Photographer feedback

[Wondermoose]

Well seeing this thread it feels like it didnt go so well for the photoshoots. But as Ive said before Im very pleased with them. And I think that 90% was that aswell allthough people who are satisfied usually dont say this. But the people who feels like they have to complain (for the right reasons offc) does so.

 

I think the way the photos were handed out were excellent, you had the chance of actually getting instant feedback basicly.

 

And to you who got ignored when saying that they were bad, talk to a pitboss, stand your ground! They will help you if they can. There are lots of crewmembers and well its not a perfect world, maybe they have been standing there for 6-7 hours, there back hurts their feet hurts. Maybe that person didnt care... but still stand your ground and most of all talk to the pitboss.

[Rockstar6662]

Some of the light issues mentioned do seem a problem related to the on site printing too. I had this with some of my shoots last year at least and when I bought the images they were okay. I am kind of curious to see if that is the reason this year too.

I have experienced the same last years events - printed copy appears overexposed but the actual levels on the digital copies that I purchased show that exposure is correct.

 

This weekend, with the exception of the DS9 group shot, and Hasselhoff/KITT the prints from areas A and B again appear slightly overexposed to me, not as much as last year. I suspect when I purchase the original digital images they will be exposed correctly.

 

The printers/cameras should be recalibrated to each other when everything is setup at each show. No printer will match the quality of the shot taken unless it's calibrated correctly. I suspect this isn't being done. Area C was particularly bad with shots coming out far too dark. My friends brown t-shirt is completely black in one of his photos. The photographer said it was fine on the camera, so clearly the calibration of the printer is at fault.

 

All printers need to be calibrated to different cameras. Apologies if I'm wrong but taking some test shots using some kind of calibration card once everything is set up would solve a lot of problems and I'm not sure this is being done given the results.

[adriangill]

1) Who is in charge of these photoshoots? do the guests demand no posed pictures and just opt for proper photoshoots? or is it mainly Showmasters like they get who they think is going to be the main/big guests at the show and put them in boxes (well it looked like a box lol) and demand no posed pictures?

Who gets the money from it?

 

2) Slightly off topic but I'll ask anyway. If I had brought my own stuff to get signed from home and such do I still have to pay say £30 to get it signed despite it being my item and not one of those pictures you can get as you go to get the autographs?

 

1) I have no idea who decides on which guests do the photo shoots, i.e. if the guests request a photo shoot or if SM ask. No posed photos at the desk is nothing to do with guests having photo shoots. Some guests have no posed photos at the desk and they are not doing photo shoots for example. There are many reasons for no posed photos. Bad backs (standing up and down is not helpful), suffering migraines due to flashes. The reasons are just not made public knowledge. Financial details aren't made public knowledge either

 

2) It is priced per autograph. Not the type of item (except in the case of some sports guests).

[adriangill]

The printers/cameras should be recalibrated to each other when everything is setup at each show. No printer will match the quality of the shot taken unless it's calibrated correctly. I suspect this isn't being done. Area C was particularly bad with shots coming out far too dark. My friends brown t-shirt is completely black in one of his photos. The photographer said it was fine on the camera, so clearly the calibration of the printer is at fault.

 

All printers need to be calibrated to different cameras. Apologies if I'm wrong but taking some test shots using some kind of calibration card once everything is set up would solve a lot of problems and I'm not sure this is being done given the results.

Yes, calibration would solve issues. I have no idea if it is being done or not. Your brown/black example would suggest not for that photo shoot area.

[Rockstar6662]

The printers/cameras should be recalibrated to each other when everything is setup at each show. No printer will match the quality of the shot taken unless it's calibrated correctly. I suspect this isn't being done. Area C was particularly bad with shots coming out far too dark. My friends brown t-shirt is completely black in one of his photos. The photographer said it was fine on the camera, so clearly the calibration of the printer is at fault.

 

All printers need to be calibrated to different cameras. Apologies if I'm wrong but taking some test shots using some kind of calibration card once everything is set up would solve a lot of problems and I'm not sure this is being done given the results.

Yes, calibration would solve issues. I have no idea if it is being done or not. Your brown/black example would suggest not for that photo shoot area.

 

It may take time and even each printer in one area may be different but it does seem to be something that needs looking into if it's not being done. Maybe even go through it away from the show, calibrate each printer to a specific camera/photographer, label them and make sure those printers get used with that camera at the show. Seems a pretty obvious thing to do to me or they will continue to drift off calibration. You can't expect to just set up and go with this type of kit. Even my printer at home prints darker than the pic looks on the camera or on screen and I have to make adjustments.

 

See what it's like at the next event I guess.

[Kayla1991]

The area C photos definitely came out pretty dark which is upsetting when you've paid a lot of money for them. Also my Norman photo wasnt framed very well at all, we should be centered but there's dead space at the left side and we're very near the right side.

 

As someone said before they dont make sure you're ready now either before taking it. With Malcolm, he would count down which was very helpful as you knew exactly when the photo was being taken.

[Spock]

The one thing I would comment on from purely a professional point of view photographically with the Peter and Lena photograph I had taken was that there simply wasn't enough "fill" light being used to lighten the shadows from the "key light". Lena had a hat on and on the finished photo it's not possible to see her eyes on the print because of the shadow from the hat - the shadow area is totally black : classically a "no" "no" for a colour image. Again as per other comments, that may also be caused by a calibration issue on the printers.

Edited July 8, 2013 by KirkEnterprise

[Pod0509]

I have a small version of one of those dye sublimation printers (post card sized). They work really well and you get great results from them but I can't say I have ever found a calibration setting for the printer. They don't need adjusting like inkjets do with lining up the little lines to get the correct print.

[Sabreyeager]

Some of the light issues mentioned do seem a problem related to the on site printing too. I had this with some of my shoots last year at least and when I bought the images they were okay. I am kind of curious to see if that is the reason this year too.

I have experienced the same last years events - printed copy appears overexposed but the actual levels on the digital copies that I purchased show that exposure is correct.

 

This weekend, with the exception of the DS9 group shot, and Hasselhoff/KITT the prints from areas A and B again appear slightly overexposed to me, not as much as last year. I suspect when I purchase the original digital images they will be exposed correctly.

 

The printers/cameras should be recalibrated to each other when everything is setup at each show. No printer will match the quality of the shot taken unless it's calibrated correctly. I suspect this isn't being done. Area C was particularly bad with shots coming out far too dark. My friends brown t-shirt is completely black in one of his photos. The photographer said it was fine on the camera, so clearly the calibration of the printer is at fault.

 

All printers need to be calibrated to different cameras. Apologies if I'm wrong but taking some test shots using some kind of calibration card once everything is set up would solve a lot of problems and I'm not sure this is being done given the results.

 

I was on Photo B printers on Saturday, and I can safely say that we actually did do that. I can't however, speak for other areas and/or days.

[PhantomMajor]

yeah i agree on the rush job for peter and lena, the photographer had to do a double take as none of us were ready, but i did take a good luck when i left just in case it had gone wrong.... i do understand your pain.

[dee]

Some of the light issues mentioned do seem a problem related to the on site printing too. I had this with some of my shoots last year at least and when I bought the images they were okay. I am kind of curious to see if that is the reason this year too.

I have experienced the same last years events - printed copy appears overexposed but the actual levels on the digital copies that I purchased show that exposure is correct.

 

This weekend, with the exception of the DS9 group shot, and Hasselhoff/KITT the prints from areas A and B again appear slightly overexposed to me, not as much as last year. I suspect when I purchase the original digital images they will be exposed correctly.

I agree with you on prints from Area A looking over exposed... the problem is that this was affecting all of them as far as I could see. It wasn't something that a reshoot would fix, so it made asking for a reshoot pointless.

Now it's entirely possible that it's a printing error rather than a photography area, but if that is the case it isn't really good enough. Yes, buying them from the site might well get us shots that look correct, but these are photographs we already paid for. We shouldn't really need to buy them again to get ones that look right.

 

If I'd had the fore-thought to get down to Peter's level (Jeans can easliy be washed) I think that I would have had a better photo.

You might have had a better photo (most of the people who got away with it seem to have better photos than those who didn't) but I think you'll find that it wouldn't have been... how to phrase this. Welcomed?

When I had my photoshoot with Peter the instructions were quite clear - no crouching, no hugging. The staff came along the line telling all of us that multiple times (and renewed their instructions when one of the people in front of us did it anyway).

 

Better lighting might also have improved the Peter photos - in many of the standing photos that I've seen (including my own) the shadows are somewhat... strong? I don't know how to phrase it. The lower right part of the photograph ends up too dark, and people kind of meld into the shadow especially if they were wearing darker colours.

 

I didn't have any photographs in B to comment on, but my Area C photographs turned out well - I guess either I was lucky, or I like dark photographs :) The photographer over there was excellent about checking photographs too - she caught that I'd need a reshoot for one of mine straight away, so I didn't need to check the photo myself and go around again.

Edited July 8, 2013 by dee

[vicky114]

am very happy wirh my norman reedas pohoto personally and the instant orinting was great. i remember waiting about four hours for my chria judge one last year.

[Rockstar6662]

Some of the light issues mentioned do seem a problem related to the on site printing too. I had this with some of my shoots last year at least and when I bought the images they were okay. I am kind of curious to see if that is the reason this year too.

I have experienced the same last years events - printed copy appears overexposed but the actual levels on the digital copies that I purchased show that exposure is correct.

 

This weekend, with the exception of the DS9 group shot, and Hasselhoff/KITT the prints from areas A and B again appear slightly overexposed to me, not as much as last year. I suspect when I purchase the original digital images they will be exposed correctly.

 

The printers/cameras should be recalibrated to each other when everything is setup at each show. No printer will match the quality of the shot taken unless it's calibrated correctly. I suspect this isn't being done. Area C was particularly bad with shots coming out far too dark. My friends brown t-shirt is completely black in one of his photos. The photographer said it was fine on the camera, so clearly the calibration of the printer is at fault.

 

All printers need to be calibrated to different cameras. Apologies if I'm wrong but taking some test shots using some kind of calibration card once everything is set up would solve a lot of problems and I'm not sure this is being done given the results.

 

I was on Photo B printers on Saturday, and I can safely say that we actually did do that. I can't however, speak for other areas and/or days.

 

Thanks for the info. Good to hear.

 

Have had a look at my pics. Didn't have many but the ones from A on Friday are pretty ok. But the ones I had from A on Sunday are by comparison a bit overexposed. Not enough to spoil but noticeably brighter than Friday. The only one I had from B was the Lena/Peter double and that's probably the best one. Could be a bit less contrast to get more detail in the shadows but I'm happy with it. The only one I had in C was the DS9 one and that area was definitely coming out dark, to the extent as I said that one of my friends t-shirts came out black when it's brown and another friends dark hair was completely lost against Rene's shirt in the DS9 pic.

 

It's easy to say just buy the jpeg when it's made available if that's correct but that isn't all that cheap. While on-site instant printing is great, it does seem quality is maybe starting to become inconsistent for the sake of speed. It could be down to lighting and exposure in the room but could also be an issue developing with the printers. We will see how it goes next time.

[Magical~SJ]

The lighting on 3 out of 4 of my photos are a bit off to be honest. The darkness of the photos makes me look unusually grumpy lol. They were taken at Photo C whereas my one good shot was at Photo A. I was tempted to get the DS9 group shot, would have been gutted if the lighting hadn't turned out right.

[Rockstar6662]

The lighting on 3 out of 4 of my photos are a bit off to be honest. The darkness of the photos makes me look unusually grumpy lol. They were taken at Photo C whereas my one good shot was at Photo A. I was tempted to get the DS9 group shot, would have been gutted if the lighting hadn't turned out right.

 

Mine isn't terrible my any means, just darker than it should be. But then I was wearing a light top which helped too. Still a nice pic.

[trekkedtoseethestarsoftrek]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this but since Star Trek London there seems to be a higher amount of photos that cut off the arms at the left or right, as if we're standing too far over. I couldn't quite understand this until, at LFCC it struck me. The infamous white line that we need to wait at is too close in some photo areas. This means the photograper has to be careful not to get the person at the side in the shot (despite crew saying that it's fine and we will not be in shot standing on the line). This could also be the reason for more head shots in recent months over head to waist shots. Maybe I'm wrong (seems a coincidence that the cropped edge alternates depending on where the white line is), but there has been a real increase in right or left-aligned photos.

 

As for the quality, unfortunately with the technology we have so far, instant prints are never going to look as perfect as the old photos we used to get, but having said that, they still look really good. Just the flesh-tones seem to be a bit off sometimes. When you consider it's the price to pay for instant photos, I am definitely in favour of instant collection.

 

When i said previously about my photo on Sunday with Danny G. being not framed so well it was as you said 'Zagreus' in that the guest's left arm was out of the pic and i wasn't sure if it was right at the time and was going to question it though my lack of confidence started to kick-in - but what really clenched it for me not to ask for a re-shoot was that mine & Danny's poses were spot-on and to re-do it would have not felt as natural. It has been bothering me so i just looked back at the photo and i still agree with my earlier [iffy?] judgement as seeing us both made me smile... still a shame about the framing which was just a matter of the photographer zooming out or leaning back a tad as the person fully in frame (me) was closest to the white line that kept the waiting hoards out of shot, so that was not the issue. If it was my arm slightly out of shot maybe i'd be less bothered...

 

As for photos with the guests at the autograph desk i had to pay an extra £5 to have a photo of me with Al Matthews on top of the £15 for the auto, is this Showmasters' policy or the Guest's choice? Typically my not-so-bad camera let me down as it was hugely over-exposed (the crew member took the photo) and in this scenario it really felt wrong/bad form to ask for a second try even if it was not busy at all - but once again the pose was really great & never to be repeated... such is life... Al was a great guy though :-)

 

A run-down of my photos on Sunday were:

Lena's at booth B in the morning came out very good indeed, no problems (and she looked great!), even if the guest and crew were in conversation and looking like ready to finish (i dived in after Amanda's shot next door). The photo of us was just head/shoulders (double portrait?).

Danny's only shoot of the day in booth C was good but not framed well enough for me, some may say it dark was a tad dark but i feel it made the photo come out well. The photo was body length.

The Hoff/KITT shot in the afternoon in area B has already been mentioned - poor composition/pose position (lack of car in shot) - and IMO the camera was set on a low exposure because it was meant to show KITT's dash display lights that's why most photos came out dark.

My photo with Amanda Tapping in the morning came out absolutely perfect and is one of my best ever! The photo was a body shot. She was even great when i got her to sign it later that day, she was so nice and engaging and friendly - more than i ever dreamed of! Perfect. :-D

 

I feel this instant photo set-up is the way to go, so Showmaster's has it right. You get to have the photos right away and most importantly the chance to check instantly if there is a problem. Also I'm sure i saw a poster up at the event saying we can also download our photos online, is this true? Can someone furnish us with the web link if it is true? And are the photo-shoots from 'Destination Star Trek London' last year also available?? Having the option to also download our photo-shoots is a very very good idea so we have a digital back-up of our precious photos and have the chance to easily share them with our friends :-)

[adriangill]

Charging for photos at a desk is not a SM policy. Some guests have been known to do it and donate to a charity etc.

 

Digital copies of the DTSL photo shoots are not currently available for purchase. The current catalogue can be found here, http://showmasters.photoshelter.com/

[bonniesrg]

 

If I'd had the fore-thought to get down to Peter's level (Jeans can easliy be washed) I think that I would have had a better photo.

You might have had a better photo (most of the people who got away with it seem to have better photos than those who didn't) but I think you'll find that it wouldn't have been... how to phrase this. Welcomed?

When I had my photoshoot with Peter the instructions were quite clear - no crouching, no hugging. The staff came along the line telling all of us that multiple times (and renewed their instructions when one of the people in front of us did it anyway).

Now on Friday when I went for my Peter shoot everyone was getting on their knees for the shot (no crew member told anyone that was not to be done) so I assumed that this was discussed & decided with Peter.

Then I hear that on Saturday & Sunday people were told no kneeling or leaning, which I take to mean Peter didn't want people doubt this. I really wish this was pre-arranged with him beforehand & people were told on entry what was & wasn't acceptable, as I'd hate to think that Peter got annoyed by this. Though he seemed O.K. when I had my picture as he said 'You're so cute'.

[Queen_Sindel]

I agree with you on prints from Area A looking over exposed... the problem is that this was affecting all of them as far as I could see. It wasn't something that a reshoot would fix, so it made asking for a reshoot pointless.

Now it's entirely possible that it's a printing error rather than a photography area, but if that is the case it isn't really good enough. Yes, buying them from the site might well get us shots that look correct, but these are photographs we already paid for. We shouldn't really need to buy them again to get ones that look right.

 

Of course you are correct - but if it was a calibrating issue crew possibly only notices when enough people mention it. I only noticed hours later cause I had to dash to another shoot. Otherwise of course I would have mentioned it right then too. Maybe that happened to a lot of others too. I'll definitely bring up the question if it can be ensured that printer calibration is tested at the beginning of the day. The whole printing on site thing is still pretty new, so unfortunately we may have hit teething issues there.

[Tyrion Lannister]

I had my picture taken with Peter on Friday, was told to do it again as the first one did not come out good, both times I knelt down with Peter and put my hand on him, he didn't seem to mind or at least I hope.

[girlingray]

Now on Friday when I went for my Peter shoot everyone was getting on their knees for the shot (no crew member told anyone that was not to be done) so I assumed that this was discussed & decided with Peter.

Then I hear that on Saturday & Sunday people were told no kneeling or leaning, which I take to mean Peter didn't want people doubt this. I really wish this was pre-arranged with him beforehand & people were told on entry what was & wasn't acceptable, as I'd hate to think that Peter got annoyed by this.

Slightly off topic I know, but I also had my photo on Friday when no one was being told not to crouch or kneel down in the photo with Peter and I'd like to echo these comments that I really hope that Peter wasn't upset by people, including me, doing this. And I'm so sorry if he was.

[Belanna]

I'm quite happy with all my pics even though DS) group photoshoot has a big shadow on the right side and it's overall a bit dark. the only tiny problem I had was with the light which was really tall and projected my glasses shadow across my eyes... I managed to correct it a bit wearing a bright eyeshadow and the problem is not a big deal.

[Zagreus]

The Star Trek London photos aren't on the store yet, but perhaps once they have caught up with the massive backlog of photos and have more time to dedicate to it, it will. Although having said that, I was massively disappointed that for the Bad Wolf convention I attended they apparently didn't keep the digital images! Arthur Darvill's first con, Carole-Ann Ford's last ever allowed photos, Caroline John who passed away shortly after...such a shame. I do wonder if there are other shows that don't have the digital images retained. Also, the upload of photos to the store seems to reach a halt from time to time, with weeks going by without an update. Again, a shame as I am working my way through getting all my photo shoots. I think you will find that the digital images are brighter than many of the dark images you may have had over the years.

 

Regarding Peter...what were we supposed to do if not kneel? I was expecting a seat to have been set up for both of us on Friday, but he was standing and everyone was just going down to his level. Anything else would have looked ridiculous, with some attendees like myself being 6ft tall or more.

[chloepop]

The Star Trek London photos aren't on the store yet, but perhaps once they have caught up with the massive backlog of photos and have more time to dedicate to it, it will. Although having said that, I was massively disappointed that for the Bad Wolf convention I attended they apparently didn't keep the digital images! Arthur Darvill's first con, Carole-Ann Ford's last ever allowed photos, Caroline John who passed away shortly after...such a shame. I do wonder if there are other shows that don't have the digital images retained. Also, the upload of photos to the store seems to reach a halt from time to time, with weeks going by without an update. Again, a shame as I am working my way through getting all my photo shoots. I think you will find that the digital images are brighter than many of the dark images you may have had over the years.

 

Regarding Peter...what were we supposed to do if not kneel? I was expecting a seat to have been set up for both of us on Friday, but he was standing and everyone was just going down to his level. Anything else would have looked ridiculous, with some attendees like myself being 6ft tall or more.

 

i dont think peter wanted a stool or a chair, which is understandable

[DavidB]

The majority stood with him. It wasn't ridiculous at all.