|
Post by de-tec-tive on May 11, 2009 19:11:49 GMT 7
i know, i can't believe i didn't start using sooner! i still shoot on jpeg for work, but we rarely need anything bigger except for when we're taking shots for posters etc.
i applied for Tim Rogers & Paul Dempsey this week, neither which i'm much of a fan of but just wanted to shoot something. i don't have much on after this week gig-wise until i go away, so time to start filling up the calender with free shit =)
|
|
|
Post by boelsen on May 12, 2009 5:24:37 GMT 7
i know, i can't believe i didn't start using sooner! we're talking abour RAW here yeah?! i couldnt see any needle marks on your arms last time! i really regret not always shooting in raw, its such an awesome thing for fixing up anything! and nice work on those pics kerrie, they came out great. the light looked really nice in the pics aswell. i'm off to the city today, i need a 70-200 f2.8 ($1200 *cries* god they've gone up) and either a battery grip thingy, as it could be a while between battery charges for me, or a 24-70 f2.8. i've gone off the 500d as its not that much of an upgrade to the 400d to justify the money, and i'm sure i'll regret the purchase when the next HD camera comes put with either an audiojack, or atleast a stereo mic.
|
|
|
Post by de-tec-tive on May 12, 2009 10:08:05 GMT 7
lmao, using *IT
i'm looking at lenses on ebay now, i think that's the kind of lens i want to buy too. gonna ask my friend Nadia for some advice.
|
|
|
Post by boelsen on May 12, 2009 12:17:34 GMT 7
i got both lenses... i feel kinda bad for spending so much when i should be a tight arse before europe $2040 for the 70-200, 18-50 (apparently is a better lens than 24-70 - and i'd miss the wide angle otherwise as i will sell my 17-85 now) and a second battery. got them down about $450, and will get just over $200 back with duty free.
|
|
|
Post by de-tec-tive on May 13, 2009 9:17:26 GMT 7
so where did you buy from?
|
|
|
Post by boelsen on May 14, 2009 13:37:44 GMT 7
i bought it from JB in the city
|
|
|
Post by de-tec-tive on May 14, 2009 17:49:47 GMT 7
ok cool
dude we got ditched as photographers for the Hi-Fi, i'm so annoyed. i emailed Bianca today asking if there's anything coming up that i could shoot, and she said "we've got two photographers covering all our gigs now, thank you for your interest". wtf, if i didn't email we wouldn't even know about it! Nadia (my friend) is one, and the other is the guy who shoots as Ronny for FL. she said she didn't get told anything either, but she's got about 7 gigs coming up with them so obviously she's one of the ones they picked.
this is so dissapointing =(
|
|
|
Post by scotopic lux on May 15, 2009 11:26:47 GMT 7
wow that is really harsh! so you werent told that it was obviously a trial period? thats so crap!
I am hoping my lens that came through great for KMH will be able to handle the dim harcorde (haha) lighting that Trivium will have. I assume they will anyway. Don't wanna let Scott down!
BTW Scott I am so jealous of your lenses! They are for Canon right?
|
|
|
Post by de-tec-tive on May 16, 2009 11:09:27 GMT 7
good luck with Trivium!
i completely forgot i have a friend of a friend who works in the camera section at a chemist and he told me awhile ago he can probably be me stuff for a bit over cost price. i'm gonna see if he can work something out for me =)
|
|
|
Post by scotopic lux on May 17, 2009 11:42:03 GMT 7
The one thing i hate about shooting gigs, is not knowing what time to get there. Tonight there will be a barrier I am fairly certain, I might call up and see when Trivium go on, but I dont know how much earlier I need to be there.
|
|
|
Post by boelsen on May 17, 2009 15:03:50 GMT 7
does HQ have a website? most venues are good in melbourne with set times on their websites thats pretty fucked about the hifi shooting. they never mentioned anything about a trial I guess thats why they hadnt sent anything out in ages. and yep kerrie, they're for a canon
|
|
|
Post by scotopic lux on May 17, 2009 16:13:25 GMT 7
Yeah went to the website. Its all about their dance club shit. No times, and reception is closed of course. I managed to find out that doors open at 7:30, there are 2 supports, so I will probably get there about 8:30pm.
I don't know if it is just me (Bec, this is more at you) but how do you find it going to gigs on your own? I mean, tonight there arent any parking spaces near by, it will be late, walking on my own (except Jessy usually comes along for safety) do you get scared carrying your gear?
|
|
|
Post by de-tec-tive on May 17, 2009 17:09:45 GMT 7
i always carry my keys in my hand from my car until i get to the door, just as a safety thing, and keep my camera in my bag (if it fits) instead of carrying it in plain sight. i'm usually fine cos i'm used to it and don't have to park too far from venues, and there's always people around, but a few weeks ago i had to park like 10 mins from the Prince Bandroom due to roadworks and that was the only time i was a bit freaked out walking alone. i thought a guy was trying to follow me in his car so i walked a bit away from the road and he kept driving. basically i just walk fast, head down, keys in hand.
i went to get prices on lenses today, for a Sigma or Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 it's between $1100-1500, and to get it in a Nikon it's gonna be like $3000. the Nikon is the only one with an image stabilizer which apparently i'll be screwed without - have either of you guys used a big lens without the stablilizer? i really cannot comprehend spending $3000, that's more than my flights to the US. i know once i have it i'd be using it for years, but that's just way too much money.
|
|
|
Post by scotopic lux on May 17, 2009 17:19:17 GMT 7
Yeah, there isn't much street parking in the area where this gig is, and by the time i get there it will be full so i will have to park in a car park, which is probably 10 mins walk away. This is the worst part of doing this. I think all of my lenses have IS. My zoom lens is a Sigma and I am really happy with it. Its no a 2.8 but the zoom is brilliant, it is what i shot all my KMH shots with www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3302&navigator=6I got it when i bought my camera. Really wanting what you are looking at. For my price range, I would by Sigma again.
|
|
|
Post by scotopic lux on May 18, 2009 11:59:18 GMT 7
Wow. That Trivium gig was full on. There was a barrier, but it was a really narrow space. The security there were so nice, really really good at protecting us from all the people coming over the top, and they would always jump out of my way when I was trying to shoot. It was crazy, the stage would have been the length of two or 3 cars, the gap from stage to barrier would have been about 1.5 meters. There were 4 photographers and about 6 security guards, plus people from the crowd coming over. So full on, and intense, what a rush! I had so much fun. I was so sad that my 4GB card was full half way through the 3rd Song and I realised I didn't bring my spare 1GB card. Anyway, a lot of the shots are blurry as hell. These guys could not stand still, and my lens just isnt fast enough. I really need a better one. Here is the link www.flickr.com/photos/scotopic_lux/sets/72157618393321004/And these are a few of my favourites:
|
|
|
Post by boelsen on May 18, 2009 15:20:02 GMT 7
they're awesome kerrie more on that later. quick comment before heading north: apparently image stabilisation is only useful for still images like landscape etc, so with a moving image like someone on stage it wont do anything really. and i dont actually know if my sigmas have it or not. probably should ahve checked that. haha.
|
|
|
Post by scotopic lux on May 18, 2009 16:35:58 GMT 7
Yeah, from what I could see my Sigma doesn't have IS. So i don't know what its benefits are because I haven't shot with a zoom that has it!
|
|
|
Post by de-tec-tive on May 21, 2009 18:58:07 GMT 7
woah those photos are soooooo good dude, great job!
i'm gonna ask around about the IS thing. the guy at Ted's said if he tries to shoot a gig without it he needs a tripod, but i don't think he realized i'd be in front of a barrier. i want to get some opinions from some non-salespeople though, they're probably just trying to get more cash out of me.
|
|
|
Post by boelsen on May 22, 2009 2:12:23 GMT 7
the sales chick at JB told me that about the IS, but not sure where she got the info from. kerrie, would you be able to send me a galleries worth of the trivium pics (scott.boelsen at gmail.com), wanted to upload them today, but i cant save the images from your flickr account
|
|
|
Post by boelsen on May 22, 2009 2:16:16 GMT 7
i got confirmation for shooting another metal festival today woo. 2 3 day festival photo passes so far Also got confirmation for wacken, biggest metal festival in the word, but i only half filled in the form, so only requested a reviewer ticket, but email saying i want photo, so fingers crossed
|
|
|
Post by boelsen on May 22, 2009 2:18:57 GMT 7
from wiki:
In photography, image stabilization can often permit the use of shutter speeds 2–4 stops slower (exposures 4–16 times longer), although even slower effective speeds have been reported.
The rule of thumb to determine the slowest shutter speed possible for hand-holding without noticeable blur due to camera shake is to take the reciprocal of the 35mm equivalent focal length of the lens. For example, at a focal length of 125 mm on a 35mm camera, vibration or camera shake would affect sharpness if the shutter speed was slower than 1/125 second. As a result of the 3–4 stops slower shutter speeds allowed by IS, an image taken at 1/125 second speed with an ordinary lens could be taken at 1/15 or 1/8 second with an IS-equipped lens and produce almost the same quality. The sharpness obtainable at a given speed can increase dramatically.[1] When calculating the effective focal length, it is important to take into account the image format a camera uses. For example, many digital SLR cameras use an image sensor that is 1.5, 1.6, or 2 times smaller than a 35mm film frame. This value is referred to as the crop factor, field-of-view crop factor, focal-length multiplier, or format factor. On a 2x crop factor camera, for instance, a 50mm lens produces the same field of view as a 100mm lens used on a 35mm film camera, and can typically be handheld at 1/100 of a second.
However, image stabilization does not prevent motion blur caused by the movement of the subject or by extreme movements of the camera. Image stabilization is only designed for and capable of reducing blur that results from normal, minute shaking of a lens due to hand-held shooting. Some lenses and camera bodies include a secondary panning mode or a more aggressive 'active mode', both described in greater detail below under optical image stabilization.
|
|
|
Post by de-tec-tive on May 22, 2009 20:17:06 GMT 7
thanks for that. i'm coming around on the price now, i found a site where i can get the 70-200mm for $2450, that's not so bad (i don't know why that seems like a good price now) www.camerasdirect.com.au
|
|
|
Post by boelsen on May 27, 2009 5:52:55 GMT 7
woah! i'm really fucking jealous if you get that!!! haha. it such a frikken expensive lens!!! but its great to use when i rented it. well... the canon version of it.
|
|
|
Post by de-tec-tive on May 29, 2009 10:31:00 GMT 7
i'm hiring one tonight to see what it's like. might also hire 24-70mm to compare - now that i think about it, maybe i should buy the 24-70mm instead since i do lots of small-med gigs, so if a band member is right in my face a 70-200mm isn't going to be all that useful. BUT the point is that i need this for ND, my photos for that have to be f--ing awesome or i'll stab myself.
i can't decide!
i got passes for You Am I @ POW tonight, and Paul Dempsey @ Corner next friday =)
|
|
|
Post by boelsen on May 29, 2009 15:01:07 GMT 7
nice one. keeping busy and i'm the same, i could live with my last lens if it wasnt for these festivals which i need a bigger lens for and would hate myself if they suck
|
|
|
Post by de-tec-tive on May 31, 2009 19:06:32 GMT 7
so have you done any festivals yet? how's it all going? i love all your scenery shots you put up on flickr. those lenses were fucking awesome. i felt like a millionaire carrying them around the other night, haha. def buying the 70-200, i've got a friend of a friend who *might* be able to get me a deal, if not i'll order it this week. You Am I pics here - i like them and i def had alot less shit ones, but i don't think they're fantastic or anything. www.fasterlouder.com.au/gallery/10967/You-Am-I.htm
|
|
|
Post by scotopic lux on Jun 1, 2009 16:35:03 GMT 7
The photos look great, Bec. Really nice work!
Did you find the 70-200mm lens too close for a small-ish gig? What do you normally shoot with?
After looking back through my pics, i realise that I do go wide quite a bit. The lens that I use at the moment is 18-200mm and I love that versatility. I don't know, I am kinda torn. I don't know that there is anywhere in adelaide I can hire from to try them out either.
I really want the f/2.8 but would hate to get a lens that is too close. Then at the same time, I cant afford to decide I need the 70-200mm in a few months time, and I know that 70mm wont be close enough for me to be happy when I am shooting gigs and want to grab a close up.
Also, I am not big on wanting to change lenses during a gig. It can get pretty full on, and I would rather worry about the shots than the lens.
|
|
|
Post by de-tec-tive on Jun 1, 2009 17:38:41 GMT 7
yeah i'd really rather not change lenses either, i just want one awesome one that i can use for everything and that's it. the 70-200mm was a little bit close (i usually use my 50mm most of the time) but instead of being front row i'll just have to go second or third row from now on i think. i prefer shots that are cropped in closely etc, i don't tend to go wide as much... there's some kind of knack to making wide shots interesting that i just don't have, i always feel like mine look too 'point and shoot'. do you know what kind of lenses take pics like these? is it some special kind of wide angle? www.flickr.com/photos/cazbar/3584117901/www.flickr.com/photos/cazbar/3566313939/www.flickr.com/photos/cazbar/3394558690/
|
|
|
Post by boelsen on Jun 1, 2009 19:05:27 GMT 7
incase you didnt know bec you can check out the exif data stuff on flickr.
the dukes was taken at 17mm, and i dont think thats a standard non zoom lens, so i'm guessing something like my other lens a 17-85 it might have been taken with. but as its at 2.8, maybe a 17-50? my 18-50 has a kind of fish eye effect, which can be cool, but really shouldnt be obvious on a lens where its not a feature!
actually, all the photos you liked were at 17mm.
i was really keen to get a 24-70, and a 70-200 so i have everything covered, but i found the 24 wasnt wide enough for me, so thats why i went with the 18-50 f2.8
|
|
|
Post by boelsen on Jun 1, 2009 19:20:11 GMT 7
and if it wasnt for the f2.8, i'd have much rather chosen a 18-200 lens aswell. its such a pain in the arse switching. you're on the 70-200, and someones in your face and you cant get a shot of them, and if you change lenses quickly the shots gone
|
|