use as it pertains to copyright.  Although image copyright when it comes to shooting sculptures is not as strong for the photographer as it is for shooting architecture, I would have a few decent defense arguments on my side for this particular image if I was sued by the sculptor.  Also, he heard that the owners of Millennium Park have been significantly backing off on going after photographers for rights violation for use of images shot in the park.  (I guess it is good to have resources, another great reason to be a member a professional organization)

Well as they say, "your not successful until you're sued," and I am not sure if I am ready for that "level" of success yet.  

[Graham Mitchell]

Taken today with the 180mm f2.8 PQ lens



Will finish retouching it tomorrow.

[Kirk Gittings]

Well as they say, "your not successful until you're sued," and I am not sure if I am ready for that "level" of success yet. 

i guess I haven't made it yet. In 32 years I have only had to sue one person and threaten a couple more, but I haven't been sued yet! Knock on wood.

[BobDavid]

Being an ASMP member, I decided to e-mail the ASMP attorney for consultation on this issue.  He then in turn contacted a couple Chicago based intellectual property rights attorneys that work with photographers.  His reply was that there is no clear answer for selling a license for this image for commercial use as it pertains to copyright.  Although image copyright when it comes to shooting sculptures is not as strong for the photographer as it is for shooting architecture, I would have a few decent defense arguments on my side for this particular image if I was sued by the sculptor.  Also, he heard that the owners of Millennium Park have been significantly backing off on going after photographers for rights violation for use of images shot in the park.  (I guess it is good to have resources, another great reason to be a member a professional organization)

Well as they say, "your not successful until you're sued," and I am not sure if I am ready for that "level" of success yet.  

Wouldn't worry about it. Public funds paid for the public art. Besides, stock photography is a funny business. I think you are overestimating the value of this image. It is a good photograph taken by an alert photographer. It is nothing more and nothing less. My 2 cents.

[JoeKitchen]

Wouldn't worry about it. Public funds paid for the public art. Besides, stock photography is a funny business. I think you are overestimating the value of this image. It is a good photograph taken by an alert photographer. It is nothing more and nothing less. My 2 cents.

It is not the value of the image that I am concerned about, but any lability that could arise from using it.  As a professional I try to be as on top of the law as I can so I can not only protect myself but also give advice to my clients (or perspective clients) on legal issues, like whether it is ok to use images with candid "walker bys" or to hire models that will supply releases.  Is that not what separates the pros form the amateurs?  Is that not one way we can show our value over the guy down the street with a camera?

I also felt that it would be for the better of the group to share the information that I have found.  

On a closing note, just because public funds have been used to fund this art does not mean that sculptor does not have control over his work.  The copyright of the sculpture is in the name of the creator regardless of who paid for it, just like it is with photographs, and he has the right to control how it (and its likeness) is used for commercial use.  The photograph still needs to be proven to be a separate and independent work (or a parity) for the image not to be considered a copyright violation and the burden of proof lies on the photographer. 

[Dick Roadnight]

Taken today with the 180mm f2.8 PQ lens



Will finish retouching it tomorrow.

...well, no-one else has commented, so:

I would be interested in seeing the re-touched version.

This is not a typical pose for a glamor shot... even for a passport ID shot she could have looked happier!

As it is it looks a police mug shot, the cross lighting emphasizes her rough skin texture and the blue cast emphasizes her veins.

A smaller f stop would have made the hair less OOF (with the old split-image focusing screen I focused on the ears to get the hair sharp and the face slightly soft... but you cannot do that easily with auto, and you cannot see her ears.)

If this is to illustrate an innocent girl who has been wrongly accused of murder... it is a great picture.

[Graham Mitchell]

I would be interested in seeing the re-touched version.

It's mostly there now.

This is not a typical pose for a glamor shot... even for a passport ID shot she could have looked happier!

It's not a glamour shot

As it is it looks a police mug shot, the cross lighting emphasizes her rough skin texture and the blue cast emphasizes her veins.

Good, the veins make her look more alien.

A smaller f stop would have made the hair less OOF (with the old split-image focusing screen I focused on the ears to get the hair sharp and the face slightly soft... but you cannot do that easily with auto, and you cannot see her ears.)

I added blur because I couldn't get enough in the studio! Let's just say we have very different taste

[aaron]

Taken today with the 180mm f2.8 PQ lens



Will finish retouching it tomorrow.

Wow, that looks great Graham.

Love the lighting, quite subtle, can i ask what your light set up was?

[Graham Mitchell]

Love the lighting, quite subtle, can i ask what your light set up was?

200cm Octabox in front of the model, camera right. Large black reflector in front of model, camera left. Behind were two 4x6' softboxes, one on either side, quite high and angled down towards model.

[BobDavid]

It is not the value of the image that I am concerned about, but any lability that could arise from using it.  As a professional I try to be as on top of the law as I can so I can not only protect myself but also give advice to my clients (or perspective clients) on legal issues, like whether it is ok to use images with candid "walker bys" or to hire models that will supply releases.  Is that not what separates the pros form the amateurs?  Is that not one way we can show our value over the guy down the street with a camera?

I also felt that it would be for the better of the group to share the information that I have found.  

On a closing note, just because public funds have been used to fund this art does not mean that sculptor does not have control over his work.  The copyright of the sculpture is in the name of the creator regardless of who paid for it, just like it is with photographs, and he has the right to control how it (and its likeness) is used for commercial use.  The photograph still needs to be proven to be a separate and independent work (or a parity) for the image not to be considered a copyright violation and the burden of proof lies on the photographer. 

Will then, just to be safe, you should probably check into copyright laws for taking pictures where buildings appear that were designed by architects and paid for by private companies. You surely don't want to infringe on anybody's rights.