Last time Amanda was seen on this blog, the images were light and bright and she wasn’t wearing very much. We got together for our second shoot at the end of June for something that was a little darker, and with more clothing.
Shot with a Nikon D700 and 85mm f/1.4 lens.
On Tuesday night I photographed an Ed Hardy swimwear fashion show at Karma Lounge in Oshawa, Ontario. Using the Nikon D700, I shot almost everything at ISO 6400 and f/1.4 due to the very low lighting in the club.
I also experimented with the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 DX lens on the D700, which is a full-frame (FX) body:
There’s never a shortage of interesting people to shoot at a club:
And that brings us to the swimwear models. You might be wondering, “Ryan, why did you make all these photos blue?” Answer after these:
One major issue with club photography is the very, very strange patterns, colours, and colour temperatures of lights that are used. This is one of the major reasons I shoot raw-format photos (instead of JPEG) — so that I have full control over white balance after the photos are taken. White balancing via the auto function of the camera, or trying to do it manually at the club is an exercise in frustration. Check out the example below of Ashley.
The photo on the left is what the camera decided the correct white balance should be in automatic mode (4450 degrees kelvin). The photo on the right is after correcting the white balance in Lightroom to the maximum allowed setting of 50,000 degrees kelvin (and also setting the tint to negative 150 to combat some of the pink hue). So now instead of looking purple, Ashley looks closer to a regular human again. The problem, if there is one, is that both versions look kinda cool. So rather than trying to pick one, I compromised and just tossed out all the colour and made the selenium toned versions you see above.
A couple months back, Brandi needed some photos for her new Nutrabolics blog. While we were shooting, I decided to make a time-lapse video using my Nikon D200′s intervalometer. I set the camera up on a tripod in the corner of the studio and shot at 8-second intervals. The 284 images were then glued together into movie form using Apple QuickTime Pro.
Here’s a simple headshot we did with ghetto clamshell lighting:
Hasselblad H3D, ISO 100, f/11
Check out more clamshell lighting examples at Lighting Essentials.
I found Nuria working at a kiosk at the mall. We shot these near the lake, right before a ridiculous rainstorm.
Back in April, Nikon announced the AF-S DX Nikkor 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED lens. The usual alphabet soup of letters and numbers is pretty meaningless if you just come here to see pictures, so let’s hop to it. I used the lens for the first time last weekend, at two weddings. First up, Jim and Ashley:
Nikon D200, Nikkor 10-24mm lens @ 10mm, f/4.5, 1/15th, ISO 800
This is a wide lens. It effectively replaces Nikon’s 12-24mm lens in the lineup and provides some competition for Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina, who all have 10mm offerings. Looking through a 10mm lens is a whole different experience. There were many times when I was in danger of colliding with my subjects because I didn’t realize how close I was to them!
Nikon D700, Nikkor 10-24mm lens @ 20mm, f/5.6, 1/10th, ISO 320
The lens focused quickly and accurately in the low light of the reception hall and provided sharp images at all focal lengths. The two shots above were illuminated with a Nikon SB-900 flash while dragging (slowing down) the shutter to get the colourful/blurry ambient light in the background. For much of the night, I stood on the dance floor, camera pressed to my eye, and circled the participants over and over again while pressing the shutter every so often. With ordinary photography, one would want to stay as still as possible to minimize vibration or blurriness; here, though, the flash freezes the subject and my circling movements combined with the slow shutter speed add a little pizzaz to the background.
But what happens when you put this DX lens on an FX (full-frame) camera?
Nikon D700, Nikkor 10-24mm lens @ 11mm, f/5.6, 1/10th, ISO 320
You get a crooked, wavy vignette which looks… kinda cool, I think. The lens doesn’t quite project enough light on to the full-frame sensor to completely cover it, hence some information at the edges isn’t recorded. Here’s another shot, zoomed in a bit to 12mm:
Nikon D700, Nikkor 10-24mm lens @ 12mm, f/5.6, 1/10th, ISO 320
A teensy bit less of the vignette is visible here. Zooming in to 15mm eliminates it completely. Nikon’s FX cameras have the ability to automatically crop the images when DX lenses are attached, but I prefer to disable this function and shoot images like the above. This maximizes the amount of control I have after the fact, allowing me to crop where and how I want, and getting images that are as wide as possible.
The edge distortion at the wider focal lengths is surely noticeable by now, but it can be put to good use if the bride and groom are willing to have a little fun, like Meghan and Mike:
Nikon D200, Nikkor 10-24mm lens @ 10mm, f/4.5, 1/400th, ISO 500
Nikon D200, Nikkor 10-24mm lens @ 10mm, f/5.6, 1/125th, ISO 200
Meghan and Mike luckily didn’t mind the funhouse-mirror approach to photographs and we got some unique shots as a result.
I’ll be taking this lens with me on my July trip to Nova Scotia, where it should excel at landscape images of the ocean and sky. Luckily it takes the same 77mm filters that my existing pro Nikon lenses use, so I won’t have to buy a new circular polarizer. The build quality of the lens isn’t quite the same as my 17-55mm or 70-200mm lenses, but it’s still really really decent for what is essentially an expensive but consumer-grade lens. I own a Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4 lens that cost about the same amount when it was new, and it feels very cheap by comparison. Nikon knows what they’re doing when it comes to fit, finish, and refinement.
I’d easily recommend this lens for anyone looking for a super-wide and I look forward to using it on my vacation.
Angela is from Newfoundland. Angela is 22. Angela likes taking off her clothes and now she has a blog.
I will photograph Angela one day. She doesn’t know it yet.
Angela by Richard Dubois
“A photographer who doesn’t photograph women is no photographer, or only a third-rate one. Meeting a woman anywhere teaches you more about the world than reading Balzac. Whether it be a wife, a woman encountered by happenstance, or a prostitute, she will teach you about the world. In fact I build my life on meeting women and I have hardly read a book since primary school.” – Nobuyoshi Araki
Via CONSTANT SIEGE.
I’m a fan of Flickr. I wasn’t always. As photo-sharing websites go, I found the interface, usability, and navgiation all left a lot to be desired. I’ve warmed to it now that I’ve become familiar with it over the years, and upload most of my new work there to share with the world.
But let’s rewind a bit. Many years ago, Rogers, my internet service provider, discontinued a service known as Usenet newsgroups, citing lack of popularity. When I wrote to them to protest, they retorted that they had entered into a new relationship with Yahoo which would provide all sorts of new features to make up for the lack of newsgroups. Well, I didn’t want or need any of the new features, I just wanted my newgroups back. No dice. One of those new features, however, was Yahoo Photos.
Fast forward to October 2007. Rogers and Yahoo decided to discontinue the Yahoo Photos service and replace it with the superior Yahoo-owned Flickr instead. They bestowed all Rogers customers with a free Flickr Pro account (worth $24.95US/year), which was actually pretty cool of them. I used the service extensively since then, sharing my photos with other Flickr members, uploading hundreds of photos, posting them to my blog, etc.
And that brings us to yesterday, when I received this from Rogers:
We are writing to inform you that on July 1, 2009, your Flickr Pro account included with your Rogers Hi-Speed Internet service will change to a free Flickr account. If you enjoy the full flexibility and storage capacity of your current Flickr Pro account, you can maintain your Pro account by subscribing directly to the service for $24.95 (USD) a year.
In a nutshell: they’re canceling everyone’s memberships which were only instituted a year and a half ago.
However, as is the case with many of these things, they didn’t provide a reason. I started searching and came across this nugget on the Flickr FAQ:
Why do Rogers Internet Service subscribers no longer get free Pro?
The Flickr Pro account included with your Rogers Yahoo! Hi-Speed service will change to a free Flickr account on July 1, 2009.
They go on to detail prices and account restrictions, but nowhere do they answer exactly why we “no longer get free Pro” as stated in their own question. That they wrote. I wrote to Flickr about this and am still awaiting a reply.
Some more digging around resulted in a post at the Digital Home forums from someone claiming to work for Rogers. The reason for canceling Flickr Pro service?
A very small number of our customers (less than 2 per cent) took advantage of the Flickr Pro service.
To recap: years ago, Rogers takes away a service, citing lack of popularity. They replace it with unrelated services, one of which gets superceded by a newer and better service. They then discontinue this new service, replacing it with nothing, once again citing lack of popularity. Does any of this make sense? And if those services were indeed so unpopular, then what possible time, expense, or resources could it have been costing Rogers to keep them up? Zilch.
The silver lining in this cloud? Some time ago, I won myself a free one-year Flickr Pro account from my friends at MOO* and have been saving it for a rainy day. I engaged the gift code this morning, meaning it will become active on July 1, 2009 when my Rogers-provided account dies a sad little death, and be valid until July 1, 2010. Except for one little problem. Flickr now reports that my Pro account is only valid until May 15, 2010. WTF? It’s six weeks short.
I wrote Flickr another email to ask what was up. Extracted from their response:
Thank you for your recent email enquiry regarding Flickr Billing. I understand that you need information regarding the status of your Flickr pro account.
Let me help you with your concern. I have checked your account and it shows that your Flickr pro account in [sic] valid until May 15, 2010. Please be informed that Flickr pro account is valid for one year only. Since you have activated your Flickr gift pro account dated May 15, 2009 that means your pro is valid one year from the said date which is May 15, 2010.
Um, what? I’m pretty sure they didn’t even read the sections of my email where I detailed very clearly the July 1 versus May 15 discrepancy. From their own gift page:
If your gift recipient currently has a Flickr pro account, buying them another year of pro allows them to enjoy pro status for that much longer!
Except me, apparently.
* Speaking of MOO, here’s another great deal I can share with you. If you’re a first-time MOO customer, then you can save 20% off any single MOO product as long as you order before May 29, 2009. Use referral code WETYFM. Hurry to the MOO site before it expires!