There is a lot of photography within these fora.

[freddy333]

Id also say the G10, I know someone who has one and it is a great camera!

If you want a good DSLR, I think a few people have it here, the Canon EOS Rebel is great.

The EOSs are great cameras (I checked them out when I began my search for a replacement for my A80). But, unfortunately, due to their higher costs & relative unwieldyness (compared to the ease of slipping a point-&-shoot into a pocket on my way out the door), I really want to stick with a point-&-shoot.

[Packard]

... I really want to stick with a point-&-shoot.

What about the macho sense of accomplishment that is attendant with mastering a complex piece of equipment? Do you want to deny yourself that pleasure?

[freddy333]

What about the macho sense of accomplishment that is attendant with mastering a complex piece of equipment? Do you want to deny yourself that pleasure?

Nah, I just want to take good pictures. For pleasure, I ride a unicycle without a seat (over a bumpy road).

[Guest HaloArchive]

What about the macho sense of accomplishment that is attendant with mastering a complex piece of equipment? Do you want to deny yourself that pleasure?

I actually LOL'ed

Thx for the laugh!

[RobbieG]

Yes, sense of accomplishment is another thing entirely. There are of course certain things you simply can't do with a little auto job that require long exposure times and/or interesting aperature work. Take these abstract sunset and sunrise images I made in Sedona. No way to do it with a point and shoot unless you get really lucky. These were done with my SLR. BTW, there was no color work done on any of these. Imagine that? Hard to beleive that nature really does look like this in places...

[By-Tor]

I've shot watch pics with very expensive camera (the that my company owns... can't remember the model name) and my standard Canon PS. It makes virtually ZERO difference. The more expensive camera can correct problems with an insufficient setup and perhaps reduce noise, but when your setup is perfect you can shoot just as good photos with just an ordinary (decent) camera.

Buying an expensive camera won't make anyone a good photographer. Just like getting Wayne Gretzky's old stick won't make anyone a great hockey player.

85% is the setup: lighting.

13% is the post processing skills (Photoshop).

Camera means maybe 2%.

All great watch photos have been post processed. People who say that "they do everything with the lense" are lying & talking out of their ass (or then their pics aren't anything that special). Post processing alone won't make a photo great though... you have to get a very good "base" photo which comes from an excellent setup.

Expensive camera makes much bigger difference when you're shooting other things... like capturing the motion, etc. But it means very little in watch photos (in studio setup).

[Pugwash]

All great watch photos have been post processed. People who say that "they do everything with the lense" are lying & talking out of their ass (or then their pics aren't anything that special). Post processing alone won't make a photo great though... you have to get a very good "base" photo which comes from an excellent setup.

I've got to the point where I shoot for photoshop. I know what the camera will give me, and I know what I can get out of it with Photoshop.

You''l notice when i listed my camera kit, I added my laptop to the list. If you think you can get it all in the lens, you're a braver man than I. We shoot digital, and digital means photoshop.

Of the photographers here I respect, like By-Tor, and TTK of old, they all shot with the express intention of post-processing their photos. Anyone looking at my modding pics and my show pics will see a huge difference. Modding pics are straight off the camera to show the work and show pics are straight off at least 15 minutes of Photoshop to show ooff the watch. A few of my photographs are even composites of different exposures. I don't hide flaws, but I try to capture what I saw as opposed to what the camera captured.

Sure, you can catch it all in the lens and sure, you can use a cheap point and shoot, but you look at the best of the best and I hate to say it but you'll be looking at an SLR and photoshop.

Start off with cheap equipment, like I did, and learn the limits. Once you've hit them, invest in decent kit. If you don't hit the limits, your kit is fine.

[vlydog]

are there any soft-wares that are available for free that can produce similar results as with photoshop?

[Pugwash]

are there any soft-wares that are available for free that can produce similar results as with photoshop?

No.

If you need Photoshop, pirate it. Sure, mine may be legal, but I'm not about to judge anyone buying counterfeit watches that steals a copy.

[Pugwash]

Using an off-camera flash will resolve the camera shake issues. The flash duration (less than 1/1000 of a second) effectively becomes the shutter speed. Hold the flash quite close to the subject for the softest lighting effect. 6 - 12 inches is good, but closer to the 6" distance is best.

This will not work with your on-camera flash as it will suffer from paralax and will also cast a nasty shadow.

Avoid flash at all costs unless you know what you're doing.

When was the last time I successfully used an off-camera flash? Back in the 20th century. I've never managed to make it work for watches, because I simply don't have the money or the time.

[By-Tor]

There are some things that I would never do with PS... things that I consider EXTREMELY lame. One is faking lume with the magic wand/lasso tool -> color adjustment. That is beyond "cheap". I've seen a lot of that stuff lately in many watch forums (gen and rep).

I've done 2-layer "fakes" myself but at least the lume is real in those... and I've always stated that it's a "composition" and not genuine picture.

All my best photos have come out excellently out of the camera. When I have moved the photos to my HD I've always seen immediately from those pics that "I got lucky". When you get more experienced you don't shoot bad ones so much anymore. When I was starting, maybe 1 out of 100 pics came out good. Now 7 out of 10 shots are good and usable.

There's a big difference between a "ok" picture and a technically good picture. Technically good one brings out ALL the details of the watch. Like bracelet finish, special dial patterns, etc... SIMULTANEOUSLY.

Cool to have more photography talk. We used to have many inspiring discussions with Pugs, Neil and Bazz.

PS: I'm not that interested in the studio pics anymore... there's so much you can do and the rest is Photoshop. But the wrist shots are more fascinating to me now. RobbieG's wrist shots and natural lighting pics are very inspiring. I wish you'd shot more pics of the blue Fish.

[Pugwash]

I've done 2-layer "fakes" myself but at least the lume is real in those... and I've always stated that it's a "composition" and not genuine picture.

Of my watch compositions, this is probably my most recent:

Not that the watch part is in any way modified.

Photoshop should not be a cheat. You should use photoshop either for "magical compositions", like By-Tor's old composites with Breitlings and aircraft, or to try to show what you saw and not what the camera captured.

[By-Tor]

That's a cool and artistic one Pugs.

I did one composition with UPO too.

[Agrippa]

No.

If you need Photoshop, pirate it. Sure, mine may be legal, but I'm not about to judge anyone buying counterfeit watches that steals a copy.

For the vast majority of people I'd say there are a number of programs that will do as well as Photoshop. Just like with Microsoft Office, the simple fact is that more than 90% of the people who use it, use less than 10% of the program's available features. It's really just that everyone knows about Photoshop, knows it's the industry standard - and therefore want Photoshop and nothing else. In reality you'll need to be very, very advanced in order to actually NEED the features which only Photoshop offers over and above the rest. Or you're used to working with other Adobe products, in which case Photoshop will be instantly familiar and more accessible.

Corel's Paint Shop Pro PhotoX2, for instance, will do more than nicely for most people and at $60 still has far more features than the vast majority will ever use. Other alternatives for most Toms, Dicks and Harriets include things like Ulead PhotoImpact @ $50, Zoner Photo Studio Pro @ $100 and Photo Perfect from Arcadia Software @ $60-270 depending on version. And many, many more I don't know about, I'm sure.

Of course if you have no compunction about pirating software (I don't), then you may as well get hold of Photoshop. If you want to retain the moral high ground, then I would suggest that Corel's Paint Shop Pro is an excellent choice. In fact, PPP is probably the de facto "industry standard" among those who do not use Photoshop for whatever reason.

[By-Tor]

Of course if you have no compunction about pirating software (I don't), then you may as well get hold of Photoshop. If you want to retain the moral high ground, then I would suggest that Corel's Paint Shop Pro is an excellent choice. In fact, PPP is probably the de facto "industry standard" among those who do not use Photoshop for whatever reason.

We have always maintained "very low moral ground" regarding copyrights... you see, that comes natural in a forum that is all about counterfeit watches. I'm a moderator and I have even shared RapidShare links publicly. We have no shame.

[Pugwash]

Cool to have more photography talk. We used to have many inspiring discussions with Pugs, Neil and Bazz.

The arguments are as worthy as the discussions. No-one was right, and everyone had an opinion.

[Agrippa]

We have always maintained "very low moral ground" regarding copyrights... you see, that comes natural in a forum that is all about counterfeit watches. I'm a moderator and I have even shared RapidShare links publicly. We have no shame.

You never know though. People are nothing if not consistently inconsistent in what moral rules and regulation they choose to fully embrace or viciously disavow. I'm sure there are replica collectors out there who will hiss and spit when software piracy is brought up during conversation.

[Pugwash]

You never know though. People are nothing if not consistently inconsistent in what moral rules and regulation they choose to fully embrace or viciously disavow. I'm sure there are replica collectors out there who will hiss and spit when software piracy is brought up during conversation.

Like I said, my photoshop is legal. I've been legal since 1993, but that is in no way a call for all of you to be legal. Why am I legal? Because I've earned cash in the past from the software and when that happens, I buy it. Until then, I'm a nasty pirate.

[By-Tor]

What is "piracy"? Something like sharing RS links is a bit "so and so"... I mean those same links are publicly available through Google. So are you doing a "crime" when you just cut & paste those same links? Is Google committing a crime when they allow that stuff to be in their archive?

Are Yahoo and Google committing a crime when they allow links to places like this? If you put "Aquaracer chrono" in the Google image search, one of the first photos that pop up is my rep Aquaracer review title picture.

We're living in very strange times.

[Guest ThePhilosopher]

I shoot Olympus and Bronica. I have a gripped E-3 with a gripped E-1 for backup, and E-500 that's dedicated for use with M42 (Pentax Screwmount) lenses. My Bronica is an ETRSi with a non-metered prism and 75mm f/2.8. As for AF lenses I have Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8, 35mm f/3.5 Macro, 70-300mm f/4-5.6, 35-100mm f/2 and an autofocus 25mm extension tube. I have a 55mm f/2 and 135mm f/2.8 in M42 mount. I have a Speedotron pack system as well as Bowens monolights and an AlienBees Ringflash.

Here's an early shot with my E-500 and 18-50mm:

Camera Make: OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.

Camera Model: E-500

Image Date: 2008:09:24 17:08:44

Flash Used: No

Focal Length: 50.0mm

Exposure Time: 0.0050 s (1/200)

Aperture: f/5.6

ISO equiv: 100

White Balance: Manual

Metering Mode: Spot

Exposure: Manual

Exposure Mode: Manual

http://www.thoughtful-imagery.com/Personal..._Black_0006.jpg

and another with the E-500 and the 35mm macro:

Camera Make: OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.

Camera Model: E-500

Image Date: 2009:03:24 19:37:19

Flash Used: No

Focal Length: 35.0mm

Exposure Time: 0.0063 s (1/160)

Aperture: f/8.0

ISO equiv: 100

White Balance: Manual

Metering Mode: Spot

Exposure: Manual

Exposure Mode: Manual

http://www.thoughtful-imagery.com/Personal...Tag_GC_0006.jpg

Of course here are some with my E-3 and 35-100mm f/2:

http://www.thoughtful-imagery.com/Shina/index.html

Edited July 23, 2009 by ThePhilosopher

[RobbieG]

Yup. Setup and get good light and a base image and add the sheen with shop. Although some use more than others. I use PS mostly to clone stamp out dust and do minor color, brightness and contrast correction. I would do more but I suck at it and don't know how to use all the cool features. I love heavily and intelligently Shopped images. I'm just a hack at it so I have no choice but to rely on natural light to try and get some kind of drama out of that alone - when working with watches I mean. I find being out in the world much easier to get good images without much post.

I've got to the point where I shoot for photoshop. I know what the camera will give me, and I know what I can get out of it with Photoshop.

You''l notice when i listed my camera kit, I added my laptop to the list. If you think you can get it all in the lens, you're a braver man than I. We shoot digital, and digital means photoshop.

Of the photographers here I respect, like By-Tor, and TTK of old, they all shot with the express intention of post-processing their photos. Anyone looking at my modding pics and my show pics will see a huge difference. Modding pics are straight off the camera to show the work and show pics are straight off at least 15 minutes of Photoshop to show ooff the watch. A few of my photographs are even composites of different exposures. I don't hide flaws, but I try to capture what I saw as opposed to what the camera captured.

Sure, you can catch it all in the lens and sure, you can use a cheap point and shoot, but you look at the best of the best and I hate to say it but you'll be looking at an SLR and photoshop.

Start off with cheap equipment, like I did, and learn the limits. Once you've hit them, invest in decent kit. If you don't hit the limits, your kit is fine.

[Pugwash]

Yup. Setup and get good light and a base image and add the sheen with shop.

The more you learn, the less you do. Robbie, your photos are extraordinary, and you're making guys like me an By-Tor do less and produce more. That's got to be worth it.

The day you think you have nothing to learn is the day you're yesterday's hero at best.

However, 90% of the 'togs here can get better by just following basics set out by all the regular guys here.

When I first joined the forums, I was an average photographer with a basic understanding of how it worked. I saw guys that were better than me, but I saw a hell of a lot that didn't have a clue. My mission, when I joined TRC back in the day, was to increase the average quality of photos on the forums. I make no pretence at being the best, or even that near the top, to be honest, but I felt I could raise the average by getting the basics out there.

My early tutorials now look primitive, and guys like Baz, BT, Robbie, Ubi, Freddie, etc. are significantly better than what I was professing back then, but if nothing else, I shared what I was learning about photographing watches. I look back at my early tutorials and feel embarrassed by what I was doing, right to the point I get another PM thanking me for demystifying the art. It's easy to forget how few people don't even know how to light a scene or point a camera.

I look at ThePhilosopher's kit and can only imagine what I could do with that, and then realise that a beginner looks at my very basic kit and says the very same.

I'm not one of the greats, but I hope that one day one of the greats will thank me for pointing them in the right direction.

ps. Us rep guys [censored] all over the gen guys for skills.

[RobbieG]

I know I speak for many when I say your stuff is top notch Pugs. I don't know if great exists anywhere anymore after some stuff I have been through, but that is another thread. But I have copped more than a few setups and Shop ideas from you over the years for sure. I have been shooting long before these forums and my watch bug got seriously planted but I have always tried to hold a certain credo. I too like you just shoot for the art. If that means the pic is about light or about setup or about a plan to over contrast it or whatever in Shop later then I just follow it. Or better yet, not even have a plan and just shoot and see what happens.

A funny thing is when I shoot with the little pocket cam for instance I can't see sh*t in the screen with the light glare. The process becomes entirely different that that with the SLR, but no less involved or artisic ironically. With no viewfinder I just see shapes. But you know, I can get cool set ups by just seeing geometrically if that makes sense. Then it is just pray the autofocus nails it and I have the light right because I have no control. When shooting on that thing in macro mode it just basically surprise adjusts aperature with distance using some unknown algo and then adjusts the speed based on whatever that happens to be and the light of course. It is wild! You are almost like bracketing without really bracketing. Changing the source light and thus making the algo pick a different aperature and then speed and the same shot changes entirely. It seems counterintuitive but it really isn't once you do it a few times. It is really fun. I have found it to be a cool artistic pursuit to experiment and have no idea what is going to happen. I got to where I had so much fun with it I use it exclusively for watches now. I am amazed at how many decent shoots I have had with it and even a rare few that are even beyond the marginal barrier at that. Good fun.

And yes, you are right, I have never seen anyone on TZ hold a candle to the best guys we have here. Not even close.

[Guest ThePhilosopher]

I'd say a lot of my work took a long while to learn, photoshop took longer. My PSD files are absolutely huge (and I'm only shooting with a 10MP camera) and have at minimum 8-10 layers (for my portraiture) and generally more. Although I'm quite quick at building the layers up and knowing what order to do things in to get "my look" from habit and experience. I'm waiting for the day I can add an H3D-39II or similar along with a Bowens pack system to my setup. I spend more time reading and doing photography in the summer than I probably do teaching during the school year.

This summer my goal was to start developing b&w film at home and scanning it, I just started doing so again and I've got clients lined up out the wazoo to do some test shoots on film (moreso than I have rolls of film in the fridge). I'm trying out a ton of different films and doing my best to keep the work improving. I also bought a Wacom early this year, if you're serious about photography (even as a hobby) you need one of these things. I have an older Intuos2 I got an FleBay for quite a bit less than the Intuos4s.

Most professional shoots for fashion magazines are shot with flat lighting and low contrast from camera raw; so as to have the cleanest possible base image to start editing with. You'd be amazed at how much of what you see in a magazine is photoshopped from a flat lit image; however, you can't tell unless you know what to look for and that's the key to being a great retoucher - no can tell.

Edited July 24, 2009 by ThePhilosopher

[freddy333]

Start off with cheap equipment, like I did, and learn the limits. Once you've hit them, invest in decent kit.

Agreed, but I would add that you learn alot of valuable skills (that later become invaluable) when you have to use creativity to supplement hardware that may be less than state-of-the-art. And I think people (who take pride in their work) tend to produce more compelling pics when they have to cover for the sins of their camera.