In my efforts to improve results in my photography, I have been creating a custom white balance in almost all of my photography (indoor and out). This has allowed me to get good colors with little or no post processing to make color corrections. I do continually look to improve though, and I've seen other photographers that dial in the color temperature (in Kelvin) rather than using a custom white balance.
A friend of mine dials in 4900 (I think that's the color temperature he uses) when photographing hockey at the BOK Center. He swears that this gives him good color. I think he arrived at this by trial and error, but his results are pretty good. However, I just don't believe that this can be as accurate as a custom white balance.
I am intrigued by the notion of dialing in the color temperature though. My wife and I recently bought some LEDs to replace compact florescent bulbs that we had been using in our home. I noticed that the package lists a Kelvin color temperature of 4900. I did some test shots under this lighting and the colors were right on.
Although I think if you have the light manufacturers' specifications on what color temperature their bulbs produce, I believe that over time, there is variation from their factory color temperature. So although when brand new, these bulbs produce a particular color temperature, over time, that can change. This is why I still use a custom white balance.
Now with this all stated, I want improved colors, if possible. So in addition do what I'm currently doing, I keep wanting to know if there's a better way to arrive at a custom white balance.
I currently use an Expo card and put it over the front of my camera lens. I point the lens at my light source, and take a reference shot. I'll note that this usually requires turning off auto-focus. Once I get the reference shot, I turn auto-focus back on. I then set my camera to use this reference shot (it's a neutral grey image, or should be) as my custom white balance, and then I put the camera into custom white balance most rather than auto. That's it.
What I don't know is if there's a better method and/or tool for getting a custom white balance. I've seen some photographers that have a lens cap that has a white balance len within it. They put the camera at their light source with this cap over the lens. From there, the method is the same for using that image as their reference (their custom white balance).
I've heard of people using a coffee filter over the lens to produce their reference image, but I'm not sure how good that really is. It hasn't been calibrated to produce a neutral grey from a light source. Likewise, I've seen that people have used the cap off of an old Pringles potato chip can. They claim this works pretty well, and of course, it would be less expensive than an Expo card or any of the white balance lens (such as the Balens) that I've seen.
One thing I like with the Expo card is that I can use it with all of my lenses. Since the Balens is set to attach to the front of a lens, you need a different one for each size (diameter) of lens that you have.
Many studio photographers will use a grey card and take reference shots of it to get their custom white balance. This is a little tougher to do at a sporting event, and so I like the use of a tool such as the Expo card.
I keep mentioning the Expo card, but I am not completely endorsing it. I'm happy with it but always looking to improve. It's just that I'm picky about investing more money in a new (and expensive) solution that may or may not be any better than what I'm using now.
ColorRight.com has products for coming up with a custom white balance, and many swear by it. However, the cost is way too high for me to try if it's not any better than what I have. I'd sure like to know if it would be an improvement. Their website claims it's the best, but then again, all of these vendors claim their product is the best.
Showing posts with label photography. Show all posts
Showing posts with label photography. Show all posts
Monday, September 26, 2011
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Damned If You Do; Damned If You Don't
My photography hobby is a great one, but I've wanted it to pay for itself, or at least help offset the costs. Generally speaking, I have a lower-end DSLR, but it is adequate for most of my needs. Obviously, I'd like to have a better camera, but I figure that's in the future. I'm happy with my Canon 400D (otherwise known as a Canon EOS Rebel XTi).
One thing that is in the back of my mind is that eventually, this camera will need to be replaced. When that time comes, I'd like to upgrade to a better camera. So I'm looking for ways to get this hobby to pay for itself, or at least make a little bit of money that I can set aside for photographic expenditures in the future (lenses, or even a second camera). A second camera would be nice, but I'll definitely need to buy a camera when this one wears out. And it will wear out.
To date, I've made no money (zero) with the hobby. It has had it's health benefits, as far as it has gotten me out walking more, which is a good healthy thing to do. However, that isn't going to buy a new camera when the time comes.
I photograph whatever I am interested in. I've done some nature shots, landscapes, architectural, wildlife, cars, and sports. Most of my photography has been shooting hockey. I was the official photographer for the Tulsa Rampage junior hockey team this last season, but they are a charity and so this was a non-compensated position. I also shoot the Tulsa Oilers hockey team, representing Pro Hockey News with media credentials (which gets me into the games for free). I've even written a little bit in addition to the photography.
All along, I've gotten static from some of the other photographers because in the past, they had gotten paid for their efforts, but with the tighter economy, the teams weren't paying for their services, and instead were getting "free stuff" from a few of us that were shooting for the fun of it. However, how long can you shoot for the fun of it, if you're not getting enough to pay for your equipment.
So I've felt the need to be paid. I've felt pressure to be paid. However, when I finally got around to setting up a site to allow me to sell some of my photos, I was immediately challenged (on facebook) for not paying the CHL licensing fee. This guy claimed that he (and others) had paid and he felt that I should as well. When I asked who to contact about the licensing fee and how much it was, he clammed up. This makes me doubt if he was ever really licensed to sell CHL-related hockey photos. Either way, I felt like they were blasting me for doing free hockey photography, and then when I set about selling my work, they blasted me again. I felt like it was "damned if you do, and damned if you don't".
Regardless of the external pressures to not give my photographic services away, I still feel the need to be paid. So how do I go about getting this hobby to pay for itself? How do I get paid?
I covered a Muay Thai mixed martial arts fighting event recently, and noticed that the official photographer was doing something a little bit different from what I'd envisioned for selling my photos. Rather than selling individual photos, he was selling a DVD with all of his photos from that event on them. He was pricing the DVD at $25, which seemed like a cheap deal for all those photos, but it was more money than I'm getting now. I e-mailed him about it and he said that most people were just wanting to get the free photos for their websites and/or facebook pages, and that selling individual photos was more trouble than it was worth, and that although he only sells a couple of DVDs per event, that it's more money than he was getting otherwise, and he still has the option of selling larges prints for anyone that might want them.
I thought it was a good idea. I'm not sure yet how it might work for me, but I know that during hockey season, the parents, grand parents, aunts and uncles of all those junior hockey players want photos and seem to be willing to pay for them. I should've taken advantage of this last season, but I didn't do that. I'm set up for next season, and am figuring that I might consider that DVD option along with individual prints. Either way, it's more money than I'm getting now.
I've always avoided wedding photography in the past, although I've done a couple of weddings. Generally speaking, weddings are high pressure because you have to get it right. You can't shoot it again "tomorrow" if things don't go right. At least with digital photography, you have a clue at the time of the shoot, whereas in the past with film photography, it was a shot in the dark as to whether you were going to have good results.
As much as I don't like wedding photography, I think that I'm going to pursue it in the near future, as this might be a way to get some money. If I do a wedding per month, that might be enough to pay for the hobby.
One thing that is in the back of my mind is that eventually, this camera will need to be replaced. When that time comes, I'd like to upgrade to a better camera. So I'm looking for ways to get this hobby to pay for itself, or at least make a little bit of money that I can set aside for photographic expenditures in the future (lenses, or even a second camera). A second camera would be nice, but I'll definitely need to buy a camera when this one wears out. And it will wear out.
To date, I've made no money (zero) with the hobby. It has had it's health benefits, as far as it has gotten me out walking more, which is a good healthy thing to do. However, that isn't going to buy a new camera when the time comes.
I photograph whatever I am interested in. I've done some nature shots, landscapes, architectural, wildlife, cars, and sports. Most of my photography has been shooting hockey. I was the official photographer for the Tulsa Rampage junior hockey team this last season, but they are a charity and so this was a non-compensated position. I also shoot the Tulsa Oilers hockey team, representing Pro Hockey News with media credentials (which gets me into the games for free). I've even written a little bit in addition to the photography.
All along, I've gotten static from some of the other photographers because in the past, they had gotten paid for their efforts, but with the tighter economy, the teams weren't paying for their services, and instead were getting "free stuff" from a few of us that were shooting for the fun of it. However, how long can you shoot for the fun of it, if you're not getting enough to pay for your equipment.
So I've felt the need to be paid. I've felt pressure to be paid. However, when I finally got around to setting up a site to allow me to sell some of my photos, I was immediately challenged (on facebook) for not paying the CHL licensing fee. This guy claimed that he (and others) had paid and he felt that I should as well. When I asked who to contact about the licensing fee and how much it was, he clammed up. This makes me doubt if he was ever really licensed to sell CHL-related hockey photos. Either way, I felt like they were blasting me for doing free hockey photography, and then when I set about selling my work, they blasted me again. I felt like it was "damned if you do, and damned if you don't".
Regardless of the external pressures to not give my photographic services away, I still feel the need to be paid. So how do I go about getting this hobby to pay for itself? How do I get paid?
I covered a Muay Thai mixed martial arts fighting event recently, and noticed that the official photographer was doing something a little bit different from what I'd envisioned for selling my photos. Rather than selling individual photos, he was selling a DVD with all of his photos from that event on them. He was pricing the DVD at $25, which seemed like a cheap deal for all those photos, but it was more money than I'm getting now. I e-mailed him about it and he said that most people were just wanting to get the free photos for their websites and/or facebook pages, and that selling individual photos was more trouble than it was worth, and that although he only sells a couple of DVDs per event, that it's more money than he was getting otherwise, and he still has the option of selling larges prints for anyone that might want them.
I thought it was a good idea. I'm not sure yet how it might work for me, but I know that during hockey season, the parents, grand parents, aunts and uncles of all those junior hockey players want photos and seem to be willing to pay for them. I should've taken advantage of this last season, but I didn't do that. I'm set up for next season, and am figuring that I might consider that DVD option along with individual prints. Either way, it's more money than I'm getting now.
I've always avoided wedding photography in the past, although I've done a couple of weddings. Generally speaking, weddings are high pressure because you have to get it right. You can't shoot it again "tomorrow" if things don't go right. At least with digital photography, you have a clue at the time of the shoot, whereas in the past with film photography, it was a shot in the dark as to whether you were going to have good results.
As much as I don't like wedding photography, I think that I'm going to pursue it in the near future, as this might be a way to get some money. If I do a wedding per month, that might be enough to pay for the hobby.
Monday, October 6, 2008
500mm mirror lens
This is a shot of my 500mm mirror lens sitting next to a 75-300mm zoom lens. The zoom, oddly enough, is the longer lens. The mirror lens is much more compact and less conspicuous. The thing is, 500mm is harder to steady and to take good photographs with, unless you have a monopod or tripod, or else a really high shutter speed.
I bought the mirror lens because I was hoping to get around a restriction at some of the concert halls, where they see the longer lens and decide that it's "professional" equipment and wont let me in with it. They seem fine with the standard 55mm lens, and since this mirror lens is just a tiny bit longer than a standard prime lens, my hope is that I'll be able to get into concerts with it.
The lens has great power, obviously. I have an extension tube to double it's power to a 1000mm, but to-date, I have not tried that.
From what I can tell so far, the lens isn't quite as sharp as a standard lens, but this is because of the distortion due to the mirrors.
I have been spoiled to using the newer lenses that have automatic focus and automatic aperture features. This lens is a fixed aperture lens, and it's manual focus. So to use it, I'll need to manually focus and use manual settings for aperture and shutter speed. In a concert hall, I don't have much issue with this. In the old days of 35mm film, I worked manual all the time.
I bought the mirror lens because I was hoping to get around a restriction at some of the concert halls, where they see the longer lens and decide that it's "professional" equipment and wont let me in with it. They seem fine with the standard 55mm lens, and since this mirror lens is just a tiny bit longer than a standard prime lens, my hope is that I'll be able to get into concerts with it.
The lens has great power, obviously. I have an extension tube to double it's power to a 1000mm, but to-date, I have not tried that.
From what I can tell so far, the lens isn't quite as sharp as a standard lens, but this is because of the distortion due to the mirrors.
I have been spoiled to using the newer lenses that have automatic focus and automatic aperture features. This lens is a fixed aperture lens, and it's manual focus. So to use it, I'll need to manually focus and use manual settings for aperture and shutter speed. In a concert hall, I don't have much issue with this. In the old days of 35mm film, I worked manual all the time.
Click here to view a set I took with the 500mm lens. The first portion of this set (up until and including the electric meter) was taken with the 500mm mirror lens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
