nickjohnson

Okay, a macro lens will let you get close, but to get good working distance you would need the 180mm lens which costs over a grand for the Canon, and still a bunch for the generic. I use my 100mm Canon macro and it works great, but I do sometimes want more working distance for bugs and the like. A longer lens will rarely focus closer unless its a generic 28-300 macro type lens, and the optical quality of something like that will probably bother you when you compare then 70-200 to the cheap superzoom. A high end super telephoto will be another huge investment and might not even get you any "closer" to macro.<br>

My suggestion to you is to try either diopters, which are basically reading glasses for your lens. You can usually get a pack of diopter filters for whatever filter size.<br>

The other option, optically better, is an extension tube or 3. This will pull you lens away from the film/sensor plane, marginally increasing focal length, and making the camera nearsighted once again.

<br>With either of these options, you lose infinity focus while they're on, the diopters are cheaper usually. $75 for 77mm diopters and $159 for a kit of exension tubes. Better optically for the tubes, but its up to you.

-Nick

Bill: agreed

Everyone seems to be right on, except I want to tell Bill that this is not necessarally a one man show. Although I like to photograph, I find stale portraits to be stale work. I want to hire out decent photographers, pay them good rates ($25-30/hour part time) to shoot and have someone else do the in house printing work at maybe $15-20/hour. Even with 2 photogs and 2 assistants, there is plenty of money left over for a manager, owner, and salesperson on a good 200-300 kid job. Just not $50,000 worth left over

Kelly:

I agree with you on many issues. I tell him that what he paid for the business is inconsequential to me.

 

What I'm paying for by his numbers is his ability to generate accounts. From my standpoint, there is no loyalty in this business on the part of clients, so though he may get a customer for one shooting season they might go to someone else just for the hell of it the next season.

 

Also, I think I could go out and generate accounts too, I just don't want to do that job. I'm happy to pay him extra to make it happen, to get those accounts. But for maybe $7k in materials I could do this myself and the overhead is quite low. I think I'm talking myself out of buying this :P

 

Oh, and no cash assets, and no debt that I know of.

 

Milo:

The reason that I don't use a formula like the one you mentioned, and I've looked at them too, is that this is quite an unstable situation that I think without me would not work. So I think its me that makes this company worth something, and its past performance is no guarantee of anything in the future due to the lack of loyalty in this market. I like the idea of this formula though, and I think I'll use it to tell him why his business isnt worth anything.

 

Art:

Haven't a clue is pretty close, though I know how hard it is to get a business profitable (I've been runing my own photo business for about 3 years now and am just now established and making acceptable money) and am happy to work, and I also know this guy has problems.

 

All:

I don't know what else to say but that I appreciate your advice. Slowly I'm looking at this and thinking it's a bad idea to get involved (it started when he said $50,000 with a straight face after I offered him $15,000) but thanks for letting me vent.

There were two things that made this enticing. First, I see it as a proven business plan without a guy with the energy to do it. I wanted to be that guy, and have the previous owner stay the face of the company. He is, from all I can tell, a very good salesman. Hell, he sold me on this damn business.

Second, the idea that I could get the business at a greatly reduced price because it wasn't on its feet appealed to me too. Now that he wants full price for something that isn't in functional shape, I don't see why I would pay it. I just thought that things really were worth that much maybe and I'm just ignant.

Probably not.

I've been working with someone that owns this photography business

for daycare portraits mainly. He wants $50,000 for the business, and

I think thats way too high. I think its barely worth $15,000. He

paid $65,000 for the business about 2 years ago, but he also bought 3

medium format cameras, 3 huge tripdods, 80 backdrops, and tons more

useless stuff. He also bought 25 good accounts with it.

 

In the last 2 years he went digital, (2 cameras, 1 tripod, 1

excellent printer) and has about $5000-7000 worth of current

equipment, and thats pushing it. He has maybe 2-4 accounts left.

This season he's shot nothing. He wants us to shoot some jobs for

end of spring/summer but I don't want to work for him, I want to buy

the business and he knows it. I'm getting the feeling he's just

using me to perfect his business for free.

 

I'm telling him I don't want the old film stuff, nor the 80 ancient

backdrops. He wants to get out what he paid for the business. The

next odd thing thats going on is I belive if I just buy the business

he won't work as hard as I need him to to generate accounts, and my

$15000 will be spent on buying $5000 of equipment and a guy that wont

work. I still expect to pay him nicely (1/4 the net profit from the

job) just to keep the accounts coming, but he wants more. He wants

to somehow get $50,000. The way to buy the business without

investing is I'm taking half the money for managing the photographers

and doing the post production work, and he's taking half cause he

owns it and cause he does the sales/account work. Half of what I

get, gets paid to him as me buying stake in the business. As I buy

into the business, I get some of his owner stake (half of his money)

to the point where I own the whole thing and he just gets 1/4 of the

net. Confusing enough? Anyway, this is a way that my work can buy

the business.

 

Now however he wants a bonus (he says $500-1000 per account) for his

part in getting accounts, in case I fire him after I wholey own the

business, which wouldn't take that long at 50K. He says its worth it

because he can generate the accounts. He says that he'll get 50

accounts within 1 year to justify the price. If he gets less, then

the company is worth less, I pay less. If more, then I pay more.

What I don't like is the idea that I'm going to pay more and more as

he grows the business to the point that I'll never own it.

 

This sounds pretty crazy to me, but it was my idea. I just didn't

think he really expected $50,000 for this failed company of his.

Last year he maybe made $20,000, but that was last year and there is

little loyalty in this business. I can't say he has much going for

him. Any thoughts?

Nice job with the crossposting. Anyway...<p>

I haven't used a DRebel for a while since I took mine back, but as I understand you can <b>not</b> use raw capture in the idoit modes. That means from the green square and all those picture modes, raw is not available. In P, Av, Tv, and M though you <b>can</b> use raw.<br>

Moral of the story: always shoot raw and never use the idiot modes. Learn what those modes do and do it yourself when you think you would need one.

<br>-NJ

For anyone who says you can't do IR on a 10D, this proves you can.<br>

 

<img src="http://image.pbase.com/u36/nickjohnson/upload/24426988.CRW_1316webexpLUSM.jpg">

<br>

There usually isn't a specific filter inside the camera to remove with a DSLR; its all just one package. The Sony cameras with the removable IR filters (for nightshot mode) can be modded though. I'm in the process of getting a Sony F828 modified for full manual IR.

<br>

Expect exposures around 1/30 in bright sunlight, ISO1600, and a wide prime on a DSLR with an IR filter. To get acceptable DOF and sharpness I shot the above with an exposure of a minute or two, f/8.

I'm hoping to stop traffic with my F828 though.

I bought a used 28/2.8 for just that purpose on the photo.net classifieds. $60

I believe the EOS 10 will also work with IR film, whereas most new bodies dont. I almost bought one for just this reason.

Bruce,<br>

I'm getting ready to put down the money on ProShots on monday, but if you know of a better system I'm all ears. When letting someone else print, I just feel like the customer isn't getting the best quality post processing that I could do myself. I've been working for some time on my edge seeking LUSM photoshop action. Still, I'd like to know who would do all the printing work for me.

I appreciate both the encouragement and criticism. I deserve both.<p>

 

Fazal,<br>

You are correct; onsite printing was the property that made my product different than most other softball photographers. Most of the customers are used to only seeing thier photos on Sunday, and I wanted to change that.<p>

Scott,<br>

I was actually getting respectable speeds on my 2200, printing 2 5x7s in the corners, then I got it to print borderlessly on 5x7 paper, at about one every 2 minutes or so. The idea was that the norm is 4x6 prints for $5, or 5 for $20. I wanted to do 5x7s instead. Better, right? And I was able to print in 1440HS with the UltraChrome inks on Premium Luster Paper (and also the Red River UltraPro Satin) using ImagePrint with little or no quality loss compared to 1440. I tried to use it because I knew it worked and wouldn't cost me an arm and a leg for my first tournament.<p>

Bruce,<br>

I would very much like to put all my photos online and have the website do the sales for me. Clients, many of them, have asked if they could buy the shots online later and I had to say no. How does the ProShots system work? Who prints the photos. How is payment from the customer handled? Who needs labs if everything is done digital? If I could get on just one ProShots powered site I think it would all make sense. BTW, I was looking at Sony 5x7 printers, but I need an assessment on their print quality, durability, and cost per print.<p>

Gerald,<br>

The thought of letting some minimum wage lab-tech handle my prints makes <b>me</b> senseless. I was able to go through and weed out the out of focus or badly composed shots before printing, and I like that idea. Many of the teams were from out of state, so there were enough sales to cover the weekend's costs. The real money is in the younger groups.<p>

Jon,<br>

More credit than sense actually. :)<p>

Oskar,<br>

I was certainly worried but also a bit greedy. Tourney date kinda sprung up on me, and when I heard that I was to be the only photog, I sprung right back! I was actually retooling my photoshop printing actions and configuring the printer between games on the first day. I think small business owners just crave stress.<p><p>

Thanks for all the comments!

My best friend has been telling me I should shoot at his sister's

softball tournaments for months. This weekend I finally bit.

<p>

I'm shooting with a 10D and a bag of lenses. All this worked fine.

The hard part was printing hundreds of small prints in the span of

two days. My friend assured me that this was going to be a goldmine,

and the event coordinator said that I would be the only photographer

on the field. The credit cards would cover me until I cashed all the

money I got for the pics, right?

<P>

To cut costs on ink, I got a Lyson Cave Paint continious ink system

for my Epson 2200, and about 800 sheets of letter Red River UltraPro

Satin paper. Two days before the event the CIS and paper came in. I

tested it, and got banding at all the highspeed printing modes. I

could either print 15 photos per hour and anger 48 teams of softball

players, or get something else fast.

<P>

The next morning I ordered a Hi-Touch 640DL dye-sub printer,

overnight AM with 1000 sheets of paper/ribbon. It comes, I have one

of my grunts run it up (shooting 1.5 hours north of my house) as I'm

setting up the tent. Turn it on, red light, 15 blinks. Hey, that

errors not in the manual! Oh, and the only tech support phone number

is in Taiwan. I couldn't call even though I tried (I don't know how

to get international calls with Cingular).

<P>

So we have one CIS that bands on all high speed prints, and another

dye-sub that does't print at all, all in three days.

<P>

I convinced the people at Hi-Touch California to let me switch it out

with a local distributor, so by 2pm on Friday (games started at 8am)

I had a printer that I expected to have on Wednesday. After 42 hours

of shooting and selling in three days, I'm down 800 dollars, but at

least I was able to pay for my entry fees and the costs of

paper/ribbon. Oh, and the photos turned out great. I really love the

printer.

<P>

My favorite customer comment: "Wow, thats a really great shot of me"

and then they walk away... never to return. What a weekend.

You could likely get a 67mm filter on a stepdown ring and it would be fine on a 10D because you're cropping the center of the lens. A normal filter will most definitely not show any vignetting.

Theres been a lot of talk about it on various forums, and althought I myself have been interested in it for my 10D, I haven't found a single person to have one and/or a test shot.<br>

This is the most information anyone has at this time:<br>

<a href="http://www.sigmaphoto.com/Html/12-24.htm">http://www.sigmaphoto.com/Html/12-24.htm</a><br>

Adorama has the 12-24 Canon mount up for $649. Maybe you could buy it and give us a first look?

Kenneth:<p>

No. No, no, no, no, no. And no. OK, just kidding. Though all your reasons why the 10D would be a better tool are valid, I find that the lack of an AI servo switch is the biggest mistake. I'm taking mine back today because of this. I've had three separate shooting situations where I could not capture the scene because I couldn't reliably get the tracking focus to kick in. Even if I could get nine out of focus shots that show the grass behind the trotting toddler in focus, it wouldn't be any better. Now I have to try to dig up a 10D.

From the reading I've done, it seems that real print preservation goes past the printing stage; you have to coat the prints. The best source of info I've found is www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg1.htm

Joe:<p>

The minute I took it out of the box it rattled like a cheap toy. Like I said in my origonal post, the guiding arm for the pop-up flash rattles a bit. Other than that I expect you'll be happy with it.<p>

I was in a Circuit City yesterday and I picked up a Rebel Ti. What a difference in feel. The Digital Rebel has a strength and weight to it. Felt better than the Rebel 2000 they had there too. So the 10D has the internals of an Elan, but the body much like the EOS-3 (with the cool N sytle cable release plug and 1/3 stop metering) while the Digital Rebel is internally a Rebel Ti (similar viewfinder with the focus points and all, and a similar method to change exposure in manual mode) but feels substantial like an Elan.<p>

BTW, it should return my investment in less than 2 weeks. I used to to take photos for selling my backup film body and a few odds and ends I won't be needing. Gotta save up for that IR filter!

I'm selling a Nikon N80 kit for my friend and got an email from a

possible bidder asking about the warranty. Its about a year old.

First of all, are the warranties transferable? The bad news is that

he already filled out the cards for the lens and body. Is there any

hope of giving the buyer any warranty or is it as good as gray market?

I guess I'll have to change this do a new question about the easiest way to access EXIF data from a backup and browsing point of view.

Sometimes when an image is really important it could take a few hours to get an perfect print. It took three proofs to get the tones and sharpening right, then four full size prints to get the perfect consistency of varnish and isolation coat for a print I was making for my parent's anniversary. I could have cranked out one pretty good print and just used to manufacturer's average recommendations, but sometimes the print is just that important. All in all, five hours work and three days of waiting for the varnish to dry. Don't feel bad.

I've been shooting film for a while now, but just got myself a DSLR.

I have been saving my files, after minor ajustments, as an 8-bit

super.png file, but that file format does not support much EXIF

data. What is the most highly compressed format that supports EXIF

data if I choose to shoot in JPEG? Or should I just keep the JPEGs,

write protect them, and make any modifications to a different file?

The goal is to keep a handle on the shooting data.

Re: the dynamic range of negative vs. slide vs. digital<p>

I have heard some accounts that negative is about 7 stops, digital 6, and slide 5. Knowing this, I shot about 20 rolls of Velvia 100F last month of a two week trip to the Canadian Rockies. Anytime I'd meter, I'd spot meter for the highlight and the shadow and expose for each, sometimes even exposing for the midtones if the scene was particularly contrasty. It has been a long process stitching them together in Photoshop but well worth it. I have two such stitches in my gallery now.<p>

For one shot deal, moving subject type photography, having a smaller dynamic range can be difficult. However, I find that exposure compensation can do a lot, so an average exposure that is just clipped a little on each end can be turned in to two layered exposures, each processed differently from the RAW file. I've actually done this with a mismetered shot on Velvia 100F and the results were acceptable. With a digital negative it should look great.<p>

With static but contrasty subjects the digital blending technique that I've been using for film is even easier with digital, since there is not scanner to mess things up by 10 pixels here and there.<p>

Plus, if its not moving you can check the histogram and know you blew out your highlights immediately by that spike on the right.<div></div>

Oh, and the 70-200/2.8 IS + 2xTC looks very funny. Its like "Whats that knob on the end of the lens?" It seems to work well though.

Omar,<p>

My Digital Rebel reports 180dpi in the file sizes, at least thats what Photoshop 7 is getting from the EXIF data and also sizing the file at in terms of physial size. I'm using Firmware 1.0.2 which came with the camera if thats any help.