So apparently Fujifilm tried to promote its new medium format camera, the GFX 50 with a half naked female model in a room full of men. The camera is innovative and something fresh, but the way they tried to promote it wasn't. This has stirred up a bit of a shit storm, which is perfectly understandable.
Now I don't have a problem with nudity what so ever, and I shoot nudes myself, but what happened here is not cool and does not feel very fresh.
Well, read the article.
The topic of watermarking your photos or not has been going on forever and is still going strong on forums on the internet.
Myself I used to do it for years, but then I stopped. For a few of reasons.
There are a few reasons to keep watermarking, but I decided a few years ago not to use it anymore and I don't think I will change it back.
Anyhow, here's a pretty good video from Jason Lanier regarding this subject.
So I tried shooting tethered for the actual first time yesterday. Haven't done it before, since I usually shoot on location where it's usually not super convenient to bring a laptop.
I bought the ridiculously expensive Lightroom plugin from Adobe. For some reason my Fujifilm X-T2 needs a $79 plugin for tethering, just another way for the people at Adobe and Fujifilm (they probably share the profit) to make money. And I got a ridiculously expensive TetherPro USB 3.0 cable from Tether Tools. Sure, it's thicker and better than regular UBS cables, with gold contacts for better connection and with the one on the camera end in a 90° angle. It's also in a highly visible orange colour, which tethering cables usually are (I think). But still ridiculously expensive for what it is.
I shot with the gorgeous Diviana in a house in Copenhagen and tethering was pretty convenient, since we could check the photos continuously from my MacBook Pro while shooting and it worked well, so in the end, I guess it was pretty well invested money, even if I probably won't use it that regularly, since I like I said before, mostly shoot on location.
By the way, check back at the end of the week and there will probably be photos from this shoot., under Portraits and Diviana.
So I've started to plan for my next trip to my favourite city, London.
My old passport will expire soon and I'm gonna pick up my new passport from the police this upcoming week and then I'm going to book the flights and hotel.
About the old one expiring, I renewed it just before moving to Australia. So, where the fuck did these last 5 years go?
Anyways, this time I'm gonna be staying around two weeks and I've started to get in contact with some models that I want to shoot with and they're more than before. I still haven't puzzled the actual dates together yet, but will do that this upcoming week after I have decided on the exact dates. I might try to squeeze in a couple more models than I've already been in contact with, but we'll see. I do want to do a bit more cityscapes and street photography than I did last time.
The trip will be at the end of May and a few days into June. I'm also gonna go to MCM Comic Con, since I've heard that it's even bigger and better than London Film & Comic Con that I visited on my last trip in July/August 2016. We'll see about that as well.
Anyhow, here's an old photo of Millennium Bridge and St Paul's Cathedral.
No. They're cameras.
Came across this discussion on a Fujifilm group on Facebook.
I understand if someone is enthusiastic about their new camera, but posting photos of your camera and saying it's sexy? It's a camera. It's a tool to take photos with, that's all it is. It's fine if you like it, but sexy?
I prefer to shoot with my X-T2 (and X-T1 and X100t) because they're more fun and enjoyable to shoot with than my Canon 5D MkIII. And they're smaller and lighter with better dynamic range and so on and so one. And I like the "hands on" approach of the Fujifilm cameras, with the type of shutter speed and ISO controls that they have and the aperture ring on the lenses. Back to basics, kinda, but it makes them more fun to shoot with for me.
What I don't get is the sexy part.
And I don't get why someone would be buying the newly announced graphite version just because "it looks cool". Especially not when people sell their X-T2 (or X-Pro2) and lose money, to buy the same camera, with the same specs, just more expensive, less stealthy and just completely unnecessary. If you buy a camera for its looks, you're a hipster.
But congratulations Fujifilm, you've found a way to cash in on some people's GAS,
Nope, this is not a review of the lens, I just got it last week and haven't used it extensively. No, this is more of a reflection or first impression of the lens, and it's good.
Really good.
Build quality is great, like all the Fujinon lenses that I have (5 of them now). And the autofocus feels pretty fast and accurate on my X-T2, at least when I've tested it in daylight. And it also feels really sharp, though I need to shoot a lot more with it. People have been complaining that it's too big and heavy, and I mean, really? It's neither big or heavy. Sure, it's a little bit bigger and heavier than the XF 14mm f/2.8 R, but it's still not a big and heavy lens, far from it.
The cool thing though is the ability to shoot details and completely blow out the background and at the same time being not extremely, but still pretty wide. And it's able to focus really really close up, with a really shallow DOF which definitely opens up the possibility to make cool compositions.
And for me it was fun to shoot with it and shooting wider feels new, since lately I've been mostly shooting with the XF 56mm f/1.2 R, XF 90mm f/2 R LM WR and the XF 35mm f/1.4 with the last one obviously being the widest. I've used the XF 14mm f/2.8 R at a couple of occasions while doing portraits, but I think it'll definitely be replaced by the 16mm most of the time.
Those two millimeters that differ from 14 to 16 of course makes more difference than one would think, though I haven't compared them myself yet, I've seen others do it, but I feel that the 16mm would be fine and wide enough for most landscape shots.
What matters more is those two full stops from f/2.8 to f/1.4, they make a huge difference in the ability to create a really nice bokeh and totally blow out the background and isolate some detail if that is wanted. And since I like to do that, it's one of the reasons why I bought this lens, to be able to shoot both wide and shallow. I haven't tried it enough yet and I haven't tried it to shoot people, only just when walking around close to where I live.
It has made me think about shooting landscapes/seascapes again which I haven't felt like for a long time and it has made me look into the cost of getting a nice set of Lee Filters Sev5n. Turns out it'll cost as much as the lens itself, and then it's not even bought in Sweden with our ridiculous prices.
Here are a few shots with the X-T2 and XF 16mm f/1.4 R WR. They're not pixel peeper shots, not even particularly good shots, more just a few examples of how shallow DOF you can get with this lens, which I find pretty cool.
Unfortunately this is not a real camera, but it's a few thoughts about one. If you're interested, keep on reading and please leave a comment if you have one.
Let me start off by saying that while I think my Fujifilm cameras are great for their small size and lightness, small size is not always only great news. It depends on what they're used for. If I shoot street photography for example, obviously I want the camera to be as non intrusive as possible, and light to walk around with for hours, so then obviously having an attached battery grip is not the best and it will come off then. Also while travelling, size and weight is important, trust me, I know. For landscape shooting it could be either way, if hiking a lot, obviously size and weight matters as well and the smaller size is be good here. But since I mostly shoot models/portraits at the moment, the battery grip is at least for me essential for good ergonomics.
I had a short discussion with another photographer on Fuji X-Forum about camera body size and the thought about a "pro" sized body version of the X-T2 came up. And I totally support that idea. An X-T2 with a built in battery grip, with the same features as the battery grip has today, but integrated all in one piece, like Canon's 1DxII or Nikon's D5 but still just as big as the X-T2 with battery grip. It would open up for a larger and better battery, with more power or maybe even space for two of them. Since it's an integrated grip, a lot of room could be used, that aren't being used today because of the construction of the body and grip, so to speak.
This could attract "pro" photographers that not only like Vanessa Joy (see my last post) care about what looks professional, actually needs and wants the features, especially with use of longer lenses or when shooting lots in portrait mode. Sure, there's only 2 larger Fujinon lenses today, but there might come more with time.
I would buy this camera in an instance, and I don't think I'd be alone.
I don't think there will ever be one, but how awesome would it be? Sure, it wouldn't be as flexible as the X-T2 with an attached battery grip that can come on and off when needed to either save weight/size or when the features are needed. At the same time you would get an even sturdier design with an integrated grip, better ergonomics while shooting with big lenses or in portrait mode and the ability to have more power, something that is still a weakness of any power-hungry mirrorless camera.
Wedding photographer Vanessa Joy wrote an article on Fstoppers about mirrorless cameras.
I've read the article and it's ridiculous. While having seen Vanessa Joy's photos, I can't say that she isn't a good photographer, because she is, but this article is plain bullshit.
While there are times when mirrorless cameras still aren't on par with DSLR's, what's limiting them the most of the time is the person using the camera, myself included.
And here's a great video in response to that article, made by SONY Artisan of Imagery, Jason Lanier. And while I'm not a huge fan of SONY cameras myself I do agree with Jason most of the time (not always though), and he is spot on with this video.
Haven't updated much here and I see it has passed nearly a month since my last update.
But the thing is that autumn has hit the south of Sweden where I live, and weather usually turns to shit and unshootable (probably not a real word) conditions. Especially for model and portrait stuff, the things I do mostly these days.
The weird thing is that I have a new camera and I haven't used it that much, but the reason is pretty much the above. And the lack of models. And my regular job that includes on call duty which I hate to such a degree...
BUT this weekend I've been shooting in Copenhagen with the amazing Diviana. Both on Friday night and on Saturday. I got off work earlier on Friday and travelled to Copenhagen, met up with Diviana and took her to Tivoli in the heart of Copenhagen. What I haven't mentioned yet is that the weather obviously turned out to be the worst so far this autumn. I mean why the fuck wouldn't it?...
It rained all Friday, with a few minutes here and there in the evening when it actually didn't. I had this idea of shooting inside of Tivoli, when they have fixed it up for Halloween. That would have been pretty cool if not the rain had ruined most of the mood. Where there should have been smoke and stuff, there were none since the rain killed it. And it was too dark and even if it was shit weather, too crowded with people. Sure, I brought one of my Rotolight NEO's with me to lit Diviana with, but it was still hard to get anything decent. But we tried for a couple of hours before I gave up and let my poor model who was all damp and cold, go home and I went to my hotel.
And then yesterday morning when I had the first look outside from the 15th floor, it was the greyest sky I've seen for ages and of course it was raining, and the wind was more present. Awesome...
I checked out from my hotel after a few hours and met up with Diviana again, this time we went for Botanisk Have (the Botanical Gardens) and it was much colder outside than on the night before, but we shot some in the gardens and then we went inside the big glass house where it's a bit more tropical feel than outside, to both get away from the rain and for Diviana to get a chance to warm up a bit. After that Diviana went for a change of outfit and we went for Christiansborg Palace to shoot some more.
In all, yeah, the weather fucking sucked, but Diviana is really nice, a great model and was a champ even if the weather was bad and I still think that we got some pretty nice shots (that I'm currently working on) in the end. And we have ideas for more shoots, so we'll work together again in a few months. And until I'm done with these new photos, have a look at my other portraits of her here, or nudes of her here.
So, real testing of the X-T2 right? Still, this is not a review, more thoughts on actually using it.
I guess I've done some testing of it now, this was the third time I used it to shoot a model and it's working pretty good I'd say. The autofocus is faster and a bit more exact, but it still struggled pretty bad when it was dark, but that was together with the XF 35mm f/1.4 R, which is a great lens optically, but focus motor not so much.
And I've shot with high ISO on Friday night at Tivoli. Is it better than the X-T1? Well, I haven't compared but maybe, I still think it looks like shit though. ISO can go up to 12800 while shooting in RAW (obviously, since who shoots JPG?) but it's really noisy and it lacks so much detail it's not even funny. And while the X-T2 is really awesome, ISO still sucks. And I'm not talking about shooting at ISO 12800, I'm talking 6400, and it's not usable. But otherwise, it is pretty great. It's been raining on it, not too much since I've mostly been using the mentioned XF 35mm f/1.4 R and the XF 56mm f/1.2 R and they're not weather resistant, but worked perfectly. I only used my favourite lens, the XF 90mm f/2 R LM WR for a few shots. Weather resistance or not is not so vital, since you can't really shoot when it gets too bad anyways. It's another thing while shooting seascapes or something like that.
I've only used the X-T2 together with the battery grip, but maybe I shot around 750 shots yesterday, and only one bar dropped on the internal battery on the screen and none on the two in the grip. If that is true or not, I don't know, but seems unlikely. But I've shot 1500 with the X-T1 with battery grip, and only one bar went down on that one as well, so I don't think it's reliable on either of them. But as long as you have spare batteries it's okay.
I might sound critical, and I am since it's not a cheap camera. But it's still a great camera and it's better than the X-T1. But I don't love it, and I don't love any of my cameras, since they're cameras which are tools to capture images with. Some people want to give them "souls" but that's stupid. First, souls does not exist, and second, they're dead things. But what they are, is cameras for photographers. There are many great cameras and I don't want to bash any, but what I've read and seen (and tried) about SONY cameras, well it's miles between them when it comes to being "real" cameras. Don't get me wrong, SONY make awesome sensors (it's a SONY sensor in the X-T2 as far as I know) and you can capture amazing photos with them, but the handling of them, well it's not the best. I haven't tried them all, but for the A7RII for example, it feels so backwards and non user friendly and those menus are ridiculous. With the Fuji's like the X-T2 you've got a camera, that feels like a camera, with the SONY's you've got electronic gadgets that you can capture images with. Great ones though, but I will never want to own one.
Anyhow, I will get back with more thoughts about the real use of the X-T2 along the way.
No, this is not a review of it. I've had it for a week and it's much too soon to write a review on it, but I can tell you this, it seems promising.
I've only shot a couple of test shots nearby and I've shot some model shots with it and some family shots for a work colleague, so it's way too soon to actually review it. So far I can say that it feels quicker than the X-T1, the autofocus feels faster and a bit more precise and the joystick for focus point is a nice addition, though I'll need some time to get used to it. The camera feels a little bit bigger, but since it is a little bit bigger, that's pretty natural. The camera feels solid and with the battery grip, it definitely is beefier than the X-T1 with battery grip, but it just makes the handling of the camera actually a bit easier. It's not a tiny camera with the battery grip attached, but still not big as in "Canon-5D-MkIII-w/-battery-grip" big. And definitely not as heavy either.
What else... The locking mechanism of the shutter speed and ISO dials, I don't know if I like it better or not than the one on the X-T1. I actually didn't mind how they worked. The third "axis" of tilting the screen is pretty nice though. 11 frames/second with the mechanical shutter is pretty fast, but I don't know why you would need 14 frames/second with the electronic shutter, since the problem with rolling shutter effect. But maybe they've done something about that? I don't know otherwise it's a pretty useless feature. And someone said it can shoot 4k video? That's nonsense, who shoots video with a still camera?
The files then? Well, the dynamic range is supposed to be a little bit better than the X-T1, don't know if I can really tell yet though, I probably will when I've shot more with it. ISO is supposed to be better, don't know that either, it still doesn't look that nice on ISO 6400 I think. Haven't shot a person on that high ISO yet. 6400 on the X-T1 was useless, hopefully this will be better.
I don't know, can't be bothered writing more about it right now. Gonna take it more for a spin this weekend with two different model shoots in Copenhagen on Saturday, and see how it behaves.
Like most people on social media do, here's shots OF the X-T2, not photos taken with it...
The whole family. Shot with iPhone 6.
This is fun. This week I've been to Copenhagen twice, Monday to shoot with the lovely Sara Scarlet (those shots are live now), and yesterday with the lovely Izabella.
And in an hour I'm picking up another lovely model named Sigrid, for another shoot.
The last two will probably be up later in the upcoming week.
Yeah, I know, it's not really about photography. Well, it has a camera, there you go.
I'm not gonna go into depths about the features of the phone with this post, there are plenty of other places to look for that. I'm just gonna say how ridiculous I think this release is.
I've got the iPhone 6 myself. It's awesome and easily the best phone I've ever had. It's the 6, not even the 6s, since no one needs to upgrade as soon as something new comes out. I've had the iPhone 6 since February 2015 and it looks and feels like it's brand new.
But the iPhone 7 just seem stupid. For example, Apple took away the 3,5mm headphone jack. How retarded is that? Sure, I've got a pair of Sennheiser Momentum II Bluetooth headphones with my iPhone 6, but I don't always use them, sometimes I use my Klipsch in-ear headphones instead since they're smaller and because of that, easier to bring and store. So now people need to use an adapter to be able to use their nice (not wireless) headphones which is retarded. And you can't charge the phone while listening to music while using that adapter, that is even more retarded.
I've seen a few parody videos about the iPhone 7 and they hit the spot and I hope that Tim Cook and those other guys at Apple get the message. Sure, iPhone 7 is already sold out since people are stupid and can't stop consuming even with flaws like this. And there are other things that Apple brings up as innovations even if they're not really innovations. But Apple are masters at selling stuff.
Don't get me wrong, I really like Apple and what they do. And like I said, my iPhone 6 is the best phone I've ever had. I've had a couple of Android phones and I have an Android phone at work, are they total crap? Of course not, but I'm personally never going back to Android again.
And my 27" 5k iMac is easiest the best computer I've ever had and my 13" MacBook Pro the best laptop I've ever had and I'm never going back to PC again. But is everything Apple puts out total awesomeness? Of course not.
A conclusion to this, well I'm not buying the iPhone 7 since it's a stupid release. The iPhone 8 that will come next year is predicted to actually be a huge upgrade. Among other things there will be a new innovation called "the 3,5mm headphone jack" and if something happens with my iPhone 6, I might buy the iPhone 8 if I need to, even if it would end up a bit retarded.
I've got the iPhone 7. Lol
I know and I still believe that it was a stupid move to take a way the 3,5mm jack for example, though myself I bought the totally awesome but ridiculously priced Klipsch X12 Neckband Bluetooth in-ear headphones already to use with my iPhone 6, so it isn't a problem for me, but most people still use regular wired headphones so it sucks that they need an adapter which is not a step forward.
And if I hadn't ruined my iPhone 6 on my latest London trip, I would not have bought the iPhone 7, that is a fact. I would have waited for an iPhone 8 instead. Now I'll wait for an iPhone 9 or 10 or something...
I look at a lot of model/portrait photos. I'm a member of sites like ModelMayhem and PurplePort for example and there are many photos to look at, specially at PurplePort.
I see many that are lit very well or with great natural which is even better, composed well and with a beautiful and/or interesting model. And it looks amazing on a thumbnail but when it's looked at in full size, it's retouched beyond infinity. The model doesn't have a single wrinkle, line, freckle or pore, just a smoothed out plastic face. This is very common but why in the actual fuck do people do this?
On a place like PurplePort you can give "love" to photos and it has stopped me countless times from giving any "love" since I find it hideous when photographers/retouchers do this. And it's not only for headshots, it's for full body nude shots for example. And not even nudes either, any shots with skin showing. There's nothing natural looking about it and it totally puts me off if it's done like that.
Yes, I think it's okay to do it a tiny tiny bit, I do that myself sometimes, but only if something is really disturbing so to speak. Or if the model had a pimple that day and she feels bad about it, sure I would get rid of it in post, but I would never smooth someone out completely and take away their natural look and beauty. Nope, never. And I would like to think that it's offensive to the model, it's like "you're not good enough and I'll reconstruct your looks".
I know, it's more or less the "industry standard" but it's fucked up and I hate it, but I know that many people love these type of photos, I don't understand why but we're all different with different tastes. I guess that it's the same type of people who think that over saturated photos, with nearly black unnaturally looking clouds, with huge amount of halos around edges are just "wow" and "beautiful".
The same people might probably not like my photos, well people might not like them in general, I don't know, they might not be retouched, edited and polished enough, but that's how I do it. Of course I edit photos, but I don't retouch them, maybe that's the difference. I am a pretty heavy user of VSCO film presets for example. Presets that I alter quite heavily to make them my own and use for all images to give them a certain look that I like. But still, I don't turn my models into aliens. I shoot the models that I shoot because I think they're beautiful the way they are.
I've posted a few shots of this cool place before in my cityscape section, since I visited this cool place last year while in London. This time I walked around a little bit more and it's an interesting place. The brutalist architecture is well, brutal in a way and the feeling while walking around is that it's both modern, and kinda old-ish, not ancient old, more dated and stuck in the 60's old.
Still it's a fascinating place and here are a few shots.
So I'm currently doing some changes here on the website.
I've lately been experiencing some lagging while opening galleries when it's been loading the content and it's annoying and a couple of friends have pointed it out as well while having a look on my website. I've also been experiencing it while I've been updating my galleries and to be able to do that, I had to change plan and go for a new one more than twice the price, which kinda sucks.
But I've moved things around a bit, creating sub galleries under the portraits, nudes galleries for each model, and seascape/landscape/waterscape galleries and now simply call those nature.
It helped in the galleries with less photos but not so much the ones that are image heavy, so I might have to get in touch with Squarespace and complain a bit since I now pay much more for this website. But I still like it and it's very nice to work with and I'm not so keen on doing coding and shit by myself since I'm not up to date with that. I once could do some html coding, but that was back in the day and now I'm just lost and not very interested in doing it either.
The last days I've also been editing photos of the lovely Diviana who I spent a day shooting nudes in the forest. I'll be done today and will probably be posting some new nudes tomorrow.
When I'm done with the nudes, I'll be editing some new photos I took with Hanna and they're probably the coolest ones we've done so far. I'll probably be posting these tomorrow as well.
Yeah, that's it.
At least many Swedish photographers (since this is something that I've probably seen mostly in Swedish) are ridiculous, or stupid or whatever to call them.
Or well, at least a lot of the ones on different Swedish Facebook forums (yeah, Facebook, the fountain of knowledge). I find it ridiculous and plainly stupid that so many use the term "fotograf" (photographer in English) in their names. As if putting the word "photographer" either at the beginning or in the middle of your name makes you look so awesome and as if you really know what you're doing or saying. No retard, it makes you look stupid and desperate.
By profession, I'm an industrial electrician. I don't call myself "Industrial electrician Peter Engdahl" on Facebook or anywhere else, since it's stupid. And it would make me look desperate and insecure. I'm a photographer as well, a hobbyist, enthusiast, amateur, call it what you want but not by profession. And I don't feel the need to call myself that either. If someone ask me while I'm out doing photography, I say yes, I am a photographer since I'm obviously doing photography and by the very meaning of that, I am a photographer. But at the same time I don't go around calling myself a photographer either and I'll add that I'm not a professional either, when being asked.
It's been discussed so many times and some people say that you shouldn't call yourself a photographer at all if you're not doing it as a profession. That is also bullshit. The title "photographer" is not legally protected, like a lawyer or a doctor and you don't need a specific education and graduation to do photography, as you have to for being a lawyer, doctor OR electrician for that matter.
Having that said, back to what I started ranting about..
Making the word "photographer" as part of your online name on social networking sites like Facebook makes you look stupid and desperate. And many people are stupid and desperate, since they so desperately want to be photographers, but making it a part of your name doesn't make it more real than it actually is. And it doesn't weigh in heavier in discussions like some people think and it's not like in general, professional photographers are better than amateurs (or what ever to call us). There's a big spectra of knowledge and skill on either side and many professional photographers are crazy talented and are able to get things done when there's a deadline for example, as many amateurs are. And many are less on both sides as well. And as an amateur photographer you can be nice, "professional" and awesome to work with, and you can be a fucking asshole professional photographer, or vice versa. You get the idea.
Still the use of "photographer" in your online name, why? Yeah, you did a wedding for your cousin that gave you gas (petrol) money and you shot your sister's drooling kids and she bought you an ice-cream for that. Now you're a "photographer" since you have an income from your shots. Awesome. Or you shoot really shitty wedding photos and still take ridiculous amounts of cash for it from clueless couples (don't get me wrong, all couples about to get married are definitely not clueless), and still you go on to forums, on Facebook, to ask how to get the lighting right, or what aperture to use at certain scenarios. Yeah, you're such a pro...
The real pro photographers don't spend their time asking questions online on how to perform tasks within their profession, they just do them from knowledge collected from, education, experience and real trial and error. There are so many wannabe pro's within the photography "community" that it's not even funny. I'm not one of them and I will never be. I've done a few jobs for pay, and I might do more but I haven't got "photographer" in my name on Facebook. And I'm also doing my job every day as an electrician and I'm not going on any forums on Facebook for that (that would be embarrassing) and like I said, I haven't got "industrial electrician" in my name either.
End of rant...
...and pre-ordered the Fujifilm X-T2.
And used a 50% off for the battery grip, since I shoot a lot of portraits these days. Based on what I've been reading about people's experiences with the camera, it seems like it is undoubtedly better than the X-T1 which still is in most cases a great camera that I use for nearly everything these days. And the X-T1 won't get retired either, it'll be with me either as simply a backup or as a second body with another lens mounted for quick changes (probably the last).
Sure, it's not gonna be perfect, there are still flaws on it. I'm still annoyed about the 4K video for example. Just made it unnecessarily expensive. And just take a look at it. It's obviously a still camera for photographers, not a video camera for videographers. And there are other things as well that I'm not content with, but it's still gonna be better in several ways.
I have no idea of when it'll be arriving, officially in September, but who knows when it'll be here in Sweden. But it would be cool if it came in the beginning of September since I have a shoot with Sara Scarlet in September. Oh well, we'll see. I will get back on it when I've tried it out for a while.
That stands for London Film and Comic Con, which I attended one and a half week ago.
It was a pretty cool experience, since I've never been to one before, and there's an even bigger one apparently (Anna Quinn told me so) at the end of May, with more of everything, including cosplayers, so I guess I'll have to go for the last week of May next year instead of first week.
It was hard to get any decent shots of cosplayers, since there was crap backgrounds and other people everywhere, but here are a few shots anyways.
So, yesterday was my last full day in London for this visit. As usual it didn't turn out as planned (nothing never does). I had a run in the city, having a look at a couple of things in a few stores (didn't buy anything) and had some food. While I was about to get on the Piccadilly Line back to my hotel for a chill (and for resting my blistered feet), at Holborn, it started to rain.
That rain kept on going for the rest of the afternoon and the whole evening, spoiling my plans of grabbing some shots of The Shard at its base (London Bridge Station) and some evening/night shots at the Isle of Dogs. At the same time, I could give my feet a rest and maybe I can walk the rest of the day while travelling back to Sweden.
It's been a pretty good trip, not as productive as hoped for, since I didn't find myself getting any good street shots, but had three nice shoots with Beth, Chloe and Lauren. And it was nice to catch up a little with Anna Quinn again and also to meet Ben and the others while doing the street photographer meet up.
So thanks London, see you soon.
Yesterday I went to London Film and Comic Con, held at Olympia, London.
Quite a lot of people, but heard that it had been packed on Saturday, so was glad that I went on Sunday instead. One of the reasons to go there was to have a look at what it was like, be able to shoot some cosplayers in costumes, and the other reason to go on Sunday was to catch up with Anna Quinn, the model I shot with in Copenhagen in the end of June.
I met Anna and we chatted a little bit and she was dressed as HellBoy, and looked awesome.
I saw quite a lot of cosplayers dressed up in different costumes, some that I recognised and some I didn't. And with quite a large difference in quality and time/money put into their costumes. it was fun though, but I was pretty tired after the visit. I will post some more photos here. Now here comes one of Anna/HellBoy.