In my future plans I have the redesign of my website, apart obviously the blog (a refresh after two months it would be pretty silly), but as I do websites for living, working on my personal website on my spare time is not that easy, it tooks two years before I got rid of the previous 5-minutes-made wordpress site, so it might take a while before the new website is done. But one of the feature I will add on the next site it will probably be a shop.
As probably some of you already know, it's really difficult to make a living with photography, and a good chunck of my savings goes on cameras, lenses, flashes, etc..., so if I can earn some money with what is my passion, to buy better gear, it would be really nice.
So what I decided is to revive my old RedBubble account, which I probably didn't use for at least a couple of years, and I started to upload some of the pictures I have on my current website, and I've linked these photos to the current website, and if you watch my website you can find a new little icon, with the quite obvious word "buy", that links back to the related photos on the RedBubble site.
So, if you want to help me and get a nice print of one (or more) of my pictures, you can buy them from RedBubble. At the moment there are just a few of them, but I'll keep uploading photos in the next few days. Bear in mind that you will be able to buy all the photos, apart the music ones. In case you want a print of those ones, please contact me privately using the contact form you can find on the menu on the top.
I have to say that I found this videos by accident, but I'm glad I did it. These 3 videos are a very detailed tutorial that shows how photographer Matt Hernandez made his composite of the athlete George Wilson, from how he shot it, to how he extracted the subject from the original shot, how he shot the background, and then how it merged everything together to make a final image.
In this interesting video, Mark Vargo, who did work in several big movies like Deep Impact, Ted, Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes, is going to explain what are the differences between the incident meter and the reflective meter, and even if Mark is more focused on cinema, this is still useful for any photographers, especially when it comes to understand how to correctly expose a photo.
Today I went to Ikea and now I'm totally knackered, so tonite I'm just going to publish another good photoshop tutorial from Aaron Nace of Phlearn.com, which is going to show us how to bring composites together with color in Photoshop, a simple technique that makes our composite look more natural and less artificial.
Here we are, yesterday, thank to the decent weather, I went around the Aviva Stadium to take some test shots to see how my new wide lens behaves, nothing too artistic, just a few photos ot things. But on the way home I have to wait for the train to pass, so I took a snap, on the tripod but without any ND filters.
To be fair is an alright shot, for me it's a 2 out of 5 stars on lightroom, which is the minimum to be published for me, but still, it's the first good picture made with my brand new lens :-)
Expect and lens review in the next few days!
Well, maybe is not exactly a part II, but is an extension of the previous article I wrote about this ND filter, the Light Craft Workshop Fader ND Mk II, very long name for a not that good filter IMHO.
Anyway, in the previous post I was saying that that filter is a big disappointment if coupled with my old, and now sold, Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 HSM EX DC, while with another zoom lens I tried, a longer Sigma 17-50 I didn't have any big problems.
So today I decided to go out and do some extra tests with my brand new wide angle lens, the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L USM.
Now, bear in mind that all the three wide lenses I tried have the same filter size, 77mm, so we cannot really point at the filter size as one of the possible causes. But how it did perform with the Canon L(uxury) lens? Same as the Sigma 17-50 (which shares a very similar focal range) or like the Sigma 10-20?
Here we are with yet another photo release, this time is Yngwie Malmsteen, and this time is far beyond ridiculous.
You are not allowed to use YOUR pictures for anything else apart the publication you are shooting for, and if you do it, they can sue you. Plus the artist can use YOUR pictures anytime they want, without give you a single cent.
Again, if you are a music photographer and you were thinking to go to photograph this "artist", stay at home.
(via Music Photographers)
This time Matt Granger is talking about "how much to charge for a wedding?". And I agree with him saying that it's not only a "one day job", which is the perception of the client and unfortunately sometimes even on some photographers. And you can apply this not only on weddings, but in any type of photography, as most of the people asking you for pictures think that "you just press a button and it's done", and they have no idea of the time you spent in pre and post production.
Anyway, another interesting video from Matt, enjoy :-)
Here we are with another fun photo release. I have to say that this isn't that bad in terms of copyrights, but the idea that a bloody publicist which probably has no culture in photography is going to decide which picture I can publish or not? Well, I feel a bit like Leonidas when he refuse to kneel in front of Xerxes in 300. But maybe my answer would be a bit more modern: "No fuckin way".
So another gig to do not photograph.
(via Music Photographers)