Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2005
Hiding the photographer
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Charlie Self - 16 Jul 2005 12:08 GMT Since I started shooting classic vehicles, I've been playing "find the photographer" in all the shiny surfaces. I just came up with one I'd missed, me in a hood ornament on a 1930 Ford Phaeton. That has a perfectly round, very highly polished, chrome base, so there probably is no way of escaping getting caught. Not long ago, when I blew a grille/bumper segment from a '57 Chev Bel Air up, I found that I was almost identifiable in the parking light assembly. That one wasn't bad, but the other is annoying and ruins an otherwise good photo.
In some cases, I'm almost at my wit's end trying to place myself so I don't show up in the photos. Sometimes, I know, that it's not possible to stay out. Other times, I wonder.
I thought of wearing clothing that blends in. No luck. I never know for sure whether or not I'll be shooting with trees at my back, an old barn, a brick home, industrial buildings, a parking lot, whateve. Angles of course, but try an angle that lets you shoot into the half round back of a side view mirror. There are not many.
I'm wondering if I'm missing something, if someone else has some tips, or if we just live with this and try to clone it out (or leave it for the magazine's art director to clone it out).
Jer - 16 Jul 2005 13:53 GMT > Since I started shooting classic vehicles, I've been playing "find the > photographer" in all the shiny surfaces. I just came up with one I'd [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > or if we just live with this and try to clone it out (or leave it for > the magazine's art director to clone it out). Just put a sack over your head. You could paint it to match the odd color clothing you're wearing making the cloning process easier.
 Signature jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Charlie Self - 16 Jul 2005 14:41 GMT > > Since I started shooting classic vehicles, I've been playing "find the > > photographer" in all the shiny surfaces. I just came up with one I'd [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Just put a sack over your head. You could paint it to match the odd > color clothing you're wearing making the cloning process easier. Thanks for the helpful idea.
Skip M - 16 Jul 2005 14:42 GMT > Just put a sack over your head. You could paint it to match the odd color > clothing you're wearing making the cloning process easier. Heheh, hadn't thought of that one...
 Signature Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Steve Wolfe - 16 Jul 2005 14:55 GMT > Since I started shooting classic vehicles, I've been playing "find the > photographer" in all the shiny surfaces. Like this one?
http://www.snopes.com/photos/kettle.asp
steve
JPS@no.komm - 16 Jul 2005 15:01 GMT >> Since I started shooting classic vehicles, I've been playing "find the >> photographer" in all the shiny surfaces. > > Like this one? > >http://www.snopes.com/photos/kettle.asp Looks like a little flash-fill is needed in the abdominal fold in the top picture.
 Signature <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< Frank ess - 16 Jul 2005 15:50 GMT >> Since I started shooting classic vehicles, I've been playing "find >> the photographer" in all the shiny surfaces. > > Like this one? > > http://www.snopes.com/photos/kettle.asp Put that one at the top, and it will discourage anyone from looking further ...
Jer - 16 Jul 2005 19:25 GMT >>Since I started shooting classic vehicles, I've been playing "find the >>photographer" in all the shiny surfaces. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > steve This would be another helpful place for a small... uh... very small sack covering something that *we* don't want to see, regardless of whether the photog wanted us to see it. Kids are such scamps.
 Signature jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Frank ess - 16 Jul 2005 16:10 GMT > Since I started shooting classic vehicles, I've been playing "find > the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > for > the magazine's art director to clone it out). There's always the "Face it, it's a fact of life" approach: http://www.fototime.com/F8E2D1B23BA18EC/orig.jpg or
Incorporate it into the "art": http://www.fototime.com/8F753B2E0669B23/orig.jpg or
"Photographer? What photographer?": http://www.fototime.com/8DB324A7FBBEC6A/orig.jpg or
"Airstream with abstract": http://www.fototime.com/57FC72D2E17A26A/orig.jpg .
Sometimes, with the right light, colors, and angles it's not that difficult: http://www.fototime.com/480E92CF66AC979/orig.jpg
And there are other ways to avoid the problem: http://www.fototime.com/B1152FF45A7BF22/orig.jpg
 Signature Frank ess
Jer - 16 Jul 2005 19:27 GMT > There's always the "Face it, it's a fact of life" approach:
> Sometimes, with the right light, colors, and angles it's not that > difficult: > http://www.fototime.com/480E92CF66AC979/orig.jpg This must be one of the cheaper models that didn't come with the brake package, considering the wheel chock at the rear wheel. :)
 Signature jer email reply - I am not a 'ten'
stefan patric - 16 Jul 2005 21:40 GMT > Since I started shooting classic vehicles, I've been playing "find the > photographer" in all the shiny surfaces. I just came up with one I'd [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > [snip] Why the connundrum? Retouch yourself out of the image. Since you're doing the shots on location instead of in a studio, and have to deal with varied backgrounds behind you, it will be more involved, but not impossible. In my architectural work, I'm always taking out ugly light poles, cars, reflections, and, yes, even myself, on occasion. It's certainly a lot easier to do it today with digital files than it was with film.
Stefan
Charlie Self - 17 Jul 2005 01:34 GMT > > Since I started shooting classic vehicles, I've been playing "find the > > photographer" in all the shiny surfaces. I just came up with one I'd [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > certainly a lot easier to do it today with digital files than it was with > film. It's do-able, but no really practical in a time sense. With 30-50 photos to go out, checkikng and touching up each one gets tedious. Too, I just did a radiator cap on that '30 Ford, and the damned touch-up--clone tool--took almost as long as shooting 75-80 photos.
I'll just have to try for more oblique angles, I guess.
stefan patric - 17 Jul 2005 06:30 GMT >> > Since I started shooting classic vehicles, I've been playing "find the >> > photographer" in all the shiny surfaces. I just came up with one I'd [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > I'll just have to try for more oblique angles, I guess. No one said photography was easy. ;-)
Yes, picking a suitable angle where your reflection doesn't show or is obscured or otherwise diminished is good. But for those really close up, detail shots of those chrome parts, where you're definitely going to show, have you ever thought of carrying a portable lighting tent to cover the part? It wouldn't have to be all that much -- a moderate piece of parachute nylon with small hole just big enough to poke your lens through would do. Drape it over the part and shoot.
Now, to the slowness of your computer and how to speed up things. I'm assuming you're using Photoshop, the resource hog of image processors. First, shutdown all other apps, except PS. Go into Preferences and turn off all Undo buffers, except one. This will free up lots of RAM. I think the default number of buffers is 10 and each one allocates as much RAM as the size of your image. Besides, you only NEED one Undo buffer anyway. Max out the RAM on your computer. If this doesn't speed things up much, then you'll have to get a faster machine. If you're using Windows XP, consider dropping back to Windows 2000. W2k requires a lot less resources. Of course, you could always convert to Linux. ;-) If you're using a Mac and OSX, then you already are using Linux, sort of. FreeBSD, actually, another Unix clone.
Another thing you might consider is using a more efficient image processing app that needs less RAM to run. Take a look at The GIMP (www.gimp.org). This was originally written for Linux, but they've ported it to Windows and Mac's OSX. Yes, it's not PS, but it will do what you need it to do, and it will do it faster using less resources. Plus, it's FREE! Just download it, install and run.
Here's a little trick to speed up image processing: let's say you're retouching a 400x600 pixel portion of a 2000x3000 pixel image; "cut" that 400x600 portion out of the original and open it in it's own window as a separate image. Close the original image, so it doesn't take up RAM. Retouch this small image, and when completed, paste it back.
Good shooting...
Stefan
Charlie Self - 17 Jul 2005 09:45 GMT > >> > Since I started shooting classic vehicles, I've been playing "find the > >> > photographer" in all the shiny surfaces. I just came up with one I'd [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > parachute nylon with small hole just big enough to poke your lens through > would do. Drape it over the part and shoot. I like that. I have to make sure ONLY fabric touches the car. These paint jobs are not something I want to pay to repair.
> Now, to the slowness of your computer and how to speed up things. > I'm assuming you're using Photoshop, the resource hog of image > processors. PSP 9, not Photoshop. And the computur, with a 3 Gig P4 and a gig of RAM isn't that slow. I am. I'm not good at post-processing. Back in the smelly old days, I used to only save the negs that gave me straight prints, no burning in, but I almost never shot shiny stuff. I seem to be doing a lot of shots of shiny things lately.
> Another thing you might consider is using a more efficient image > processing app that needs less RAM to run. Take a look at The GIMP > (www.gimp.org). This was originally written for Linux, but they've ported > it to Windows and Mac's OSX. Yes, it's not PS, but it will do what you > need it to do, and it will do it faster using less resources. Plus, it's > FREE! Just download it, install and run. An idea. I've tried it before and didn't like it, but things, and people, change.
Colin D - 17 Jul 2005 01:39 GMT > Since I started shooting classic vehicles, I've been playing "find the > photographer" in all the shiny surfaces. I just came up with one I'd [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > or if we just live with this and try to clone it out (or leave it for > the magazine's art director to clone it out). This may be too obvious, but how about using the self-timer, or a remote trigger? The camera may be still in the picture, but you won't be, and it's easier to retouch out a small camera than a (comparitively) large person.
Colin
Charlie Self - 17 Jul 2005 09:40 GMT > > Since I started shooting classic vehicles, I've been playing "find the > > photographer" in all the shiny surfaces. I just came up with one I'd [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > it's easier to retouch out a small camera than a (comparitively) large > person. Good idea. The remote for the Pentax is too short, but the timer is a good one.
googlegroups2sucks - 17 Jul 2005 02:54 GMT you've got my nomination for post of the month... possibly post of the year. :)
> Since I started shooting classic vehicles, I've been playing "find the > photographer" in all the shiny surfaces. I just came up with one I'd [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > or if we just live with this and try to clone it out (or leave it for > the magazine's art director to clone it out). John_B - 17 Jul 2005 13:46 GMT Charlie, Try using your camera's timer and then run (assuming your camera is mounted to tripod).
You will still get the camera but much less noticable then the photographer!
"Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com> wrote in message news:1121512134.695002.70780@z14g2000cwz .googlegroups.com...
> Since I started shooting classic vehicles, I've been playing "find the > photographer" in all the shiny surfaces. I just came up with one I'd [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > In some cases, I'm almost at my wit's end trying to place myself so I > don't show up in the photos. Sometimes, I know, that it's not possible
> to stay out. Other times, I wonder. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I'm wondering if I'm missing something, if someone else has some tips,
> or if we just live with this and try to clone it out (or leave it for > the magazine's art director to clone it out). Charlie Self - 17 Jul 2005 16:50 GMT > Charlie, > Try using your camera's timer and then [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You will still get the camera but much > less noticable then the photographer! Yeah, I'll give part of that a try next week. I'm stuck at this screen all this coming week, but will be shooting at least three more cars the following week.
The part I won't try is running. With my knees, that's counterproductive, causing lots of problems. But the *istD allows about 10 seconds,IIRC, so that's plenty to for me to stroll out of most shots.
Stacey - 17 Jul 2005 22:14 GMT > I'm wondering if I'm missing something, You have, a shift lens can sometimes work around this.
 Signature Stacey
Charlie Self - 17 Jul 2005 23:44 GMT > > I'm wondering if I'm missing something, > > You have, a shift lens can sometimes work around this. Is there a shift lens for Pentax? I don't recall seeing one.
Charlie Self - 17 Jul 2005 23:54 GMT > > > I'm wondering if I'm missing something, > > > > You have, a shift lens can sometimes work around this. > > Is there a shift lens for Pentax? I don't recall seeing one. Sure enough. Nothing on the web site, but Ebay has two listed, one with a Buy It Now of $675 and the other with an opening bid, NR, of $500.
If checks arrive as promised, #2 looks like something to check out. 28mm f3.5.
Thanks.
Stacey - 19 Jul 2005 03:20 GMT >> > I'm wondering if I'm missing something, >> >> You have, a shift lens can sometimes work around this. > > Is there a shift lens for Pentax? I don't recall seeing one. You might have to get an adapter and use another brand? Since most don't have any sort of auto stopdown anyway, it's not a big deal.
 Signature Stacey
Charlie Self - 19 Jul 2005 09:41 GMT > >> > I'm wondering if I'm missing something, > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have any sort of auto stopdown anyway, it's not a big deal. > -- Pentax used to make such a lens. I found two on ebay, used, in good shape. It appears as if one will cost about $550-$700. It is manual, of course, but that's not much problem, or so I'm told. The biggest problem is that it has to take its place in line, behind a zoom lens and an Alien Bee 1600.
Colin D - 19 Jul 2005 10:48 GMT > > I'm wondering if I'm missing something, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Stacey Watch that idea. A shift lens is ok if the subject is reasonably flat, or 2-dimensional, like a mirror or a building front. With an object that has a considerable 3-D component, like the front of a vehicle, the shift can produce very awkward shape variations, and the resultant image won't look at all right.
Colin
Charlie Self - 19 Jul 2005 17:53 GMT > > > I'm wondering if I'm missing something, > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Colin OK. What popped all this back into my mind was shooting a 1930 Ford Phaeton (a national first class winner and nearly unbelievable restoration). The radiator cap is round, with what I think is either a grouse or a duck attached to it by wingtips. I got off at a bunch of angles, and still showed up, mostly in the round base of the cap.
Next time with this kind of situation, I'm thinking of going to continuous shooting, Moving a ladder out of the line of sight and put a monopod on the Pentax, along with a cobbled up long release. Climb the ladder, move the camera down, and blow away a one gig card or at least until I get what I need. This time, I remember to cart the laptop along. Shoot a dozen or so and check, etc. Until the process is over.
Hunt - 18 Jul 2005 22:49 GMT >Since I started shooting classic vehicles, I've been playing "find the >photographer" in all the shiny surfaces. [SNIP]
>I'm wondering if I'm missing something, if someone else has some tips, >or if we just live with this and try to clone it out (or leave it for >the magazine's art director to clone it out). Charlie,
In the case of your subject matter it could be difficult, but for rooms with glass, especially if I'm going for sunset, or some other outside ambient condition, that darker, I'll hang a black cloth, that I had originally constructed as a large background for mainframe computer systems and various large mechanical subjects. This is about 20' x 12' and is seamed, but didn't really matter to me. Then I place a black foamcore in front of the view camera and wear black, hiding my face behind the foamcore for the exposure. Now, in your case, you want some of the ambient background to reflect into the chrome work, so this probably won't help you much.
You might try hanging some realistic, but obviously fake, everygreen boughs around the camera, then firing from down very low (watch those chrome hub caps) with a wireless remote, or radio controlled shutter release.
I feel your pain, as I have spent hours trying to hide myself & my camera in mirrored bathrooms, etc.
Good luck, Hunt
|
|
|