Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Expensive Photography
Expensive Photography
Hey
It's good to see a group about this topic, it's not as well covered as
it should be. People don't realize how expensive professional
photography can be! That's why people who need/want great photos need
to push the issue. I mean, I know why photographers charge as much as
they do, or at least why they charge a lot anyway; business costs and
all that. Sometimes though it's just a plain rip off.
I've got a blog about my experiences with alternatives for getting
photos professionally and I hope that by reading it, others will gain
some appreciation for those alternatives. Check it out at
http :// amazingphotographs.blogspot,com /
Looking great isn't everything but having photographs where you do
look good feels fab.
Hey
It's good to see a group about this topic, it's not as well covered as
it should be. People don't realize how expensive professional
photography can be! That's why people who need/want great photos need
to push the issue. I mean, I know why photographers charge as much as
they do, or at least why they charge a lot anyway; business costs and
all that. Sometimes though it's just a plain rip off.
I've got a blog about my experiences with alternatives for getting
photos professionally and I hope that by reading it, others will gain
some appreciation for those alternatives. Check it out at
http :// amazingphotographs.blogspot,com /
Looking great isn't everything but having photographs where you do
look good feels fab.
Re: Expensive Photography
<spacebankers@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> Looking great isn't everything but having photographs where you do
> look good feels fab.
Those simply appear to be tips about not being a klutz at the moment
when you're actually standing at the tripod. Which isn't the whole thing
about getting quality photos, let alone the obscure suggestion that quality
portrait photography, which requires concentrated effort, is in some way
"expensive", ie needlessly overpriced.
Also what does that tip "save face by using telephoto" actually mean?
It's an established principle of portrait photography that formal shots look
best if you use a slightly long lens, typically a 105mm on a 35mm SLR and
equivalents on bigger formats. It gives a good proportional flat perspective
that doesn't make noses look big or cleavages saggy, and because the camera
then sits back from the sitter and they're bound to look at you as you
shoot, the eyes have a slightly far focus in the picture which bespeaks
attention and dignity, No-one wants to look bug-eyed which close wide lenses
notoriously do. But "save face"? How so? Do big lenses make you look tough?
Also, if you want portraits where less than the whole face is in shot, just
about any focal length of lens will run out of near focus with a human head
in full frame, it's a fact of optics. To get closer you need an extension
ring on the back or a dioptre lens on the front to get less-than-infinity
focus and thus that personality detail shot which of course your model will
love if it's well made - in camera and on print. Nowt to do with telephoto
even so, just that that flatter perspective will still be in evidence if you
use the longer lens.
Tony Clarke
<spacebankers@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> Looking great isn't everything but having photographs where you do
> look good feels fab.
Those simply appear to be tips about not being a klutz at the moment
when you're actually standing at the tripod. Which isn't the whole thing
about getting quality photos, let alone the obscure suggestion that quality
portrait photography, which requires concentrated effort, is in some way
"expensive", ie needlessly overpriced.
Also what does that tip "save face by using telephoto" actually mean?
It's an established principle of portrait photography that formal shots look
best if you use a slightly long lens, typically a 105mm on a 35mm SLR and
equivalents on bigger formats. It gives a good proportional flat perspective
that doesn't make noses look big or cleavages saggy, and because the camera
then sits back from the sitter and they're bound to look at you as you
shoot, the eyes have a slightly far focus in the picture which bespeaks
attention and dignity, No-one wants to look bug-eyed which close wide lenses
notoriously do. But "save face"? How so? Do big lenses make you look tough?
Also, if you want portraits where less than the whole face is in shot, just
about any focal length of lens will run out of near focus with a human head
in full frame, it's a fact of optics. To get closer you need an extension
ring on the back or a dioptre lens on the front to get less-than-infinity
focus and thus that personality detail shot which of course your model will
love if it's well made - in camera and on print. Nowt to do with telephoto
even so, just that that flatter perspective will still be in evidence if you
use the longer lens.
Tony Clarke
