This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - DoctorMowinckel
1
« on: April 28, 2013, 12:31:23 AM »
My bread and butter used to be freelance professional audio. Usually recording mixing and mastering work, but I'd also do location audio. I also sort of haphazardly do photography freelance? I do a lot of concert photography, and I get a decent amount of my shots licensed. So, I'm familiar with being freelance.
Contracts are important, go to a lawyer or legal zoom to have an airtight contract made up.
No matter how much you want it, someone wants it more than you. And no matter how good you are, there's someone better than you. If you fall behind in either category, you'll be left to languish by the wayside.
Be confident and know what you're worth. Don't do spec work, no one takes people who do spec work seriously. I've done spec work, but only after I just moved to a new area and needed some clout with the local scene.
No one cares about you. That sounds crass, but it's true. When you're first starting, no one cares about you. You're on your own, and if you want chances, you have to make them, no one's going to give them to you. You have to knock on every door, and if that door opens even the slightest you gotta make the best impression you can. Everyone thinks they're a writer, so you've got a lot of competition. If you don't have the clout to make people care about you, there's someone out there who's willing to do it for free. You gotta convince people that you're worth paying for.
Pay your self employment taxes. That's important. Keep a log of incoming income and pay your self employment taxes. And don't be shy about business expenses. Do you write? With a computer? Buy a $330 graphics card, write it off as 'computer upgrades'! I've done that, I've probably shouldn't, but meh.
Freelance work in a creative field is tough. We've cultivated a society in which everyone is a special creative snowflake flower, and I'm not sure if you've noticed this, but most 'photographers', and 'writers' out there aren't photographers or writers. They got a like on facebook or deviantart and decided they're going to be that creative dainty snowflake. Most of those people aren't very good, but it's the infinite monkey theorem, y'know? If you have enough people working for free, eventually one of them will, by chance, produce some good work. When people seeking those sorts of services have that pool to cull from, they're going to.
Your competition isn't other people so much as it is people who know they can pay nothing and get something acceptable. You gotta make yourself so good those cheapasses who don't want to pay for this sort of work want to pay you for it. The signal to noise ratio is huge, it's going to take a lot of talent, a lot of clout, and a lot of networking to make it happen.
Also, networking, that last bit, by far the most important. You can be the best in the world at what you do, but if you don't know anyone, you're screwed. Make contacts, lots of them. Shake every hand you can. Go to every local meet related to your field that you can. Get on good with local people in your field so they can defer work to you. A good network is more important than a good skillset.
2
« on: April 27, 2013, 04:32:58 PM »
Not really a celebrity, but there's a musician with whom I was, and am still presently quite enamoured. I said 'hi' to her after a show, and we hit it off. We're pals now, she even asked for some prints of some of my pony pictures. That tickled me.
I also asked one of my favourites bands if they'd like me to treat them to dinner before one of their shows. So, I got to have dinner with one of my favourite bands, that was pretty cool.
3
« on: April 25, 2013, 02:58:06 PM »
The thing I would say about hands is there's probably a similar problem to foot tattoos, in that you use and wash your hands all the time, so you're more likely to get blurring/fading issues.
That is absolutely correct. If you get some intricate lettering on your fingers, any lettering, really, it will start to fade within a year. In three years, it will look like utter crap. This is partly because you move your hands and fingers a lot, and because the skin on your fingers isn't as thick as it is elsewhere on your body. It also increase the chance of a 'blow out'. A blow out happens when the ink is inked too deep into the skin, the tattoo area gets aggravated before it heals, and it causes the ink to either bleed from the lines, or blur. There are varying degrees of blow outs, some will be a little tiny bit of bleed, and in the worst cases, it will be a mess. Google tattoo blow out if you're curious.
A really good tattoo artist is going to occasionally have a flub and ink too deep, happens. Usually not a cause for concern, but if the ink was put too deep on a part of the body that sees a lot of movement or pressure, it can really exaggerate the chance of a blow out. When you're inked too deep, it's not a 100% chance for a blow out, either, and after it fully heals, there's no more chance of a blow out. If it's a tattoo on your forearm, shoulder, bicep, a part of your body that stays mostly inert, and the tattoo artist inked too deep, it'll be fine. But, if the artist inked too deep, the more you move the area where the tattoo is, the bigger the chance for a blow out.
Tattoo artists are iffy about things like finger tattoos for all of these reasons, as well they should be. They don't need someone who didn't do their research coming back and saying 'look what happened!'.
I've read a lot about finger and hand tattoos becoming faded and all of the reasons behind it but I hadn't heard of a tattoo blow out before. Thank you for the warning! For the finger tattoos, I've seen a lot of really nice looking ones and read about people that got them a long time ago and how they still look nice. I also read that with finger tattoos, you should get them touched up two or three times to lessen the chance of them fading. Does that really help?
It depends on the design. If it's any sort of lettering that isn't super bold, it will fade, you won't need to get it touched up a few times in your life, more like a couple times a year. Here are some finger tattoos with intricate lettering right after they healed; visitors can't see pics , please register or loginNice ink, right? No blow outs, really tight lines, detailed script, too. Have an after; visitors can't see pics , please register or loginI don't know how much time passed between the two, but they were both taken with a cell phone camera. So it was likely less than three years. Finger tattoos will fade, fast. If it's a design with really bold lines and shapes, like some people will get a 'wedding band' tattoo, it will start to fade and blur around the edges, but it's not like it's a really detailed piece, so whatever. Don't listen to heresy from other people. Talk to your tattoo artist. Ask them what you're thinking about it, and ask them how it will age. Tattoo artists really care about their work, and if they're going to do a piece that could make someone go 'look how quick this faded! That tattoo artist sucks!', they're not going to be eager to do it, they don't need that negative press. Tattoo artists want to give you an awesome piece that will look good for the rest of your life, and they'll work with you on that. If this is going to be your first tattoo, do your homework. Ask the tattoo artist what they think of it, how it will age. Ask them about the design, what they think of it, if they think it's the type of tattoo that's trendy and will be out of fashion in a year, thus making you look silly. Look at the artists portfolio, be ready to pay for good work, and tip them! You tip your tattoo artist, they're putting something on you forever. That lasts longer than a pizza or dinner. If your tattoo artist doesn't have their bloodborne pathogens certification, leave immediately. OSHA (Occupation Safety and Health Administration) requires a tattoo artists in most states (I think all) to have their bloodborne pathogens certification. If you're in a tattoo shop and they don't have it, they're not taking it seriously, at all. You can find someone with more experience, easily. You'll pay more, but it's worth it. I advise people to put a lot of thought into tattoos, not because it's there forever or some gobbledegook, but because you only have so much real estate on your body! When I was 19 or 20 I almost got the Konami logo (the old one) tattooed on my shoulder, and while that would be an awesome tattoo, it'd be taking up that space, which is likely going to spent on something else, something that I've been into for nine years now. So, I'm glad I sat on that! Get tattoos, tattoos are awesome, but don't get something and think 'that's neat but I could have done better'. There's no backsies!
4
« on: April 24, 2013, 06:03:44 AM »
The thing I would say about hands is there's probably a similar problem to foot tattoos, in that you use and wash your hands all the time, so you're more likely to get blurring/fading issues.
That is absolutely correct. If you get some intricate lettering on your fingers, any lettering, really, it will start to fade within a year. In three years, it will look like utter crap. This is partly because you move your hands and fingers a lot, and because the skin on your fingers isn't as thick as it is elsewhere on your body. It also increase the chance of a 'blow out'. A blow out happens when the ink is inked too deep into the skin, the tattoo area gets aggravated before it heals, and it causes the ink to either bleed from the lines, or blur. There are varying degrees of blow outs, some will be a little tiny bit of bleed, and in the worst cases, it will be a mess. Google tattoo blow out if you're curious. A really good tattoo artist is going to occasionally have a flub and ink too deep, happens. Usually not a cause for concern, but if the ink was put too deep on a part of the body that sees a lot of movement or pressure, it can really exaggerate the chance of a blow out. When you're inked too deep, it's not a 100% chance for a blow out, either, and after it fully heals, there's no more chance of a blow out. If it's a tattoo on your forearm, shoulder, bicep, a part of your body that stays mostly inert, and the tattoo artist inked too deep, it'll be fine. But, if the artist inked too deep, the more you move the area where the tattoo is, the bigger the chance for a blow out. Tattoo artists are iffy about things like finger tattoos for all of these reasons, as well they should be. They don't need someone who didn't do their research coming back and saying 'look what happened!'.
5
« on: April 23, 2013, 01:44:41 AM »
I go with the ten year rule. Ten years ago, what would you have gotten a tattoo of? Is it the same thing you'd get a tattoo of today? If so, then it's probably okay to get that tattoo.
6
« on: April 07, 2013, 02:46:13 PM »
Doing wildlife photography at night is going to be really, really difficult without a super high ISO, 3200 at least, more like you'd need 6,400. If you want a digital camera that performs well at 6,400 ISO, you're going to be spending a heck of a lot more than $500. Like, three or four times that. Same for figure skating, that is not a luminous environment. For figure skating you'd either need a photography pass, or a lens with a high focal length to make it work. Before I start talking about focal lengths a lot, have a picture; visitors can't see pics , please register or loginIf you're using a lens with a long focal length (think of focal length as the zoom, the higher the focal length, the more 'zoom' it has), you're going to need high ISOs for what you want to shoot. Lenses with long focal lengths usually have a narrower aperture (a higher f/#) than lenses with a lower focal length. This is because of something called 'depth of field'. Depth of field refers to how much of the image is in focus. Depth of field is calculated by the focal length, focus distance, and the aperture. The wider the lens is open (the lower the aperture setting), the more shallow the depth of field will be, less of the image will be in focus. This effect is exaggerated by focal length. Something like 300mm at f/4.0 will have a super narrow depth of field, much more narrow than something like a 50mm lens at f/4.0. As well, the focus distance will also have an effect on the depth of field. The closer you are to something, the shallower the depth of field. The farther away you are, the wider the depth of field. Here's something I shot at f/1.8 with a 50mm lens that was about two feet away; visitors can't see pics , please register or loginSee how little is in focus? The head of her lapsteel guitar is out of focus, part of the neck is in focus, and so is her hand. Once you get to the body of the lapsteel guitar, the focus drops off. That's about six or seven inches of the image that was in focus. Here's something else I shot with a shallow depth of field. This was f/5.6 at 47mm, but I was about two, three inches away? When you focus on something that close, even with a higher aperture, the depth of field is going to be wicked shallow, check it out; visitors can't see pics , please register or loginNotice how quickly the focus falls off. Here's f/14 at 50mm, the focus was pretty far, I think I focused on where the bridge meets the abutment; visitors can't see pics , please register or loginWith a higher focal length and focusing on something far away, a lot of the image is in focus. This is f/1.8 at 50mm, with the focus set to as far as will go, set to 'infinity', which reaches the 'hyperfocal distance'. The hyperfocal distance refers to a point of focus where everything from that point onward is in focus. The narrower the aperture (higher the f/number), the farther away the point of focus where everything in focus will be. With a 50mm lens at 1.8, which is how this was shot, the hyperfocal distance will start pretty far out, but with something like 300mm at f/22, the hyperfocal distance will start closer. Anyway, here's the shot at 50mm f/1.8 set to infinity, with the hyperfocal distance causing everything from that point to be in focus; visitors can't see pics , please register or loginAs you can see, the distance has a really, really big impact on focus. I don't really shoot long lenses, so I don't have a lot of examples of that. That's a lot of words and pictures, but what I'm saying is; you're always going to be fighting with what light is available when shooting in low light situations. Figure skating will be tough, if you have a 300mm lens, unless you buy a really nice one, the widest aperture you'll get is f/5.6, you'd be far away, and you'd also need a fast autofocus, or be really awesome at manual focusing to make it work. Despite the hyperfocal distance being a factor, I doubt you'd be meeting it when doing figure skating shooting. Concert photography is mah thang, I'm good at it. Here's something I shot recently. This was done with film and a 50mm lens. The film was developed to 3200 ISO. If you want to get good concert shots, you'll want to get close. If you're shooting in a crowd with a long lens, you're going to have to be really creative to get good shots. If you want to shoot small venues, then get a 50mm lens, and get in close. All is not lost! Buy used, buy used every day of the week. KEH is a used camera retailer who pretty much sets the market for used cameras. My digital body is a Canon XTi, it can be had for $140 from KEH. You can see some of my digital work here, all of it is 1600 ISO, and shot with the XTi. Here's a 75-300mm lens for $80, and the good ol' EF 50mm 1.8, goes for about $120. I know some of the items I linked you to say 'BGN', which stands for 'bargain', but KEH is really good about quality. Everything I've bought from them that was listed as 'bargain', would be 'mint', 'good condition' or 'LIKE NEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!' on eBay or Craigslist. And, something that's important about that camera body I linked to, it has what's called a '1.6x crop factor', which means that the focal length will be multiplied by 1.6 (unless you buy a special type of lens called Canon EF-S). So the 50mm would perform like an 80mm, and the 75-300mm, is more like 120mm-480mm. The latter would be great for wildlife and nature photography. 480mm is a really high focal length, and I'm sure you'd find a lot of use for it. I'm aware I have said a lot, and if anything's confusing or if you need something explained better.
7
« on: April 07, 2013, 12:02:45 AM »
Most of what I shoot is low light, really low light. If you're into low light photography the two most important things to you are going to be ISO, and aperture. ISO refers to how light sensitive the films sensor is, and aperture refers to how wide the opening is at the end of the lens. Let's start with aperture, the how wide open, or narrow the opening of the lens is. A picture is a better description; visitors can't see pics , please register or loginApertures are measured by the f#. F1.8, F5.6, F16, and so on. Apertures go higher and lower and several 'stops' in between. In photography, a 'stop' is a measure of of light. If you stop the lens down two stops, it's going to be letting in twice as much as light. Stops also apply to ISOs, but we'll get there later. For low light photography, you're going to need something with a wide aperture, if you're going to be shooting movement, unless you have one of the newest flagships that can shoot usable pictures at 25,600 ISO, you're not going to be shooting above f4.0. The reason for is because a wider aperture, something like 1.8, will let in more light than a narrower aperture, something like F11. ISO is the measure of how light sensitive a cameras film, or sensor is. ISO is measured in number, and an ISO that's twice as high as the prior number is twice as light sensitive. So 1600 ISO is twice as light sensitive as 800 ISO, and four times as light sensitive as 400 ISO. So at 400 ISO, if you're shutter speed is one second, it will be half a second at 800, and a quarter of a second at 1600. It's easy to think 'so I'll just crank the ISO!', doesn't work like that, unfortunately. Digital cameras adjust ISO by adjust the signal gain to the sensor. Some cameras are better at adjusting the signal gain then others, and thus they look better that the same ISO then other cameras. The Canon 6D can make workable pictures at 25,600 ISO, whereas an older digital body won't even look good at 3,200 ISO, if they even go that high. I still shoot a lot of film, so have a demo, using the same person! This is Ilford 3200, it's 3200 ISO film and I developed it at 3200 ISO; visitors can't see pics , please register or loginAnd this is Ilford HP5+ developed at 3200 ISO; visitors can't see pics , please register or loginYou'll notice on the first one it's much grainier, 3200 ISO has the same light sensitivity, but it's not equal in terms of how fine the image looks. Now, let's look at digital. Here are the full size images from my digital camera, no post. They're RAW images converted to Jpegs, not even white balancing; http://www.doctormowinckel.com/?p=705And here's a Canon 6D at 1600 ISO; http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualfocus-g/8267423629/sizes/o/in/photostream/Same light sensitivity, but they handle ISO differently. One looks better than the other. So, you're going to be looking for a camera that preforms well at high ISOs, and lenses with wide apertures. I'd have more advice to offer if I knew what you wanted to shoot, and what your budget is.
8
« on: April 06, 2013, 02:28:44 PM »
ive had another go and can cut/paste now
feel like giving up and buying photoshop, it was much easier
I bought a printer that came with two copies of Photoshop Elements, one for Mac and one for PC. Seeing as I have Photoshop CS5, I don't have much use for Elements. If you download a trial version of Elements I can PM you one of the keys. Once you learn Photoshop, GIMP ends up being really lacking.
9
« on: April 05, 2013, 12:28:13 PM »
An easy copout would be selective colouring, but don't do selective colouring, people would laugh at you. If you want to make the belts stand out, use complimentary colours in the shoot that will make them pop out. It sounds like they're bright, so shooting against a black background will definitely work. Any photographer who's worth their salt can take a white background and turn it black. In terms of clothing, black jeans or pants against a black background will definitely work if the pants are properly lit, maybe using a fill light, or something like a strip light around the waist to really make them show up.
Using your hands to draw attention to the belts would help, too. I'm not talking like pointing at them, but keeping your hands or thumbs in your pockets would definitely draw the eye without making it too obvious. If you're a fair skinned human being, showing a bit of midriff would help, too. Don't be shy about keeping your hips pushed out for the shoot, too. I'm not talking like you're trying to crotch thrust the camera from where your standing, but a subtle push.
I'd definitely go with a lot of monochome, but I'd be ready for some shades that compliment the belts. Black pants, grey top, or vice versa. Have some clothes that are complimentary to the belt, but obviously of a different saturation level. Bright orange on bright green would be obnoxious. Some makeup that works with the belts would help the theme of 'brightly colour belts', I'm not talking bright green make up, but eyeliner that's a complimentary colour, desaturated and a darker shade would fit.
If it were me lighting the shoot I'd put a fill light on the waist, probably my 1x3 hair light, maybe something for fill below that, I wouldn't want it to be too glaringly obvious that there's a fill light there. I can't see it being full body shots, lowest I would go is the knees, so I'd let the light fall off around the shins and calves. I'd use one of my 2x2 softboxes, to light the underside of your body, to make some light propagate on the underside of your breasts. I usually wouldn't do that, but if the focus is on the waist, haven't light leading to it would help. For a key light I'd maybe use my 5x5 octabox but that throws off a ton of light, and I'm afraid it'd wash out all the other lights I had set up. I'd probably use of my 3x2 softboxes, those would be above you, lighting the rest of your body.
I'd go for multiple looks, for sure. Start off with a black tank or black halter top, and black jeans. A black top with a white or grey cardigan, too. Start with a black background, and move it to grey, try some white, but I'd likely keep it black or grey, then move into clothing with more colours. In my head I'm definitely seeing a hair fan being used. I wouldn't aim for a glamour style shoot, with glamour makeup, but a hair fan can add easy 'attitude'.
Hope that helps.
10
« on: April 04, 2013, 06:45:59 PM »
Go to edit, paste as, and select paste as new layer.
11
« on: March 31, 2013, 07:13:49 PM »
I've been playing hockey forever. Don't play much these days, but I am a sub goalie for a nearby rink. If a team has no goalies that can make it to a game, they give me a ring and say 'Hey, hey, Ed. You wanna play net?', then I play a game.
I've been kicking around the idea of getting into good shape again, and playing hockey at a competitive level. Recreational leagues in North America are split into different tiers. Usually E/D, C, B, and A. E/D is the lowest tier, for people who have just started playing and don't have a lot of experience skating. A is for people who have been playing their whole lives and still enjoy it, but aren't good enough that people are willing to pay them to play hockey. Right now I sub mostly in C and B leagues. They don't let me sub in D league games, it wouldn't be fair. I'm not saying I'm a super awesome goalie, but the skill dichotomy between myself and the lowest tier league would make it a really one sided game. Playing in C and B leagues is fun, but I really want a serious level of competition.
12
« on: March 30, 2013, 06:26:05 PM »
Swedish, English and a little bit of German. Swedish is similar to Danish and Norwegian, so I understand these languages quite well too.
Yeah, they're pretty similar. After I picked up Swedish, Norwegian seemed familiar, it's still different, but if someone were to start speaking Norwegian to me, I wouldn't be lost. Danish, though, is a mystery to me. I can pick up about a third of the words, the other third are words that sound the same but have a different meaning, and a third is completely foreign to me. I do not understand it. I'm thinking about learning Finnish so I can follow SM-Liiga games. That's the highest tier of hockey in Finland.
13
« on: March 29, 2013, 02:50:11 AM »
Where's the other baldy at?
Represent, bro.
14
« on: March 29, 2013, 12:52:59 AM »
I made this radio station on Spotify that's full of oriental influenced downtempo, it is pretty swell.
That's what I'm listening to.
15
« on: March 28, 2013, 04:15:18 PM »
It seems to be really mass produced, so I doubt there'll be a run of that particular Celestia. If you want her to have golden booties, do it up!
|
Show Posts