bjcarlton

As some others have suggested, work up a portfolio of clothed models first. Use your friends. Learn lighting and posing. With that portfolio in hand, you now have some credibility when you approach someone for doing nudes. In fact, people you've photographed clothed now have a reason to trust you, and might be willing in some later session to pose nude themselves, assuming you haven't come across as creepy while photographing them. One suggestion I've seen elsewhere is that, in addition to the above, you collect some nude images of the sort you would like to take, and show them to the potential models, with the explanation that you are learning nude photography, and want to replicate these images. That, too, can be reassuring. I would also suggest that you cultivate a female friend willing to act as your assistant. Tell your prospective model that that's how you'll be working. That way, she'll know that it's not going to be a one-on-one, just-trust-me situation. The fact you are working with an assistant is a strong statement that your interest is photography, not messing around. And if you really want to impress potential models that you're serious about the nude as an art form, photograph some men, too. (A worthwhile challenge for a straight photographer, and a way for you to test your true motives.)

<p>I found Colormunki very helpful in getting my printed output to match my monitor. One result of using it was that I, like one of the other commenters, dimmed my screen quite a bit.</p>

<p>I think he was joking, Jeff.</p>

<p>That shadow looks too wide to be from the pop-up, which is very close to the lens axis. Could it be a reflection from the window glass? I realize that the shadow still appears when the main light is turned away from the subject, but what if it's turned off entirely? In other words, could it be getting reflected by the window glass even though turned away from the subject?</p>

<p>Had the same thing happen to my 24-105 F/4L. That said, I had it repaired and was back in business. Wasn't cheap, but it wasn't worth getting a new lens over either.</p>

<p>I have both a 70-200 f/4 L non-IS, and a 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II. I got the f/4 about 10 years ago to cover running events, and have taken tens of thousands of images with it. I'm very happy with the results. I got the f/2.8 just a few months ago. I've used each on crop sensor and on full frame bodies. I can't discern a difference in viewfinder brightness, at least in actual use (I haven't done any formal experimenting). I can't discern a difference in image quality in any of the shooting I've done with the two lenses. I like the bokeh on each. I don't notice any particular difference in focusing, and, as I said, I've used the f/4 extensively for shooting runners, occasionally in dim light. For really dim light shooting, I really like the f/2.8 IS. It works as advertised. But the lens weighs a ton. I would not want to carry it around very long. If you have no need for IS, I say go for the f/4. (OTOH, if you really want to impress other photographers, go for the f/2.8. I get lots of comments from people when I use it.)</p>

<p>Actually, she is obligated to you. She promised you publicity if you'd shoot her for free. You detrimentally relied on that promise (i.e., you provided the service), and now she's reneged.<br> That said, the stakes are so small here that it's probably best just to forget it.</p>

<p>Well, parse it out. "The use of the copyrights . . . will not be sold to or granted to [anyone] other than Company and Vendor." In plain English, no one but the Company and the Vendor can "use" the copyright. If a third party's sale of prints is a "use" of the copyright, then you're out of luck. The question for your lawyer to answer is what constitutes a "use." </p>

<p>Though perhaps a bit of a long shot, some local prosecution agencies have consumer protection units that can be of help, particularly if she has engaged in a pattern of such behavior. Years ago I managed to extract a print (from a triathlon) I'd ordered from a photographer that way; he'd blown me off for months. I found out where he was based, and called the local city attorney's office's consumer protection unit. Turns out he had been doing this to a lot of people, so I was able to just sit back and let the public prosecutor do the rest of the work.</p>

<p>What happens if you stop down and shoot, say, the sky?</p>

<p>Wow! Fascinating stuff. So what appear to be neat formations of droplets really are neat formations of droplets? That might explain why there's such a variation in their length (though I suppose there's no reason to assume that all the reflected droplets would be moving the same velocity away from the impact point.</p>

<p>Digital vs. film – not gonna go there! :)<br> Thanks for all the responses. I was kind of thinking something along the lines of Cory's answer, but only have a degree in literature (with a few math and science courses thrown in to combat ignorance). Oscillating droplets makes sense. This is particularly suggested by the fact that the "dots" aren't uniform. Some, as has been pointed out, are little dashes. Some are dot-pairs. Some of the dashed ones are dashed at an angle to the overall line of dashes (sort of like cars in angled parking). Though each trail consists of evenly spaced dots (or dashes), the trails consist of different numbers of dots/dashes, and the spacing suggests that some are "flashing" at a different rate than others. All of that would, I suppose, be consistent with waves propagating around various-sized droplets in various ways as they flew away.</p>

<p>The only light source in this image is the sun, which, last I checked, was a very continuous light source. I did not use any sort of strobe. The subject is in a shower, and the shower head is out of the frame, to the upper right. Exposure speed was 1/100 sec. You can see the water drops coming from the shower head; they are the large, continuous streaks heading toward the skin. You can also see drops bouncing off the skin – but here's the big mystery: why are they dotted? They look for all the world like single drops that have been lit stroboscopically as they traverse a path, and yet that can't be. (I was there, for one thing, and you would expect the drops coming from the shower head to be similarly dotted.) And if they do represent a path, then they appear to be going substantially faster than the drops coming from the shower head. Can it be that these are actually lines of drops flying neatly through the air? That suggests an orderliness I find completely unexpected. I am completely baffled. Any physicists or engineers out there who can explain what's going on?<p>

<p>Doubling the number of pixels gives you 1.41 times the number of pixels horizontally, and 1.41 vertically, as stated above. If resolution is defined as the number of lines per millimeter that can be distinguished, does 1.41 times the number of pixels along a given axis resolve twice as many lines per millimeter? (Assuming of course, a perfect lens.) Just asking -- the math for that calculation is beyond me.</p>

<p>Probably hard to find now, but the Pentax 6x7 used to have a waist level finder as an option. That would make for a kit that was a lot lighter than the Mamiya.</p>