Photographers what do you shoot with? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

AaronM · 06-28-2006, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

Do you do surveillance on the side ?

Actually, the majority of my income is based on my mainstream surveillance work. I shoot porn on the side.

Grapesoda · 06-28-2006, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

Interesting that you think you know what I do or don't need and that our needs are different considering that we shoot for some of the very same clients.

hmmmm.

only that you aren't a sex shooter in my market and don't need to generate the same amount of content as I do in such a short amount of time. I used non pro bodies and I know what the limitations are . . if you can shoot over 1700 top quality images and a 40 min video solo and sex in 4 hrs, I stand corrected . . and as usual you've chosen to apply a negative conation . . hummm . .

DeanCapture · 06-28-2006, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

It's a heavy bitch for sure. I've not shot any content with it so I can't really say but the outdoor stuff I have shot.....Even with the IS, a tripod seriously increases the the quality.

I should probably rent one for a week and play with it a bit before I invest in one myself. I have a couple of tripods but LOVE shooting handheld. It's just quicker and affords more mobility then dragging a tripod around the set. But it might be worth it considering how beautiful the pics would be with that lens! Even if I shot only 1 set per day with that lens...it would add a nice flavor to the whole days work.

AllStar · 06-28-2006, 10:09 AM

What I always find intersting is the fact that some photographers have to shoot 1000's of images to make money yet others only have to shoot a few to make the same or even more?. Anybody here have any idea why this is?

Dean, Brian,Aaron?

Grapesoda · 06-28-2006, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerco

I had Nikons version of the 70-200 VR. Great lens, just not much use for it so I got rid of it. I'm looking at a Sigma 30mm 1.4 right now, It's running 350-400 bucks, Cheaper than Nikons 35mm 1.4 and is actually getting much better reviews, best part, it gets the D2x close to the 50mm Mark since you have to factor in the 1.5 magnifacation caused by the smaller image sensor. For Nikon users this would be a great lens for any type of event shooting, using availiable light and no flash.

For shooting I have started to really use the nikon 105mm macro lens, it's outstanding. BUT it really becomes a 170mm on the D2x requiring you to have some distance between you and your model. So I have also been shopping for a good 70-75mm or a DX version of the 105mm.

Main thing to remember when your shopping for a GOOD entry level camera is to think ahead. The cameras not the expensive part, the GLASS is. and your going to really be limiting yourself to a brand once you start to biuld your lens collection. Both Canon and Nikons are great cameras, so it really comes down to what you prefer.

Also watch out for the "consumer" SLRS, They are rated pretty low on the actual number of pictures they can take. A few of them are around 50,000 pictures. This is due to the construction of the shudder. The pro cameras have a much higher picture count (There are for Pros) You might think 50,000 images is a lot, but you will be suprosed how fast you can shoot that number once your really start using the camera. I got over 250,000 images from a D100... with it still going strong.

I'm loving the nikon 17-35/2.8 . . . might be really good glass for what yer doing, I tend to prefer the top end glass and stay away from the stuff that's not constant stop . . i didn't care for the 18-70 kit lens although I might check out the 18-200 for my d70 . . got it converted to IR or pick up another 18-70 and BTW I have the 60 macro . . not to expensive and I'm sure it will meet yer needs . . .

Grapesoda · 06-28-2006, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeanCapture

I should probably rent one for a week and play with it a bit before I invest in one myself. I have a couple of tripods but LOVE shooting handheld. It's just quicker and affords more mobility then dragging a tripod around the set. But it might be worth it considering how beautiful the pics would be with that lens! Even if I shot only 1 set per day with that lens...it would add a nice flavor to the whole days work.

just get an extender Dean . . no big deal really. it will push yer glass out to 300 . . ask calumet or simon about them

DeanCapture · 06-28-2006, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllStar

What I always find intersting is the fact that some photographers have to shoot 1000's of images to make money yet others only have to shoot a few to make the same or even more?. Anybody here have any idea why this is?

Dean, Brian,Aaron?

I think it just depends on who your clients are. I shoot 5 sets of approx 100 shots for what I do for Twistys but some shooters shoot 10, 12, 15 sets a day with 100+ pics per set. Different clients have different needs so I think it just depends on what your clients needs are.......

AaronM · 06-28-2006, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wanton

only that you aren't a sex shooter in my market and don't need to generate the same amount of content as I do in such a short amount of time. I used non pro bodies and I know what the limitations are . . if you can shoot over 1700 top quality images and a 40 min video solo and sex in 4 hrs, I stand corrected . . and as usual you've chosen to apply a negative conation . . hummm . .

And as usual, you don't know fuck all about me.

So, what exactly is it about me that burns your ass? You started being a prick towards me when a few people compared our work.

No need for you to feel threatened, Brian.

AaronM · 06-28-2006, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeanCapture

I think it just depends on who your clients are. I shoot 5 sets of approx 100 shots for what I do for Twistys but some shooters shoot 10, 12, 15 sets a day with 100+ pics per set. Different clients have different needs so I think it just depends on what your clients needs are.......

Exactly. My clients needs range from 4 to 10 sets per day. I have a minimum charge for any shoot and give price breaks to the clients who have larger and consistent orders.

Most of my clients ask for 60 to 100 pics per set.

Grapesoda · 06-28-2006, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllStar

What I always find intersting is the fact that some photographers have to shoot 1000's of images to make money yet others only have to shoot a few to make the same or even more?. Anybody here have any idea why this is?

Dean, Brian,Aaron?

depends on how much $$ ya wanna make : ) sex has different budgets than solo and glamour has different budgets than pro/am . . . don't think guys in the out lying areas are paying $1,000-$1,8000 . . per day for the models like we do in LA and we all have different clients with different needs and exceptions.

Grapesoda · 06-28-2006, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

And as usual, you don't know fuck all about me.

So, what exactly is it about me that burns your ass? You started being a prick towards me when a few people compared our work.

No need for you to feel threatened, Brian.

gee whiz arron I'm not threated by you at all, why would I be and why are you so hostile? I've never seen anyone compare our work and doesn't matter anyway . . you shoot what you shoot and I shoot what I shoot, just like dean shoots what he shoots .. maybe you need to go to yer room for a bit and have a tiime out

06-28-2006, 10:09 AM	#54
AllStar Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 461	What I always find intersting is the fact that some photographers have to shoot 1000's of images to make money yet others only have to shoot a few to make the same or even more?. Anybody here have any idea why this is? Dean, Brian,Aaron?