Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Hiding the photographer

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 8:08:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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).

More about : hiding photographer

Anonymous
July 16, 2005 10:41:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jer wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > 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).
> >
>
>
> 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.
July 16, 2005 11:54:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Charlie Self wrote:
> 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).
>


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.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Related resources
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 11:54:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
news:11di0t1er88995d@corp.supernews.com...
>
> 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.
>
> --
> jer
> email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Heheh, hadn't thought of that one...
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 12:00:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> 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
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 12:00:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Steve Wolfe wrote:
>> 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 ...
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 12:10:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Charlie Self wrote:
> 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).

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

--
Frank ess
July 16, 2005 5:25:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Steve Wolfe wrote:
>>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
>
>


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.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
July 16, 2005 5:27:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Frank ess wrote:

>
> 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. :) 

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 5:40:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 04:08:54 -0700, Charlie Self wrote:

> 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.
>
> [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
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 6:03:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <3jsi23Fr8stjU2@individual.net>,
"Steve Wolfe" <unt@codon.com> wrote:

>> 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.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 9:34:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

stefan patric wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 04:08:54 -0700, Charlie Self wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > [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.
>

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.
Anonymous
July 16, 2005 10:54:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

you've got my nomination for post of the month... possibly post of the
year. :) 



Charlie Self wrote:
> 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).
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 2:30:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:34:13 -0700, Charlie Self wrote:

>
>
> stefan patric wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 04:08:54 -0700, Charlie Self wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > [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.
>>
>>
> 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.

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
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 5:40:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Colin D wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> >
> > 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).
>
> 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.

Good idea. The remote for the Pentax is too short, but the timer is a
good one.
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 5:45:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

stefan patric wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 17:34:13 -0700, Charlie Self wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > stefan patric wrote:
> >> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 04:08:54 -0700, Charlie Self wrote:
> >>
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> > [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.
> >>
> >>
> > 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.
>
> 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.

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.
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 12:46:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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
> 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).
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 12:50:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John_B wrote:
> 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!
>
>
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.
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 4:39:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Charlie Self wrote:
>
> 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).

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
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 7:44:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
>
>
> >
> > 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.
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 7:54:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Charlie Self wrote:
> Stacey wrote:
> > Charlie Self wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
July 17, 2005 9:14:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Charlie Self wrote:


>
> I'm wondering if I'm missing something,

You have, a shift lens can sometimes work around this.

--

Stacey
July 19, 2005 1:49:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1121512134.695002.70780@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
charliediy@aol.com says...
>
>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
>
July 19, 2005 2:20:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Charlie Self wrote:

>
>
> Stacey wrote:
>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > 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.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 5:41:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Stacey wrote:
> >> Charlie Self wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > 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.
> --

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.
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 1:53:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Colin D wrote:
> Stacey wrote:
> >
> > Charlie Self wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I'm wondering if I'm missing something,
> >
> > You have, a shift lens can sometimes work around this.
> >
> > --
> >
> > 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

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.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 1:48:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
>
> Charlie Self wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm wondering if I'm missing something,
>
> You have, a shift lens can sometimes work around this.
>
> --
>
> 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
!