brian yarvin

Karim, I agree with you. I have a whole shelf devoted to 1990's stock photo catalogs. They're a sort of pinnacle of commercial photography or at least what commercial photography can be.

I just checked and Model Mayhem lists over 3,400 models in Vancouver. At least a few should be available for the O.P.

Without an existing portfolio, it's unlikely that "real" model agencies will want to work with you. May I suggest that you start with a website like Model Mayhem? It will list events for beginners. With a few of those done, try hiring local talent from their database. Good luck! Starting a new photography adventure always is exciting!

Sorry John, I was unable to find a whole episode online. It doesn't matter though, I love watching old Antiques Roadshow episodes anyway.

You're welcome! I now know what my evening entertainment will be. And why would the copy have "opposite orientations?" Because the original did? The copy may have been enlarged, or it may have been a contact copy of the original large format transparency - something commonly done back then. Thinking back to the studio culture of the time and trying to recall the techniques we used is fun in itself.

First of all, what episode? Most of the old ones are on Youtube and can be searched by number. Now ... what I suspect is that there was an 8x10 piece of film that was used half a sheet at a time using a special "half plate" camera and holder that I'd heard of but never seen. (during my own time in NYC photo studios in the seventies and eighties). But that's just guesswork and faded memories. It was pretty normal to shoot people in the studio with large format in those days and there were many devices around to help things along. Bert's website (www.bertstern.com of course) says nothing about technique although there is at least one documentary film of him at work, but of course, this could have been an enlarged copy transparency too. I'd love to see that episode!

Raymond, here in Pennsylvania, those events are so popular that there are whole groups devoted to them.

I wish I had said this!

Good grief! We haven't even touched on all the variables yet! When you compare digital to film, final output counts. Magazine? Gift book? Fine art print? Ink jet? Silver? "Sharpness" is meaningless in this context. An extraordinary hand-coated platinum print might not be as sharp a phone photo, and it's a huge and tough task to make a beautiful art print from a phone. I will say this though; if all you care about is "sharpness" in its measurable forms, you are wasting your time with film. Digital is where the action is when it comes to tech specs. It's just that tech specs are rarely a reason to choose a workflow.

Wilhelm, I once heard her answer this question at a talk in Manhattan back in the eighties. She was a commercial photographer with a bunch of magazine clients - a source of revenue that was common in those days. Indeed, she said that the style of her street photography was something that clients asked for when they gave her assignments. Indeed, her work for fashion magazines in the late forties and fifties so strongly resembles her personal work that they're often shown side-by-side at exhibitions.

JD, this can work every now and then, but the card companies track this and lower your credit rating for doing this frequently. It's a jungle out there!

Phil, I may know how to do basic production, but you are at a level of deep thought that I don't dare touch.

I'm sorry Phil, I thought that "fashion clothes" were props.

Phil, as opposed to what? You want to look like a professional who can rustle up the right props and wardrobe for great shoots. Production shoots often borrow things and knowing where to find what you need is in itself a sign of professionalism.

I somewhat disagree with Phil. In my experience, if you ask too many questions, you look like an amateur. When I was getting props, I would keep the stuff for as short a time as possible, pay for return shipping without question if none was provided, and never, ever ask if I could keep something. And like most people on these boards (including myself!), you are absolutely overthinking it.

No, it's never how things are done. It's almost certainly a scam. In my experience, those services are never paid in advance. Be careful out there!

Benjamin: Here is the contact information you need: about Most shoot permits go for film and video, so that's mostly what it's about, but they'll fill you in on photography too. In my experience (which might be a few years old), the city and city parks love photo shoots and will work hard to make sure that too many people aren't shooting in the same place and that everybody concerned is properly insured.

I too am with Getty and only partially understand your comments. Getty is in the business of selling images, not providing legal services. On rare occasions, they'll go after big infringements, but I never got the impression that it was something they were interested in. On the other hand, they seem far more aggressive than Alamy. Have you ever seen anybody complain about a letter from the Alamy legal department? As for a solution, it sounds like you've got one.

<p>Tracie, if they want hard copy, make up a sort of digital proof sheet and print it out. Mail it to them along with a promo piece and a cover letter that explains why you're sending them and a caption sheet. When I do this, I use 28 pound paper and send it in a padded envelope large enough to hold everything without folding. </p> <p>Some people staple the pages together and others use those nice metal document clips they sell at office supply stores. Also optional is a cover sheet with your name, name of your project and contact information. Long submissions like book proposals should have their own table of contents too.</p> <p>Good luck!</p>

<p>It was the first for me too. Yes, I had to finally turn to Capture One as my need grew, but I still recommend it to beginners. Oh well.</p>

<p>Yes, it will meet your needs very nicely.</p> <p>Best of luck with it!</p>

<p>Rick, the only places in stock photography where there's enough money to justify the time and effort are the high-end agencies. Forget about the places you mentioned and instead try Alamy and/or Shutterstock. Or you could aim even higher and try for Getty.</p> <p>Best of luck, it's a very tough business!</p>

<p>William, I'm shooting still lifes with 50 and 100 macros. Since my two businesses are stock photos of food and food photos for cookbooks, the biggest thing I shoot is about two feet across. </p>

<p>No William, not in front or behind, but off to one side, the same distance from the subject that you are. Start with the light at arm's length and work from there. Six inches one way or the other will change the mood completely. Sorry if my first answer wasn't clear.</p>

<p>William, it sounds like you've got it down correctly. The look that you and I are both noticing these days has a direct and sharp shadow and uses plain light units with no modifiers at all. (save a few fill-in reflector cards) The main reason models don't suffer "eye-blinding agony" is that the main light is a bit farther from the camera than you describe. Even a ten or fifteen degree change will offer some relief.</p> <p>I myself have adapted this technique to still life with pretty good success. It takes a bit of getting used to, but gives images a really fresh look that sometimes mistaken for direct sunlight.</p> <p>Good luck with your work!</p>