chrishutcheson

Before going commercial, I sold fine art photo prints, usually limited edition. I haven't for years now and I have a boatload of images here I want to sell at greatly reduced prices if possible, rather than simply shredding them. They're unsigned, mostly proofs, though some are also ones I "retired" from their frames. My concern is that people who paid higher prices for these images might be upset that I'm selling off versions, even though they're unsigned/un-numbered, at much lower prices. Really, IMHO, they're more like posters than final prints, but I can see their point. It's not a concern, of course, if none of a series sold, and for most of the ones I have, that's going to be the case. I'm think I'm answering my own question here - probably better to toss the ones that are part of an already sold series, but though I'd see what others thought. I hate the idea of shredding good work, but it's time to purge here... Thanks Chris Hutcheson

I have a D4 with 382,000 actuations here - I bought it (new) when they first came out. Still chugging along fine, very clean, and I'll probably replace the shutter soon. As the service rep said to me a while ago when I had some work done on it, they're a completely different beast and are built like tanks, for heavy use. They also give these a thorough going over and cleaning whenever they service them, so I'm sure they'd be eager to point out any other issues they could work on - for a price! And on a camera like this the service costs are somewhat higher than on a consumer level camera. I'd be less concerned with other parts going on this, though than with, say, a consumer level camera. I believe shutter replacement here in Canada runs around $500 for this model. I've considered selling it because of the weight, mostly, but its speed and low light performance make it a keeper for me, particularly since I can't financially justify going to a D5 at this point.

Ahhh OK, the one thing I didn't do was set them both to the same MM. Will try that. Thanks for this. Was shooting at manual all along - will continue with that. Just seems odd, I'm sure I would've noticed it, though I typically shoot theatrical/stage work in a darkened venue so it may not have been as noticeable as in a more uniformly lit space.

I'm sort of embarrassed to be asking this given the length of time I've been shooting, but I've been having a problem I haven't experienced before with my 24-70 f2.8, think I've resolved it, but just want to confirm one thing. My 24-70 has always been a bit flakey and has been serviced a couple of times, but not for this particular issue. Assuming I shoot at the same f-stop, exposure, ISO in identical lighting conditions, and shoot set at manual (Nikon D4), should the 24-70 image be brighter than the 70-200 f 2.8? The reason I'm asking is because when shooting an event yesterday - again in a consistently lit space - the 24-70 was significantly brighter, to the point of epic overexposure. Same settings for the 70-200 were fine. I really had to crank the settings down way more than I had in the past to get correct exposure, and then could only tell by chimping as the meter still showed I was off the scale underexposed. I cleaned the contacts on the 24-70 and that seems to have resolved the issue, so now the same metering produces a minimal difference between the two lenses, the 24-70 being slightly brighter. It seems to me, the 70-200 being a longer lens barrel, that this would be the case, but just wanted to confirm this. Thanks for your help! Chris