# These taken with a D70 by a pro



## OKLAHOMAN (Sep 21, 2007)

is it just me or are these about the same as I've seen by members here? These were taken by a Pro photographer for me to  send to be juried. In total 40 pictures were taken including my booth for $150.00 but after seeing my pens she traded the session for 2 Cigars, so I guess I did OK its just that I think these are just a little better than Avg. Am I being to critical?


----------



## Rifleman1776 (Sep 21, 2007)

I guess she did well. But, maybe it's the posting, dunno...they look disproportioned or distorted to me. Like she was up very close with a very wide angle lens. The first (green pen) is a tad fuzzy, out of focus, maybe? But, you still made a pretty good deal.


----------



## gerryr (Sep 21, 2007)

Unfortunately, anyone can buy a camera and call themselves a pro.  I personally think she did a mediocre job with the lighting, unless you lost a lot of detail during the compression so you could post it.  But I'm not sure that compression is really to blame for burned out highlights.  I agree with Frank about the top one looking slightly out of focus.  I also think the aspect ration got hosed up on the first two.  A real pro would not use a wide angle lens for this kind of work.  I've been using a zoom generally set at between 50 and 55mm.  I just a 55mm micro lens and will be using that for everything in the future.  Do you have the original files straight from the camera?


----------



## OKLAHOMAN (Sep 21, 2007)

Gerry, aIl I have is the disk she dropped off and it has the org. plus the 1920x1920 pixels needed for Zaplication, I'll be gone in and hr. to a show in Tx. and won't be back till Sun. night.


----------



## Rifleman1776 (Sep 21, 2007)

> _Originally posted by gerryr_
> <br />Unfortunately, anyone can buy a camera and call themselves a pro.  I personally think she did a mediocre job with the lighting, unless you lost a lot of detail during the compression so you could post it.  But I'm not sure that compression is really to blame for burned out highlights.  I agree with Frank about the top one looking slightly out of focus.  I also think the aspect ration got hosed up on the first two.  A real pro would not use a wide angle lens for this kind of work.  I've been using a zoom generally set at between 50 and 55mm.  I just a 55mm micro lens and will be using that for everything in the future.  Do you have the original files straight from the camera?



I agree. A 'normal' focal length lens works best objects this size. A macro in the 50 to 70mm range would be my choice.


----------



## rherrell (Sep 21, 2007)

They sure don't look PROFESSIONAL to me.I've seen alot better from some folks right here at IAP!


----------



## Gary Max (Sep 21, 2007)

Ain't you glad you did not give her cash []


----------



## Fred (Sep 21, 2007)

The exposure are NOT correct as the metal is extremely reflective and void of intricate details. She did OK considering she was not in a studio setting where everything could have been adjusted. I also think the images a bit tight in the framing since the pens actually are almost cropped a bit to the point where you have to use the images as they are. You don't seem to have any leeway in case the images were ever needed to be moved a bit. Acceptable given the settings, but they could definitely be improved in a studio atmosphere. []


----------



## stevers (Sep 21, 2007)

I'm not impressed either. Fuzzy and too much glare. My originals are 3072 2048 pixels. That way I have lots of room to play. It may be good she took a trade. Saved you $150.


----------



## gerryr (Sep 24, 2007)

Roy sent me a couple of the original files and I'm even less impressed now than before.  The photos were shot at f/4.5 and medium resolution using a flash.  After thinking about it some, I figured out what she did to make the first two look out of proportion.  She cropped some off the sides to get it somewhere nearer to being square and then resized it to what Roy needed, 1920x1920.  The two images I got were only 2040 x 15xx.  When she forced it square, of course the ratio got screwed up.  She also did a really lousy job with whatever editing software she used.  This is the third pen Roy posted and the colors, at least according to Roy, are correct.  The highlights were burned out and there wasn't anything I could do about it.





So, if you ever want photos taken by a professional, ask a lot of questions before hiring someone.


----------



## dbriski (Sep 25, 2007)

Also to add to it, "Pros" don't use a D70.  Great camera and all (I have one) Amateur/Hobbiests use the D70 and Pros use the Pro line of cameras D3, D2x, D300, D200 etc (although some pros use the D70 as a backup). She is probably trying to get into it and make a few bucks with her interest like a few of us here, but has more work to do.


----------



## gerryr (Sep 25, 2007)

Actually, that isn't true.  Pros generally have several cameras ranging from the top down and will use whatever camera suits the occasion.  The lens is much more important than the body.  The tip-off that the woman doesn't know much is that she used the lens almost wide-open, normal image quality and a flash.  All this information was in the EXIF data attached to the images.  The camera body used is irrelevant.

I also frequent a forum devoted to Nikon enthusiasts and you may or may not be surprised by the number of people who show up on there and say "Hi, I just bought my first ever DSLR, a D200.  How do I use it?"  Too many people with a lot more money than brains.  But, the good side is that there will always be very nice cameras and lenses popping up for sale because the owners were never able to figure out how to use them.


----------



## Fred (Sep 26, 2007)

Back in my college attending days I worked for a great food photographer. I learned an immense amount of knowledge from being on and around the various sets. We used an 8x10 camera and various lenses. One thing I always was amazed by was how he - the photographer - would walk around the item being photographed WHILE THE EXPOSURE was being made. He carried a light setup in his hand and actually "painted' parts of the item. He would walk off the set and the rest of the exposure was allowed to time out, thus 'burning' his image off the negative. The length of the shot was often 15 minutes or so with very low ASA rated films and the F stop was anywhere from F22 to F125 or smaller if the lenses allowed it. Focus was never a problem as the depth of field was more than enough to take care of that. He did focus the image at the ground glass plate using a 10x lupe and then set the F stop he wanted to use. It was amazing to see the quality of the image in the final photograph.

Later on, with the advent of digital cameras and digital backs (took the place of film in larger format cameras), this type of photography was not as difficult to accomplish. However, the results are not exactly the same either.

John Lucus of http://www.woodshopdemos.com is an expert in the field of video and still photography lighting. He has recently written and article that is posted at the excellent site of http://www.turningwood.com/. Go there and look at the "How To Articles" section and there you can read and see photographs as made with various setups.

Mr. Lucas' site ate woodshopdemos.com is very interesting and he goes into detail about using new 'stuff' that wood workers should be interested in knowing about. The articles are backed up with photographs and he always - well usually - has a beautiful gal on site to help him out. He does the pictures and writes the articles and the gals do the demo's. Now why can't many of us have it that good. I know that there are those of you who are married, but there ARE those of us that are not.

Have fun folks and turn safely! []


----------



## Jim in Oakville (Oct 3, 2007)

Man, a Pro what?

Those are nice looking pens that look like %#!@$ in the pictures....The lighting, focus, exposure.....the back ground....all are very poorly executed......[][xx(][xx(]

Sorry but that is the truth


----------

