kiro

Thanks all - I appreciate the extra input. It's given me some good ideas to try and approach more places off the beaten path and get the shots I'm looking for

That's well said. I want to be sensitive to people's concerns. People haven't gotten suspicious of strangers for no reason He's one of my idols in photography. He chose one of my works for a show he judged, huge honor. But he is in a place where he can get more done from public viewpoints Thanks for this and the prior post. Definitely fine accepting a No. But I think you're right, treat same as street

"I've read that having a photo book of pictures you've shot to show what you do may reduce suspicion." Thanks @AlanKlein - a book is a good idea. I can definitely bring that with me "I'm targeting homeowners" is not a good start. @Robin Smith that wouldn't be my opening line of course. It's not accurate for my work in general, just for this particular block of .... fear, shyness, whatever you want to call it "And your motive is, kiro? Why so keen to shoot these properties?" [uSER=7320367]@c_watson|1[/uSER] to take pictures "What’s worked for me in the south..." Thanks @Rick Helmke - this is very useful. I don't have a lady who'd do that (no way my wife will do that), but the rest is very helpful. Thanks!

I do a lot of landscape and, specifically, New Topographics style photography. 99% of the time, I'm shooting public spaces. When I'm not, it's because I can take the shot from a public place like a sidewalk. But I'm admittedly passing up on a lot of opportunities on private property. I'd like to try and change that, and so I'm looking for experiences from those of you who are approaching private property and requesting permission to shoot. To get very specific, I'm targeting private homeowners, in the Midwest US. In my particular area, there's a high rate of gun ownership and lots of suspicions of strangers and so forth, especially in this political climate. Why I'm asking for advice: On one of the few occasions I asked, I have been chased off private property by a homeowner, because I knocked on their door to ask permission to shoot some stuff in their yard. I had not taken any shots yet, but my camera was in hand and I only got half my first sentence out before he chased me off the property. So, I'm wondering about: What's your general philosophy in approaching? Do you have an opening line or anything? If you do this a lot, what's your success rate? Was I just really unlucky in my rare attempt? Do you prepare your appearance at all? I have a luxury car and a beater, and I wonder if one or the other would work better at my introduction to them Any other thoughts, tips, anecdotes?

Thanks Bill - that's a very important clarification. I've been using 30% as shorthand, but you're right - it's more nuanced. I would be very interested to see a data set that shows Fuji Crystal Archive and inkjet measurements against the "museum and archive use" standard. I'd also really like to see progression data, including thumbnails, of the progression. This would allow me to consider color shifts and so forth in my substrate/tech decision.

Right - there's pigment inkjet inks. And yes I realize I could go crazy with the notion of "archival". For my purposes, the 100 > 200 year rating from WIR for pigment inkjet is good enough

Thanks folks - let me clarify slightly: I'm interested in online print fulfillment for archival quality inkjet. As I understand it, Costco does not use an archival quality paper in their 7880's. What paper does Walgreen's use?

I have few options near me to get my photos printed on an inkjet. What's your favorite online inkjet print service?

OK - heard back from the author. Nice guy. Said he didn't mean to conflate the 8% and 30%, but sees how I got there. The 8% is what he (and others) feel is an acceptable amount of fade before an image is "damaged". Sounds like a reasonable figure to me. But he said that he did not mean to imply that WIR is measuring the two mediums by different fade standards. To be clear, WIR is applying the 30% to both mediums (as best he can tell at least). His article was meant to contrast an acceptable real life amount of fade vs lab "failure". To me, the next logical stepping stone is the recognition that this is a "race to the bottom". In other words, each materials' rating is based on when they reach that 30% fade. But, if we agree that our optimal is somewhere more stringent, such as the author's 8%, it would be interesting to have interval tests. For all we know, the Fuji Crystal archive might take longer to get past 8% than the inkjet, while the inkjet ultimately takes longer to get to 30%. If that were the case, I may prefer Fuji Crystal Archive over inkjet.

After some further research, I agree the claim is suspect. I've reached out to Bill Kennedy, the author, to support his claims that they're graded on different scales. I'll post back here if/when I hear something.

Hi Bill - Thanks - I agree, it seems highly suspect. However, I'd refer you to the link in my original post. That link is the originator of the info. Re: WIR specific report and footnotes: I agree on your sentiment, however I've not found a specific report, and I've looked at several for footnotes. What I've found is: tables of data on inkjet prints noting 30% fade no mention of how much fade is being measured in Type-C What I cannot find anywhere is a clear statement of fact from WIR on what the fade thresholds are. Take a look at that link in my original post for more info - interested to hear your thoughts.

I don't think I'm making my question clear. When WIR compares archival ratings of inkjet vs Type-C, are they comparing: 8% fade to 30% fade? 30% fade to 30% fade? or 8% fade to 8% fade? if it's option 1, then the data is useless.

That's who I'm referring to every time I say "WIR". There are indications on their site that they use 30% fading for inkjet "archival" tests. What I can't find is that they're comparing 30% inkjet fading to 8% Type-C fading. Unfortunately, their site is a complete mess and horribly unusable, which is why I'm asking for help in finding the truth of this question.

I just had my mind blown... In a discussion on FB, someone brought to my attention that while yes, there are many inkjet prints that test for longevity >200 years by WIR, the test standards for inkjet and Type C prints are different. The difference is substantial, if true. According to some, Type C (e.g. Fuji Crystal Archive) print longevity is tested on an 8% fade and inkjet prints on a 30% fade before each respective print type is considered "failed". While I've not found outright admittance by WIR (yet) that the standards are different, there are links elsewhere. Here's one: Defining Archival Standards in Photography | THE AGNOSTIC PRINT In other places, including WIR, I've seen mention of 30% fade for inkjet. But I've not seen a declaration anywhere that when WIR lists a table of testing results, they're comparing 8% fade to 30% fade depending on the technology used for the print. If it is true that inkjet is being graded in this different way, does anyone have a link to test results that compares 8% to 8% for both technologies?

Hi all - I'm a longtime Lightroom user, working with Capture One Pro to check it out. I'm working with the color picker and in tutorials I see that they are usually selecting multiple points. How do they do that? When I click in another spot, I get a point replacement, and the first point disapears. I can't figure out the keyboard+click operation to add points rather than select new. What's the voodoo here?