darren

<P>Adobe Photoshop CS2 for Mac OS X has a bug, where the installer creates illegally-

named files in the Applications folder. These files are reported by Disk Utility, but can't be

repaired. The volume header for that disk is also reported as corrupted. Some people have

reported that the disk problems get worse over time, eventually requiring a format and

reinstall of the OS.

 

<P>Adobe Illustrator CS2 for Mac OS X has the same problem.

 

<P>The fix is pretty simple - just delete the offending files.

 

<P>Here is some more background information and <a href="http://

www.onestopunder.com/2005/12/photoshop-cs2-illegal-filename-bug/">instructions

for fixing</a>.

 

Anyone running CS2 on a Mac should check this out,

There are, of course, people who disagree with Keith's comment above:

 

http://danheller.blogspot.com/2005/06/does-rf-pricing-affect-rm-images.html

http://danheller.blogspot.com/2005/06/did-rf-images-cause-rm-prices-to-drop.html

http://www.danheller.com/biz-agencies1.html

 

(I'm not taking sides, just balancing the discussion)

I currently use the 28-135 (among other lenses) at weddings, and will be looking seriously at the 24-105 to replace it when it arrives. The main things I like are the constant aperture (so I can set the camera on manual mode and zoom without worrying about a changing widest aperture), the L quality (we haven't seen samples yet, but I'm sure it'll be streets ahead of the 28-135), the newer/better IS, and the slightly wider 24mm vs 28mm.

 

Less reach at the long end doesn't bother me too much. I was previously considering the 24-70 2.8, but it's a much heavier lens and a little too short on the long end. I don't want to have to change lenses during fast-moving parts of the wedding.

I think the upcoming 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM lens will be great for weddings. Reasonably fast, constant aperture through the zoom range, IS and USM, the image quality of an L, plus it's not too heavy (like a 24-70 f/2.8). It won't be too expensive, either. The only downside is that it's not available yet :-).

 

That's not the only lens for all situations, though. The 70-200mm f/4 L is a great tele, and the 17-35mm is a great wide-angle.

You might be able to find a bargain-priced H1D now that the H2D has been announced!

 

http://www.onestopunder.com/2005/08/hasselblad-h2-h2d/

I use a macro at every wedding, for shots like the rings, the decorations on the cake, flower close-ups, etc.

I may as well add my own to the list:

 

http://www.OneStopUnder.com

 

It's aimed at professionals and serious amateur photographers, and deliberately steers clear

of beginner topics and all the latest digicams to hit the market.

If I was a naiive client that hadn't dealt with photographers much, I'm not sure I would really

understand the argument that "if the client is going to use the image more, and get more

value out of it, then I should be paid more". Nothing else I buy works like this. I paid for my

logo to be designed, and now I can use it anywhere I like. Why is photography so special?

 

I can't see many professional photographers being willing to pay Canon or Nikon an annual

"usage fee" for their camera gear, depending upon how much money they earned with it or

how many times they used it that year.

Just playing devil's advocate with Mark's example of the young starlet:

 

What about looking at the example from the client's point of view? The young woman was pretty much unknown, but he saw something in her and thought she had some special qualities. He lined up the model, organized the shoot, and paid for it all. The photographer was just some guy picked out of the yellow pages who spent one day photographing the girl.

 

The photographer didn't choose the model, and didn't take any risk. The client was the one who put his money where his mouth is and paid for the shoot. Why should the photographer own all the rights to an image he never would have taken if the client hadn't paid him to? Shouldn't the client be entitled to profit from those images if the girl later became famous? After all, he's the one who took on all the risk.

 

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying photographers shouldn't be allowed to retain copyright. I'm just showing that there is another point of view, and if you want to succeed in business you need to understand where the other side is coming from.

 

Some photographers make a big deal about delivering all the negatives/digital files to the client, who is then free to do with them as they wish. This arrangement appeals to many clients, who feel uncomfortable with someone else being allowed to dictate how they may use images they 'paid for'. I've certainly seen engaged couples go with a higher-priced photographer because he hands over the negatives.

 

If you want to charge by usage, you need to be able to explain to potential clients how that arrangement will benefit them. Perhaps you can charge less up-front, and they then only have to pay for the images and uses they want. So you're de-risking the shoot for them. Or perhaps there are other reasons. But it's a question you will get asked.

What difference does it make to your photography that some fuddy-duddy on Photo.net

thinks you shouldn't correct perspective distortion? If you want to do it, then do it.

I also sent money years ago. Apparently they're shipping, but mine hasn't arrived yet (I'm in

Australia). Despite the monumental wait, I'm looking forward to reading it.

Most people would think you were being overly precious or just trying to stop them taking their own photos so you can sell them your photos at inflated prices. The fact that most other wedding photographers *don't* make this request reinforces this perception to the guests.

 

That kind of first impression is likely to reduce your chances of getting referrals.

 

I don't think I've ever had a ceremony shot ruined by a guest's flash. I wouldn't worry about it, unless, as someone else mentioned above, you're using remote strobes triggered by flash. If that's the case, I'd look into getting a radio or infrared system.

I'm not familiar with how the Olympus flashes work, but the problem might be due to it being too 'smart'. In the Canon EOS system, under certain combinations of shooting mode and high ambient light level, the camera's metering system decides that the flash is not the primary light source and sets it for 'fill' (i.e. 1.5 to 2 stops under). Perhaps the Olympus has similar behaviour? There's a lot more detailed info here:

 

http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/#faq10

 

I've occasionally had trouble when shooting in light levels that are close to the fill flash boundary, and some of my photos came out with the flash as main light, others with fill.

 

The solution that works best for me is to meter the ambient light and set the camera controls to a suitable manual exposure, then let the flash do Auto E-TTL (fill flash mode isn't activated in Manual exposure mode). I can still set the flash one or two stops under if that's what I want, but now I'm in control and the exposures are consistent.

 

Hope this helps.

I recently saw someone's wedding video, and all through the footage red lattice patterns kept appearing on the bride and groom's faces. The photographer was obviously using focus-assist, and it really spoiled the video. So I guess it goes both ways.

If you can get rim lighting on the subject, that seems to enhance this '3D look' too.

<p>It sounds like you guys want the Epson RD-1 digital rangefinder. There's a review <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/epson/rd1/">here on Photo.net</a>.

 

<p>Lots of manual goodness like traditional rangefinders, has a Leica M mount, 6.1 megapixel, etc.

 

<p>Now all you have left to complain about is the price :-).

I'd get a Canon 50mm f/1.8 for starters. They're cheap as chips, and very sharp. The difference between f/1.8 and f/1.4 isn't much, but there is a build quality difference between these two lenses.

 

Play around with that lens for a while, and decide whether you want something longer or shorter to complement it. If you want longer, the 85mm f/1.8 is very good, or possibly a 100mm macro (thought it's f/2.8, it has the advantage of giving you macro capability). If you want shorter, the 28mm f/1.8 is great.

 

I use the 50mm f/1.8 and 28mm f/1.8 on a 20D for weddings.

In Australia, you don't need to register a business name in order to claim the tax deduction. You just need to show that you earn income from photography, and that the item being claimed as an expense is required to earn that income. That would be pretty straight-forward in this case.

It's a reasonable request - reduced work for you, in exchange for a reduced price. You don't have to accept the request if you don't want to.

 

One way to approach it is to charge an hourly rate, add say 1hr for burning DVDs, and also add something to cover your amortized gear costs (maybe $100 or so?).

 

Another approach is to figure out how much it's worth to you to not have to proof, process and print the images. If that saves you, say, $200 in time and materials, deduct that from the price you'd normally charge for this job (say, $700), and charge the remainder (in this example, $500).

 

Either approach is reasonable, and can be used to justify the quoted price to the client if they question it. If they're not happy with that price, don't accept the job.

Things like colour correction, finding a suitable printing lab and profiling to their output, etc are basically one-time problems. Once you've solved them and got your workflow set up, you shouldn't have to worry about them again unless something changes.

 

While 'learning Photoshop' could be a lifetime pursuit, it shouldn't take too long until you're competent enough to crop, rotate, adjust contrast and exposure, and sharpen for output.

 

What part of this stuff is giving you trouble? There are some real experts here that could help you out.

 

Nice photo, by the way!

I find the 35mm isn't different enough from 50mm for my liking. I'd go for the 28mm to get a very different angle/perspective. You can always crop back to 35mm if it suits a particular image.

 

If you get a fast 35mm, you'll sometimes wish you had a wider lens. If you get a slower 35mm, you'll wish for both wider and faster. If you get the 28mm f/1.4, you won't be wishing for a slightly longer and slower lens, but you might wish for more money :-).

<p>The major benefits to me include:

<ul>

<li>very high resolution means much more ability to crop images, which can mean less need to change lenses during a wedding shoot

<li>ability to crop heavily means you can make better use of prime lenses for available-light shooting

<li>larger sensor means less depth of field, which is great for selective focus shots

<li>easier/cheaper to do wide-angle shots (no 1.6 cropping factor, so no need for the crazy ultra-wide 12-24mm lenses)

<li>ability to blow prints up very large (rarely needed, but handy occasionally)

</ul>

<p><a href="http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/jhead/">JHead</a> is an awesome utility for messing around with EXIF header info. I've used it several times to correct dates and times when shooting weddings with multiple cameras.

<p>It's also handy for renaming all your images based upon date/time, rather than using the semi-random filenames you're left with when shooting with multiple bodies.

<p>I get asked this question enough that I wrote it up on my web site. I think this covers most of the issues:

 

<p><a href="http://photo.pool-room.com/Advice/memory-cards.html">One Huge or Several Smaller Memory Cards?</a>

<p>I've been very happy with CityDesk, from Fog Creek Software, for my web sites. There's some info about it <a href="http://citydesk.pool-room.com">on my site</a>.

<p><a href="http://www.content-hq.com">Content HQ</a> has some good information about hosting, web technologies, design, writing content, accessibility, etc that might help you out, especially if you're just getting started in this.