gdw

<p>Beacon 225 (1950 620 roll film); Ansco Memar (1954, manual 35mm); Konica IIIg (1957); Rollieflex 3.5 (1959 used); Pentax Spotmatic (ca 1963); Leica M4 (1967); many more followed. I still have the Memar, Rollie, Leica--all are going strong.</p>

<p>If you don't have to carry much gear the inexpensive soft sided lunch bag mentioned above is ideal. I once sit mine down in a convenience store on main street in Houston while I was picking out a cold drink. Walked off and left it, got across the street to the bus stop before I realized what I had done. I could just see several hundred dollars worth of gear walking away. Got back to the store and it was sitting just where I put it. They have worked for me for the last five years. Even if I am carrying a camera and shooting it still says photographer dude with lunch not photographer dude with expensive camera gear in lunch bag.</p>

<p>Rusian, there is no such thing a good photographic technique nor is there such a thing a bad photographic technique. There is only photographic technique applied appropriately or inappropriately. Technique is merely the means to an end not the reason a photograph is good or bad.</p>

<p>I cannot verify that one is better or worse than than the other. However to your question, what do others do...<br />I use Blurb, so I always resize the photo to the exact size and then manually sharpen before exporting to the book. With Blurb's new software that lets you design your own templates I am most often using custom templates. Either way, I know the exact size that the photo will be used prior to resizing, sharpening and exporting. There are times when I will resize the photo first and then build a template to fit the photo.</p>

<p>I would go with clone.</p><div></div>

<p>In a real world test of a D700 with Auto ISO off:<br>

1. Take a correctly exposed photograph in Manual Mode<br>

2. Change the EV to -5.0 and take a second photograph<br>

3. Change the EV to +5.0 and take a third photograph<br>

All three photographs will have the same expsoure (aperture, shutter speed and ISO remains the same) the histogram will be identical for all three. Changing EV compensation in Manual has NO effect on the exposure.<br>

The test took a lot less time than typing the question. But the question gave a lot of "experts" the opportunity to be wrong as is frequently the case on Internet forums. It's the classic--OP Beware!</p>

<p>When you go into color space on the Nikon D700 you only have two choices; sRGB and aRGB.<br>

I have never figured out why anyone that is not doing high end printing tortures themselves with aRGB. I leave the D700 on sRGB. My software handles it. My printer handles it. My labs handle it. My blog handles it. Photo.net and all the rest of the places where I post on the web handles it. I have the RAW file so on any rare ocassion when I should happen to need aRGB (hasn't happened yet) I can make the change. In the meantime I do not have to be concerned about making conversions or failing to make conversions.</p>

<p>I am sorry, but it is not voila if you change only your aperture after locking in your ambient background. If you change your aperture you have to compensate with the shutter speed in order to retain the proper background exposure. It is true that shutter speed controls ambient, but it is not an absolute truth that aperture controls the flash. Both flash and ambient will be affected by any change in aperture.</p>

<p>No doubt, if you are using Nikon the first choice is Camera Control Pro. It not only downloads the image directly to the computer, bypassing the camera media, but you can make all of your camera setting adjustments from the laptop and even release the shutter from the laptop. I can't see anything that would replace it for a Nikon.</p>

<p>Just a guess, but they probably want to know the type of material, if it is silver gelatin, ink jet, dye sub, giclee or possibly one of the alternative process such as ambrotype, bromoil, cyanotype, gum bicarbonate--there are lots of different ways to produce a photographic print. As far as weight, they probably want to know if it is single or double weight if silver gelatin. There are also different weights to ink jet paper which is usually found on the paper specs. </p>

<p>As a Nikon D700 owner, I would definately suggest that if you are not able to make up your mind on your own that you should go with the Canon.</p>

<p >Gene, what are you publishing? Is it something for family and friends or is it for general consumption? There are basically two different types of POD. One is geared for the person that wants to publish their own book rather than going through a publisher or has been turned down by publishers. There is another level such as Blurb, Mpix, and dozens of others that are for single or small runs. There is a world of difference between the two.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I have published several books through Blurb, nine or so, and have four in the process presently. I am on a PC so I can’t speak for Mac, but I have had no problems with the software. The text portion doesn’t come up to a dedicated word processor but it is getting better all the time. Blurb just made a major change in their software. You can now edit templates or create your own templates. I keep a photo journal that I work on several times a week. I have never had so much fun putting together a book as I am on my current journal because at last I can really put it together my way without resorting to pagination software. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >There is also MagCloud if you want to publish a magazine rather than a book. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >If you are looking for the one or small production printer like Blurb, I would be more than happy to try to answer your questions.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Megan, paying taxes has nothing to do with whether or not you need a model release. That is about the weirdest advice I have ever heard. As I said earlier what governs whether or not you need a model release is how the photograph is used. What you describe, selling greeting cards through stores is a commercial use and is going to require a model release regardless of whether or not you pay taxes and whether or not the business is in your name or your mothers.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >If you do not have a release you are putting yourself, your mother and the establishment that sells the cards at risk.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >If your mother sells the cards to the retail store then she will need to obtain a release of copyright from you. You own the copyright to the photographs. No one else can use them for commercial use without your written permission; that includes your mother. You can transfer to her a release for limited use so that later you may continue to use the photographs for your own needs.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Not knowing the subject of the photographs, you will need releases from all recognizable people, you may also need releases from any identifiable buildings and if there are copyrighted materials such as works of art, company logos, etc. you may need releases on them.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >It really sounds to me like you need to see a lawyer before you proceed.</p>

<p>Megan, you have not supplied enough information to even make a guess at the answer. A photograph used for one purpose may require a release and that same photograph used for another purpose may not require a release. You have given no indication of the type or types of photographs nor of what type of card.<br>

It would seem to me that selling "cards" assuming note cards, greeting cards, post cards, is a commerical use of the photograph and commerical use does require a model release. I do not understand how you are making a connection to photojournalism. Even a photojournalist photograph which would not require a release if used in a news story would require a model release if it is used for commerical purposes. Whether or not you would be required to have a model release depends almost entirely upon how the photograph is used.</p>

<p>The multiple exposure feature on the Nikon takes a exposure reading and then automatically divides it by the number of shots you have selected, i.e. five. Therefore each exposure of the five shots is only one fifth of being correct. On the other four exposures the background behind the moving subject is being recorded so there is no way to do this in the camera.</p>

<p>Not to disagree with everyone but a couple of more negative thoughts. One there is more to street photography than simply pointing your camera at any and everyone. Find people that are doing something interesting, something that shows some emotion that a viewer can connect with. Of the three the most successful is the first one with the two people looking opposite directions. The girl shot is simply a girl shot, they are doing nothing of interest outside of being female. The shot of the gentleman smoking possibility had possibility if you had shown something that he was observing that would have been of interest. As is it is a people shot which might be of interest if you knew the person. I agree that you have a good start and that you seem comfortable getting in close to people both of which are good. Now take it the nest step and look for the interesting interactions between people on the street and between people and the elements of the street. Show something of the character of the people from the area. Take the viewer somewhere. My first reaction to your three photographs is that you are a people collector, a viable reason for shooting street shot but far short of what the streets are capable of providing.</p>

<p><em>Fotoblur</em> seems to have stolen your concept very successfully. Take a look at their site http://www.fotoblur.com/. They do not pay for the photos and yet seem to have a goodly quantity of pretty good photographs posted each month.</p>

Don't have time to read all the replies, but OP, your ego's in your way.

<p>Attachment</p><div></div>

<p>It hardly matters what caused the problem. The OP wants to correct it. I simply applied RED EYE correction to the attached.</p>

Keep in mind that when using the DX mode on the 700 you are shooting at 5 megapixels rather than the 10 megapixels you have on the D200.

<p>In spite of the examples given, photographic technique is a necessary evil. Mario's interview may sound clever, but I would wager that Mario knows much more about technique and cameras than is admitted.</p>

<p>Cute story, but at some point, on some photographically technical level he had to know what what was useless and what two items he was going to need when he took the camera apart, if that actually happened, which is the first clue that the tale falls apart.</p>

<p>He knows enough to know that he has to borrow a camera to photograph from an airplane.</p>

<p>In the first place, technique is what gives sentence structure to the visual language of photography. On the other hand to be totally consumed by technique is to always remain a technician, which is where way too many photographers will always remain; especially those that hang out on Internet forums where technique is ninety percent of the emphasis.</p>

<p>There is no such thing a good photographic technique nor is there such a thing as bad photographic technique. There is only technique applied appropriately or inappropriately.</p>

<p>Good attitude Zoe. Yes, you have every right to request that he remove the photo but try the honey rather than vinegar approach at first. So many people do not realize that they are doing anything wrong and when politely educated are willing to cooperate. If he doesn't, of course, your practical options are rather limited.</p>

<p>I know it is galling when someone takes your property without permission but people are going to do it, some out of ignorance, some just because they can even though they know better.</p>

<p>I read an article not log ago done by a very good professional photographer, wish I could remember who, that had the best attitude I have come across. He said that he knew that people were going to take his photographs from the Internet and that he was not going to be credited or reimbursed. Even though he was a pro and possibly could show some minor loss of income as a result, he said that he was not going to worry about it. Instead, he took it as a compliment that his photograph was good enough for them to want to steal.</p>

<p>Now, I know some of the aggressive young bucks on this forum are going to go ballistic and object to that attitude as contributing to the decline of the value of the copyright. They may be right, but in truth, there is not a lot of practical options. I hear them screaming for lawyers all the time. But I am sure that they find out that a good copyright lawyer cost much more than what they could ever hope to recoup. In the end, is it better to get ulcers or better to feel complimented?</p>

<p>Personally, I have joined the side that feels complimented. I know of two of my photographs that have ended up in ezines, both did ask permission but offered no compensation. Probably others have that I am not aware of. I am certainly not going to waste my time Goolgling to find out. Nor am I going to deface my photographs with a watermark. My ego will survive without all that. With a good attitude, yours will also.</p>

<p>Good luck with the honey.</p>

<p >What kind of right do you want? The right to sue or just the right to beat the crap out of him?</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Yes, without your permission, he is infringing on your copyright. You have several options, in somewhat logical steps. You have the right to request that he remove the photograph from his web page? You have the right to get a lawyer to request that he remove the photo. If after that he still does not, you have the right to take him to court.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >However, to accomplish anything other than having him remove the photograph from his web site you have to prove one of two things; that you have been damaged financially by his use of your photograph or that he is benefiting financially from the use of your photograph. Not being a professional it is unlikely that you can prove you have been damaged and unless the photo is posted on a commercial website it will be difficult to prove that he is benefiting financially. Thus, the best you could expect from a lawsuit is that he would take down the photograph voluntarily or would be forced by the court to take down the photograph. Your gain would hardly seem worth the trouble. As far as money, the likelihood is that if you got anything at all it would be considerably less than your lawyer fee. Only you can determine how much trouble it is worth to you.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The best thing to do at the present is to politely, in a friendly way, request that he remove the photograph since it has been edited and you legally have the copyright to the original. Maybe work a deal where you supply him with your approved edited version for which he could give you a credit line. He gets a legal photo, you get recognition.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Or you can take it to Judge Judy and she will throw you both out.</p>

<p > </p>

 

Fred, I do recall our first encounter, it was a self portrait of you lying in bed in what I interpreted as a semi fetal position. I think we disagreed on the vulnerability I saw in the photograph. Truthfully, I was disappointed when you removed some of your earlier photographs from your gallery. What I enjoyed about your nudes was their sense of honesty, something that I respect in photography. You and Igor Amelkovich have posted some of my favorite PN nude photographs and you both removed them. Fortunately, Igor's are still available on his website. Gary