lucas_griego

I worked for Disney for quite a while and everything I ever did for them was under a contract... all 28 pages of it. So you can be sure if it is in any way related to Disney there are teams of lawyers involved. The will come after you if you infringe - even if you are a 'small fish'.

Check with the property management company - or consult a lawyer.

This shot could be done both ways. Long lens with a soft backdrop graphic or simply done with Photoshop and some skilled masking.

It looks like Photoshop to me - something out of HIM magazie or FHM mag.

I suggest you stop being so lazy and go the Mamiya website and read up on

these issues for yourself. It's lame to expect anyone to type up the pro's and

cons of these two systems.

As well you should search the archives - this has been asked many many

times.

Ed,

If you get a driver who does speak english you will inevitabley end up at all

the spots that they think a tourist wants to see. So you will end up at the spots

where everyone else goes - rubbing shoulders with all those tourists sniping

shots with 300mm lenses when they should be up close with a wide angle -

All the places which a guide will take you - you could easily get to with a

Lonely Planet guide book.

Thailand is one of the most tourist accessable countries in the world. You will

not be able to get away from Israeli's just out of the army, Brits just out of the

pub or Germans just out of the girly bars.. LOL.

Having lived there off and on for years - my advice would be just get a guide

book for rough directions/destination, get a road map, rent a car and go. If you

want to walk away with something more than temple shots, curious native

children shots and pictures of monks.... it will take more than one trip. Most

people only ever scratch the surface of Thailand.

Don't waste your time... do the driving yourself - and stop where you want to..

learn how to say exscuse me (khatod khrap) and and learn some of the

simple rules of Thai culture and you can easily get on yourself.

"But I'm lazy."

Lazy isn't the only word that comes to mind.

"I somewhat doubt that Kodak has shifted its manufacturing to China and

Mexico because of the superior quality of the manufacturing technology in

those countries. "

It seems your word "superior" is a typo. I suspect you may mean "inferior".

Which isn't necessarily true. Depending on who is running their QC (quality

control) and whether or not they have ISO (international standards

organization) certs. - much of what you own and buy in America is made/

assembled in China and the third world. It has been for quite sometime. I'd do

a bit more research before I jumped to such foundless conclusions.

"While the "outsourcing" may have to do with the benefits of cheap (or slave)

labor in China,"

This is often a term bandied about by people who really know very little about

labor issues and living conditions in countries like China. Most often by

people who have never been much out of the U.S. let alone to China.

I've lived and worked in Asia for the past 10 years, at least five of those years

were spent living in China in the Xiamen-S.A.R. where Kodak has a factory

(so does Rolls Royce for that matter) - they haven't got to rely on slave labor -

there are literally hundreds of thousands of people from the Sichuanese

province and others that will work for 500-2000 RMB per month. This is

because no matter how cheap that seems - they see it as better than being a

subsistance level farmer back in their home province. Try going ove to

Guandong where just about everything you wear is made - labor is cheap,

girls are cheap and so is life... wake up call... not everywhere is America.

If you want slave labor - head to Cambodia as the Chinese cut and sew

factory bosses are - funny thing - who do you think buys Nike, Timberland and

Adidas? What about probably 50% of the clothes that you wear? Chances are

they weren't made in the USA.

But if you want merely bad labor conditions that are directly supported by

conspicuous American consumerism, consumption and marketing then just

about anywhere in Asia will do.

As for the studio I dunno that TTL flash is really that big of a deal - I don't really

see much need for it. I've used several S2's in my studio for quite some time

and never a hitch - grab the trusty light meter. For location using an attatched

SB26 I've always found it works out well. The overall color, skin tones and the

exposure are just fine.

People can run on about what is passe - which always sounds like so much

brand enamoration - while they're doing that I'll keep using it to make money

with and keeping the clients happy.

Your mileage may vary.

Talk to the people at IQ color lab on Sukhumvit (there are 2-3 in Bangkok) - they are

usually very helpful and maybe able to recommend/vouch for some of the places your

thinking of.

An easier way might be to rent one at home and bring it with. Most rental co's do not

allow that but I do it all the time as there are many places in SE Asia you cannot rent

gear.

I don't have the D60 - I have several Fuji S2 Pro's - the manual for this camera also

states that you cannot/should not clean the sensor using battery power to hold the

shutter

open...

This is not true. I have done it many times on battery power.

You need to make sure that you have a fresh set of batteries in the camera. And be

prepared and ready to go - meaning don't mince about while the shutter is open -

just get in and clean it and get out.lt takes less than a minute in total if your using

the swabs and the cleaning solution and about the same time if your using tape.

The reason that the S2 manuals advises against this is because they figure they'll have

nimrods cleaning on faintly charged batteries, taking phones calls, getting cups of

coffee and generally screwing around while the shutter is open and the battery is

running down and then the shutter will snap shut as the power runs out and and

somehow drive the cleaning wand or your finger straight through the sensor - lol -

that'd suck.

But honestly - clean it quickly (which is what you want anyhow - you don't want to

keep that area open as it'll attract more dust to the sensor anyhow) - clean it quickly

and be done with it - no AC adapter required.

A bulb blower will not get rid of much of the stuff on a sensor.

Paul,

LOL - did you spot it by zooming into a 72 dpi download from the net ?

Had it been "manipulated" - You painted yourself into a corner by your absurd

comments and then try to shuffle out of it by calling someone a troll.. LOL.

Give it a rest already. Your just spouting hot air at this point.

Sounds like someone somewhere is about to get ripped off.

There isn't a whole lot of money in adult work/porn - at least not for the

photographers. The money is in the distribution end. You can buy bulk porn for next

to nothing from companies that provide that kind of material.

Who knows with Texas - most of that kind of material comes out of San Fernando, CA

- as for Texas it's basically it's own country. LOL. They may have anti-porn

production laws - but if your serious about helping your friend then you need to

speak with a lawyer or head to the library and read up on the law and relevant cases.

If you are actually talking about yourself (as is usually the case when people ask

questions about shooting porn) then my advice would be get a day job - you'll make

more at McDonalds with less hassle than you will shooting porn in most cases. The

people you deal with in that business ain't exactly the savory type.

Good luck.

"You own the digital why don't you shoot some clear glass, normal glass from

a few 100 feet and make me look dumb? "

LOL - I haven't got to work that hard to make you look dumb - your the one

already posting shots of buildings with shuttered windows and then running

on about how they won't reflect/refract light - well duh - of course wooden

shutters won't reflect/refract light.

But you couldn't stop there - you then used that to shore up your anti digital

rant on the last POW - not to mentions absurd comments about pixelation

when you zoomed into a 72 dpi image (again - duh) and then you jumped on

the lack of DOF in an image where the main subject was sharp front to back.

No one needs to help you look dumb - your doing a swell job yourself.

"This lack of refraction is what gives digital its sureal effect in every pic it takes.

Acts like a filter,"

Paul you must be joking. If my clients noticed even a hint of the 'surreal filter

effect' that you're on about - I probably not be able to keep my studio open -

certainly not for some of the catalog or lifestyle shots - lord knows you'd never

get most art directors won't buy off on a 'surreal' look. For the fashion stuff you

can get a surreal look - but that's due to creative direction, stylists, make-up

and art direction - NOT DSLR's.

Think about it (or ask anyone who's worked in the industry for the past 10

years) - a very large amount of the work you've been seeing for the past 7-8

years in all forms of media has been done digitally. There were studios in CA

that had gone just about completely digital as far back as 10 years ago. Your

not dealing with reality here. Harvey Chua in Metro Manila-Philipines shoots

primarily digital and that place is pretty darn close the 3rd world!!!

As for you comments on the shutters on a shot you posted yourself

"...200 windows in that photo all had shutters closed on a sunny day...ya sure

ok. "

Did you not carefully look at the picture that you shot?!?!?

Go back and look - it's not like it's gonna change - it's still there.

The vast majority of the windows are shuttered up! How the heck is a wooden

shutter supposed reflect (or refract) light? In many parts of the world shutters

do get drawn at mid day to block out the heat - so it's not very surprising that

they're mostly shut. I don't get how you can post that image but miss the fact

that most of the windows are shut. Don't you remember much about being

where you shot the image? If I was you I'd be getting a bit embarrassed about

now since it was you that posted the friggin' shot and then seemingly haven't

payed attention to the details of it.

Go back and read the archives - get up to speed on the image manipulation

issue in all it's various forms and then come back and look at some of what

you've posted here.

If you can't even take a close look at a photo that you posted how the heck do

you plan to grasp all the complexities of the image manipulation/digital

debate???????

Paul,

Your post is rubbish. And old rubbish at that.

Big deal. So you got an F5 and a narrow definition of photography. All that

has enabled you to apparently do is to post the assnine photo of the buildings

with shutters (last months POW) closed so you could run on at length about

how DSLR's can't record reflections off of glass windows.

Top it off with downloading pics from the POW and then zooming in on them

and complaining about pixelation!!!....

BBWWAHHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAH!!!!!

Wake up and smell the pixels. Digital is here to stay recording images with

light happens in more than one narrow minded form... deal with it and drop

the dogma .

Someone call the Society for Protection of Animals!!!!

I want to report someone beating a dead horse!

LOL.

<i>"Now everything is cristal clear. In Spain we call it envy."</i>

<p>

very funny. that puts paid to half baked comments. Well done Luis.

<p>

Nice presentation and kudos to you for putting it together for the rest of us to see. Much appreciated.

There is no point in simply 'surviving'.

People in 3rd world countries 'survive'. Want you want to do is have a comfortable lifestyle where you can shoot beautiful women/locations/product/images and get paid handsomely to do it.

Raise your expectations and work towards that. Yes, it can be done.

I found this book for $1 Hong Kong Dollar. LOL. I picked it up as a joke thinking it'd make a great gift for a photographer friend of mine. But then I started flipping through it on the train home - lots of it is very basic - but it's the kind of stuff that is easy to forget for those of us that are not exactly MBA material.

________________________________________________________________

Title: The Working Photographer

The Comeplete Manual For The Money-Making Professional

Authors: Marija & Tod Bryant

ISBN #: 0-380-89526-9

Publisher: Avon Books

________________________________________________________________

The date of publication on my version is 1985 - so yeah things have changed. But they cover so much in this book that it's well worth having a copy. Covers all aspects of a photography business and the nuts and bolts things like shoot checklists, freelancing, going rates, biz forms, markets etc. It has real life examples from working photographers who tell their experience as it relates to a certain subject on the photographic business.

It's a great little book to have around. Track down a copy if you can.

The tan is basically up to your clients discretion. If she want's a tan in the shot - then sure why not. Since it's boudoir (and not erotica or porn shoot) then tan lines are not too attractive.

You could always slip a warm up filter on if you just wanted warmer skin tones - but if she is white-white with bluish veins popping out then a tan may help a bit.

Really it comes down to what kind of shots the client (your model in this case) wants.

Dennis,

Having done at least 3 shows this week - LOL - and it's only Wed.(it's winter fall season time in the fashion industry) I'll give you some tips...

As for what lense - that will all depend on where you are standing. This will depend on the production co./label putting on the show. Usually there is a 'press' area at the end of the runway. Though bear in mind some runways are oddly shaped so could have more than one end. But usually there is a 'pose' by the models at the beginning and end of the runway. The 70-200mm lens sounds like a good bet. As it gives you the most flexibility.

Most shows are very well lit - so at f4.0 with T4D firing TTL you should have no problem.

Skip the stand idea - too easy for someone (yourself included) to trip over. They might not even let you set it up. Anyhow - a brack is the way to go and be reminded that 95% of all your shots will be vertical so might as start with the flash bracket there from the get go.

Most importantly - bring twice as many business cards as you think you will need. Hand them out to everyone.. the production director, the model agency people, VIP's, people from the labels and any celebrities that show up. This is the best time to network - if you're smart you can turn it into many more jobs.

Good luck - have fun

On another note -

She does a great version of 'Cry Me A River'.

My answers to you first questions would be NO and NO.

In an ideal world neither would ever happen but in the real world it does happen. I think sometimes 'becoming part of the story' happens whether you want it to or not. Example would be when a mob turns on photographers either due to mob mentality or mistaking them for police. This happens often but sometimes it makes the news sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes the photographer becomes part of the story sometimes they don't. Again - in some situations there is very little one can do.

Provoking a response from your subject is not cool. But it does happen. Not a huge amount - and Heather McHales situation with being booked and asking the photog to stop is a bit different than what you are putting on the plate here.

Images that are not from exactly the same incident or situation get used all the time. Both in print and in video footage. Much of that is wire service stuff that can picked up easily and by a print/broadcast deadline. Palestinians throwing rocks, refugees fleeing advancing forces etc.

Much like nature stock footage that is used to fill out nature programs. Same elephants, same country, same sunset - but actually shot several years earlier. The producers have a budget and a limited amount of time to get the footage/images they need. News is no different for the most part. This goes on all the time. The news and news images are not as accurate as everyone would like to believe they are.

Many times images are used to 'illustrate' a story - but may not be from the actual event itself... and this depends on who they have on the ground at the time. Flip through the Economist or Far Eastern Economic Review or Time or just about anyone and you'll see it. So when watching the news you may see Palestinians running from tanks and throwing rocks - but that is no guarantee it's the exact same situation in the exact same district as the story. There is a massive lattitude with this kind of stuff as far as news goes. Even more so when it comes to the captions of the images.

It's election time here in HK so I have shooting my ass off and did not get a chance to respond sooner...

<p>

<i>"I think it is un-ethical for a PJ to aggrivate the sitiuation. this is not getting the true story when the people start focusing thier attiention on you as the photographer. I think the PJ should step back until the attention is focused back onto the story they are thier covering."</i>

<p>

I believe on this point I agree with you. I've seen it happen many times where a press scrum can escalate a situation. When shooting it's a call that has to be made at a given moment - sometimes easier said than done. In Hong Kong the press pack can be more like a wolf pack - often full of idiots that run after police vans with flashes blazing away, cameras held way above their heads firing directly into blacked out or mirrored reflective surfaces of the police transportation vans. These shots are useless, won't get run and don't show anything other than photographers hyped on adrenalin - all for the absolute peanuts local guys make working for the Chinese newspapers. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.

<p>

On the other hand if a bunch of protesters are hauled into a van/booked/arrested/detained/beaten etc etc. - it's an image that might be/is news worthy (and could get picked up an run)- if they are asking the press to stop that's up to them - but if I am shooting I am under no obligation to stop. Again it's a spur of the moment call.

<p>

In Heather's case in particular - she wanted the photographers to stop - err...

<p>

tough howdy-doody.

<p>

Again - this is the risk that comes with protesting. You deal with it. It can be shocking, it can be emotionally trying - but it's part and parcel with the territory. For the most part you don't hear PJ's whining about being gassed, trampled, clubbed etc. - they know by and large that it comes with the territory of protests/riots (I am thinking more of Asia here than the US really) - they suck it up and get on with things.

<p>

So while Heather and the other people being processed were not in the mood to be photographed - that makes scant little difference to me if I am the one shooting - they are still fair game.

<p>

When you show up at a protest there is no exemption form saying you agree only to be photographed if things go your way.

I've often wondered when this question would pop up as I've sweated like a bastard all over my S2 on jobs here in Asia. Though luckily it's never leaked into/behind the LCD.

I'd get it to the dealer/agent pronto. Letting it dry out as much as possible is a good idea before trying to turn it on again.

Hopefully it all works out for you on that front. Please post and let us know what happened.

Heather interesting thread.

All the detainment, plasti-cuff etc. comes with the territory. For all that trouble you should have been there with a camera. As for the issues of being arrested, detained, etc. - that is part and parcel with protests. It's the chance you take - and that includes being put in the limelight of the media.

Having shot many protests myself I have been asked/yelled at/ordered not to keep shooting. LOL. Yeah right. It's public space and fair game - I've got an assignment to complete. If you don't like it. Don't go. If you do and you end up on the raw end - well - that sometimes happens so deal with it. A photographer has every right to be there shooting and every right to ignore your requests to stop.