web analytics

Photography

Chris Gampat The Phoblographer Lomography Bel Air Hands on Review (2 of 10)ISO 400

Want more Useful Photography Tips? Check them out here.

The other night I was in a bar with a photographer that we featured here on the site recently. When we chatted, we talked about how the industry was going in general. She (the photographer) assists other larger names and does her own work on the side. For extra income, she thought about doing weddings with another photographer she is close with. The problem is that they didn’t want to deal with the editing process and everything else in the post-world that has to do with working with weddings. Additionally, everything that they found wasn’t worth the money and there are tons of low ballers out there. Essentially, that is also only one of the reasons why wedding photographers get paid what they do.

So after chatting with her and a couple of other photographers, we figured it out: just don’t post-process. If anything just shoot JPEG, cut the session down to the best images, and then hand them off to the clients. This goes for weddings, portraits, events, etc.

Again, we are not preaching laziness here–and if you take away from this article that we are doing that then you’ve obviously not read it. We’re preaching a way for photographers to make some extra cash on the side and still make the work profitable for them. If someone only wants to pay you $300 for a wedding and you’re giving them six hours of your time, just find ways to cut corners and make your time totally worth it and as profitable as you can.

On the other hand, if someone is paying you handsomely, put the according amount of work in and show that work off in your portfolio accordingly. Then always keep in mind that the high end photographers will never compete with the ones that only do cheap weddings because they are totally different price points. To the gear heads, it’s like comparing a Nikon D4s to a Canon Rebel.

Then in the end, just don’t tell anyone that you did it.

Taking a photo with a tablet

The phone camera generation and technology shift created the rise of yet another device: the tablet. And as people took image after image with their phone, so too did those with their tablets. Before we knew it, tablets were with people everywhere they went. So the photos they shot during vacations, concerts, at restaurants, events, the kid’s first recital, and even more were shot on tablets.

Stop.

For the love of everything that Steve Jobs created you’re blocking my line of vision of whatever we’re all here to see. And sometimes you don’t even want to just shoot a photo. You want to shoot the same photo over and over again. Further, you sometimes want to record a video–you know how long you’re holding your tablet up to record a video? That entire time, I probably can’t see what’s in front of me. Or even if we’re in a sea of darkness, your super bright tablet in total darkness is a complete distraction.

That and you just look absolutely ridiculous when doing it. A tablet is not ergonomically designed for you to hold it outstretched from your body to take a photo and if anything, you’re completely overcompensating with the screen size.

Please. Please. Just stop it.

Chris Gampat The Phoblographer Sony A7r review photos brooklyn bridge reddit walk (4 of 14)ISO 1001-800 sec at f - 3.2

Shoot Raw. Always shoot Raw. Only shoot Raw: this is the mantra that many, many photographers live by. They swear by it. We swear by it here at the Phoblographer. I swear by it as a photojournalist, commercial and portrait photographer for years. Why? So that we can get a better result in post. So that we can differentiate ourselves from the plebeians and peasants that would rather shoot in just JPEG and be happy with their results. Yes, reader: we are the higher class of citizens that stick our noses and in the air and would rather accept death than shoot in JPEG.

Or at least that’s how it’s been for years. As time has gone on and I’ve reviewed camera after camera and the technology has become better and better, I (we, actually) have seen that JPEG quality has improved tremendously. We even dare to say that it is now so much so to the point where that if you know what you’re doing in the first place with your camera that you won’t need to shoot in RAW. Indeed, many of the photos for the Phoblographer’s Instagram are shot in JPEG with an Olympus OMD EM5, Sony A7, or Sony NEX 6 then transferred right over to my phone or iPad and added to our feed. How much post-production goes into them? Basically, it’s not much more than some sharpening and contrast fixes in Instagram, VSCO or EyeEm.

And guess what.

The images are good enough for our over 4,000 followers on Instagram and usually just fine for our over 250,000 Facebook followers.

[click to continue…]

10597288_1468915293362819_1474837120_n

Image via ThatJCrewGinghamShirt

Instagram has been used to do a lot of things, but prove a simple fact that all “bros” do the same thing is something that it can do very well. There are loads of accounts that parody bro behavior, but even better is this new Instagram that combines candid street fashion with showing off the fact that loads of guys all wear the same shirt and don’t try to find any way to differentiate themselves from the supposed norm.

We got word of ThatJCrewGinghamShirt, which has only been around a month but has been able to go around NYC and find loads and loads of guys that wear the same exact shirt. It’s run by Jonathan Sans, who probably encounters it all over Midtown Manhattan.

This Instagram just proves that with the right idea, you can pull together loads of content and get a full following into photography stardom.

Photo via Photohistory

Photo via Photohistory

One of the oldest photography processes just turned 175 years old. This process was developed way before film and film emulsions and in a time when medium and large format photography ruled the world. Back then, the standard in photography required you to use silver plates coated in a photographic emulsion and had to be individually prepared. When they were set, they were placed in a holder. The camera and lens were then focused on the subject. Then the subject was asked to keep very still and the plate loaded into the camera. Now it was time to shoot. A very long exposure was taken due to the narrow aperture needed to get anything in focus at all–so subjects had to remain very still.

When the shot was over, the plate holder and plate were brought into a darkroom and within around 10 minutes an image emerged on the plate. Different chemicals were added to fix the look a bit. We refrain from saying color because of the fact that color photography wasn’t quite around back then.

More history in the form of a video is after the jump.

Via Shooting Film, George Eastman House, Wikipedia

[click to continue…]

Photo by Photographer's Mate 1st Class Arlo K. Abrahamson

Photo by Photographer’s Mate 1st Class Arlo K. Abrahamson

What would you give to be a National Geographic photographer? Your comforts? Maybe your pleasant and nicely-heated apartment? Or perhaps your limbs?

Being a NatGeo photographer is perhaps one of the most coveted jobs in the world of photography. And how could it not? A NatGeo photographer gets to travel, experience different cultures, go on endless adventures, and to top it off, have his or her photos graze a magazine read by millions worldwide.

Well, as it turns out, being a photographer for National Geographic isn’t as glamorous as we thought it would be. Exciting, yes, and we are all aware there’s some dangerous aspects to it, but definitely not glamorous.

In a very illuminating reveal, The Photo Society, the group made up of NatGeo’s contributing photographers, published a post tallying the number of incidents of the many hazards of the job, overall presenting a very graphic and very real image of what it’s really like to go on an assignment in the deepest, strangest, harshest, or most dangerous parts of the world.

From being blinded by wasps (1) and getting severe diarrhea (90) to seat belts releasing while hovering over volcanos (2) and tripping into a Chernobyl reactor (oh yes – 3) to sadly enough, death, these badass photographers have definitely gone through great lengths to get the job done. And they are definitely gaining more respect for it.

But back to our question: what would you give to be a National Geographic photographer?

Via Reddit