lemastre

<p>I found that people pick their portraits based on which shot shows them most nearly as they'd like to look. Considerations of composition come a distant second, so long as it's not been too badly mishandled. If it's a group shot, the selected pose will often be a painfully arrived at compromise, with the alpha member of the group having most influence.</p>

<p>A client may tell you they like your work, but if they're basing that on their opinion of how you shot someone else, it's likely their criteria will change some when they're looking at themselves.</p>

<p>You also need to start out understanding the purpose or purposes of the portrait. Some affluent clients want a shot that not only includes them and perhaps their family, but also shows ample evidence of their financial success. These shots usually appear to be "loose" compositions. But that extra space is included to show, for example, enough of the exterior of the subject's house to indicate how extensive it is, or in interior shots to show the wood panelling and fine furniture surrounding the subject or family group. You need to identify these clients and pose them among their most expensive or prized possessions.</p>

<p>If you want to cure yourself of the photography bug, running a business like you describe should do it in a month or two. About 30 years ago, I contemplated working for such an operation, which the owner described as "mining coal, but above-ground." A lot of his work involved setting up in high schools and shooting a head shot of each kid in each class just as fast as possible. I guess he sold lots of prints to the kids' parents as well as to the school. I still shudder thinking of it.</p>

<p>I'd bet your problem is agitation rather than light leaks. Try developing a couple rolls in D-76 according to the Kodak instructions. Also, I find that inversion agitation gives more uniform development than than just rotating the reel back and forth in the upright tank.</p>

<p>Your vanity shots look fine, but I'm surprised that in today's economy many folks will shell out what you're asking for a shot that may have little commercial value to its subject. I did actors' head shots for several years in Dallas, and not many of my clients could afford your rates even for a shot that might get them a good deal of work. In New York and L.A., though, many photogs were getting hundreds of dollars for their head shots. Maybe your market area is more affluent.</p>

<p>Or, you can process the film a couple sheets at a time in 8x10 developing trays. You gotta have absolute dark, of course, and handle the film with your fingertips by the edges.</p>

<p>

 

<p>I shoot artwork, mostly flat art, for artists entering competitions. In the past, we sent slides. Now it's likely to be a JPEG file. Often, the files can travel on a CD, but some competitions want JPEGs via internet. If I have several pieces to send, the total megabytes may be more than my Mac OS 10 mail software permits sending in one attachment. Is there a way around this, other than reducing file size till the art can't stand much enlargement?</p>

 

</p>

Are there digital cameras all of whose functions are controlled as they are with film cameras, i.e. exposure is controlled by setting the f-stop

and shutter speed via mechanical controls rather than with computer instrructions or combinations of computers and mechanisms?

People who use brass stock often make the hole by tapping a dimple into the stock with an

icepick or other small point and then filing the bump that's formed on the other side until a

tiny hole appears.

I still have my chart of exposure times for various f stops (f/16 through f/1024) and EIs (6

through 400) that I'll be glad to send in PDF format.

I appreciate your prompt responses to my question. I'll henceforth tiff most of my images.

If I decide to pursue digital photography, I 'll get a camera that offers a choice of output

formats. Also, I expect I'll need a lot more storage. As computer users go on amassing

more and more files, I envision a time when home computers are lashed to terrabyte-size

memory units. When a person retires, the first thing the spouse wants done may still be

cleaning the garage, but number two may be cleaning out the computer files.

I recently acquired my first digital camera. It produces only jpg images. I understand that when jpg

images are saved in a computer, something is "lost" via some compression process. This

suggests to me that each time I open a jpg image and work on it, e.g., fiddling with the color or

sharpening the image, etc., it loses something when it's saved again in its jpg form. The result of

repeated savings would thus seem to be repeated losses, resulting in degradation of the image. If my

understanding is correct, then would it be better to convert the jpg images to tiff immediately and do all

work on these, which I understand don't suffer such losses? If so, I suppose the final version of the

images could be archived as jpg to save disk space.

Take a moment to consider the career and accomplishments of portrait photographer Arnold Newman,

who died this week. Perhaps most famous of his portraits was that of Igor Stravinsky and his grand

piano.

Your various suggestions are appreciated. Aside from the nearly

thousand rolls of rehearsal shots I will send to the library, the

majority of my negatives are theatrical portraits or head shots,

whose subjects are long gone from my ken. I would give the

negatives to the subjects, but I have no idea where they are. The

shots would be of only nostalgic value, since they've long since

passed their use-by dates, which is about two years for a head

shot. I'm beginning to see that there's really no excuse for

agonizing over these negatives, since they certainly have no

commercial value. If I were doing my life over, I'd probably give

my subjects their negs as soon as the first batch of prints was

made. My experience with that, however, was that subjects lose

the negs on their way to L.A. or just in moving across town and

then have to hope that I can provide another print without a neg.

 

Considering the onslaught of digital photography, we may find

that in a few years film negatives will have value solely for their

technological features. Maybe I need to be contacting antique

dealers.

After spending a great deal of time over 40 years creating

negatives and prints, I've amassed sizable files of them. Now I

must consider disposing of everything. I hate to think of

consigning 40 years of negatives to the landfill. Does anyone

have a less apocalyptic suggestion? My local library is

interested in about 1000 rolls of negatives having to do with

theatrical activities, but this accounts for less than 20 percent of

my files.

It's somewhat encouraging to see photographers discussing

film vs digital issues insofar as it implies that film is still a viable

choice. However, in my market, the number of places that do

professional film processing is down to about one lab, and

we've no guarantee it will survive. My longtime favorite, and

nearby, processor has just junked the wet gear on which his

business was founded and sequestered himself and his

computer and digital printer in an office building, where

customer contact is via telephone line rather than over the

counter. Now I have to drive across town to get a roll of slides

processed.

 

It's not that I mourn the disappearance of film so much as I

realize I'll have to junk thousands of dollars of cameras and

other film gear in a few years in the absence of any second-hand

market.

Since I posted my original plaint, I've found, with the help of Fuji

technical folks, that a routine in the computer's factory-loaded

software is insinuating itself into the download stream from the

camera to the Fuji software and degrading all the images to the

low resolution that I noted. I've yet to locate the guility software

so that I can delete or disable it, but I know how to avoid it.

 

I assume that this sort of problem might occur with any computer

harboring routines that seek out JPG or other such extensions.

Got a Fuji FinePix E510 (5.2MP). Loaded the software that came

with the camera into my iBook. Pix from the camera at 5 MP

setting look like crap. I have no digital vocabulary, but they have

what I'd call very low resolution. The pixels, if that's what I see,

are big enough to form stairsteps. The software reveals my

images to be 15 KB at 320 x 240 something.

 

However, a beautiful snapshot a friend e-mailed me last year

shows up on the same software as 451 KB and 1600 x 1200. I

assume he shot it with a small digital camera, since he's not a

photographer, although he may have done 35mm film and

scanned it. He's not available for questioning right now. Anyway,

is there some basic thing I overlook?

Fascinating looking church pic! Too bad all those people got in the way.

Sunny sixteen works because the guys who came up with the numbers that

describe film speeds said, "let's make the film speed the reciprocal of the

shutter speed at f/16 on a sunny day!" And so they did, thereby allowing us to

discover the rule of thumb and wonder why it works.

Check the ambient light with your meter, because it might be brighter than

you at first see it. Most labs I've seen have to be pretty bright to facilitate the

work being done. In any case, could you use the ambient light with a tripod

and long exposures, plus some small reflectors and mirrors to direct light into

the shadows? You can make reflectors of aluminum foil and white gator

board, and you can bounce flash off them as well. Shoot some and then go

back and do it better, if that is permitted. Also, if it's the beakers and other

small items that are important rather than the lab environment itself, perhaps

you can remove some items to a location that can provide better light and

make compositions with them.

I generally trade at Competitive Camera. It may not impress you as a "nice

friendly" place, but it you know what you're looking for, they probably have it

for an attractive price. I believe Warehouse Photographic is still active, too.

Then, there is Cooter's Village Camera, in the center of Highland Park.

They've never offered a discount price on anything, but they stand behind the

stuff they sell, which is top of the line Leica, etc. If you're on safari in darkest

Africa, and the Leica you just bought from them falls in the river, they'll

probably express you another one. At least, the founders of the business

would have. The kids are running the place now. They also have a very large

selection of greeting cards.

 

If I were starting out, I'd be buying digital gear first and film equipment

second.

You are doing just fine, apparently. I'd try to use 800 speed film where

possible, but 1600 is fine if needed. Posed shots usually allow you to slow

down the action so that a slower film can be used. I shot everything,

rehearsals and photo calls, with Tri-X at 400 for many years, but for color,

later on found that 800 speed Fuji works fine.

Try cooling the filter with an ice pack and filter-wrenching it. Or put filter and lens

in the refrigerator first. The filter might shrink enough to loosen. Otherwise, use a

glass cutter to score the filter around the mount and break out the glass. Then

cut the ring and twist it out. A strong hand on the filter wrench should remove the

whole thing without any cooling, though.

I processed 220-length rolls from a new batch of Plus-X 125, and the pre-wet

water poured out of the tank looking like ink. I feared that the emulsion had

washed away, but the negatives look okay. This film seems to be a new version

of Plus-X and apparently has a water-soluble backing. No mention of that on the

Kodak web site, though. Shocked hell out of me, however. Wonder how the

backing affects processing if you don't pre-wet.

When photos from smaller negatives became acceptable to newspapers and

magazines, Graflex products went on the shelf. I well recall when Rolleiflexes

supplanted Speed Graphics, as entire photo staffs were given the TLRs, and glad

the photogs were to get them.