zelph_young

One major problem is Google and others strip all Metadata from images they put up for folks to find on their search engines. Without the information someone who wants to make contact can't do so - they don't know who the Photographer/Owner/Poster is. Google has been to court and won the right to use the images in their search programs. They need to be taken to court again for stripping metadata - as US Copyright laws do take away defenses when one removes Copyright information. The only way they will change their operation is if someone hits them in the bank account.

A verbal agreement is not worth the paper it is printed on. Start getting written releases as part of the shoot. Will make it much easier moving forward. As far as the book project you are probably OK. Check with an IP attorney to be somewhat safe. That said Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia - Wikipedia is worth checking out. Image of a gentleman in public used in a book. No release at all. Judge found for the Photographer as it is Art/Editorial. Be safe and get a release signed in the future.

The panoramic cameras and circuit cameras are still in use today. Know film photographers using circuit cameras that do large group photos and make a living with it. They still set up the risers in a semi-circle to match the curvature of the swing lens and then contact print the 3-5 foot wide negative. Sharpness that digital can't touch. Look at the work of Michael A. Smith ( www.michaelandpaula.com) who works with the 8x20 film camera regularly. Other formats such as 4x10, 5x12, 7x17, 12x20 and the wider curcuit film sizes are all viable and still being done.

Take a look at work done by Dick Arentz, Tillman Crane, Bob Herbst and Sandy King. All use digitally made enlarged negatives for excellent images for many print processes. Some use film and scan, some use digital and enlarge from there. Have seen Platinum/Palladium 16x20's from a Fuji X-Pro1 digital body that are excellent. Have seen hand poured Carbon prints that size from 6x7 film negatives that are excellent. Bob Herbst wrote the section on digital negatives when Dick Arentz re-did his book on Platinum printing. Doesn't get any better than that.

"I totally agree that large formats are completely unsuitable for macro work." If you know what you are doing this is wrong. Limiting factors come into play compared to smaller formats but an 8x10 can be used for macro and even photomicroscopy work. 8x10 at 100 times lifesize for stress patterns in metals has been used for decades successfully. The larger the camera the more you have to concentrate. It is not easy compared to smaller formats but can be done. A lot depends on the "look" you are after. 4x5 is easier to work with for close and macro images due to size differences. It all depends on what you are after for the finished print or chrome.

"645 is the minimum film format that can challenge the image quality of digital. 35mm can't. It's just not big enough." Unless you are talking Kodak Technical Pan film in B&W.

Is there a digital back I can mount on the Bronica SQa? One that would give the the full 6x6 frame size would be preferred but I know many don't go that big. (think Hasselblad where God personally blessed them with the square format and they pissed it away with 645 digital) I like the square frame and would like it with a digital back using the full capability of the camera, if possible.

Given your familiarity with Canon I would go with a 6D. If you have many Canon lenses it makes it easier on the wallet as well as having a body style you are used to. Great low light image quality.

Nope, 20 frames per second does not guarentee you capture peak action. It can up the odds, but only that. Many of us shot wildlife and sports on various levels with manual focus gear for decades and did peak action well. Knowing the subject matter and its behavior helped a lot. Being able to anticipate that peak action is a key attribute for success. The current reliance on "spray and pray" without honing the skills needed to anticipate peak action is OK but results in hundreds of frames to dump and a success rate lower than careful shooting with controlled use of the 'motor drive'. I look at older work and still marvel at fight shots with the old Speed Graphics with bulb flash. Most work now is nowhere as good. Technology is good in many respects but experience coupled with technology increases you chances of success.

Be aware that at slower shutter speeds sharpness of a moving moon won't be all is can be. On shooting with big lenses the general rule of thumb is that the moon will be 1mm for each 100mm focal length on a 35mm or equivalent film size.

Some of us have work computers for our images that do not, never ever - connect to the Internet. Has been a few years since I had a problem with CS6 but last time I just deleted and re-loaded and entered in my serial numbers and all worked fine. Am looking at other programs for when I finally make a change from Photoshop. I know it will happen one of these days. I don't and won't use any subscription services for various reasons. Just one being that the work computer never, ever goes online for anything.

It is a computer, you can't expect it to work right all the time. New software - you are the test monkey. Why would the makers waste their time making sure all worked right when they know you can do it for them. They lose nothing if you lose everything - then they can sell you more software.

There is one thing that made Photography possible. The ability to fix and image so it would not fade away. For centuries people were able to make "photographs" of sorts. Problem was - the images would fade away. From sunburns on skin to silver to whatever - the images were not permanent. The discovery of a way to keep them from fading away is what made the difference. You friend and his great discovery is going to bite you big time if you try using it. Buy and use photographic fixer if you want the images to last.

If you mean FILM, say FILM. You have never in your life gone into the store and bought a roll of Analogue.

One thing that will help is to get a few prints from excellent printers as reference images. You will have them for your walls but best of all you will have a direct reference as to what Quality looks like. If your efforts don't approach and eventually match the quality of these fine prints you will have to learn how to do it. As far as gear goes we have seen top quality work from photographers using film/developer/paper/enlarger/lens combinations many say just can't do it. You learn to work with what you have. Some technical limitations may arise but you can work with them. Using the gear as an excuse for poor quality just does not wash. Once you get the workflow so it is comfortable you will be able to produce fine work that will show well, will last and will give your years/decades of satisfaction. Best of all you won't be one computer glitch away from losing it all. A print lasts if you give it basic care. Good luck.