rhaytana__tim_adams_

What are the prospects for wedding, commercial, photojournalism and

photographers in other genres in the years to come?

 

I am and intend to remain an amateur, but I browse many photography-related web

sites, and sometimes read threads that lament diminished career opportunities in

photojournalism and other photography disciplines. Is it that bad throughout

the photography world, I've wondered ... or are some genres likely to thrive,

while others don't?

 

I've formed some impressions, and thought it would be interesting to share them

with users here who really know ... rather than keep my perhaps inaccurate

notions to myself.

 

I apologize in advance if it irritates anyone to see an (admittedly) idle

curiosity question about an issue that's of make-or-break importance to many

professionals who visit this board. I can put myself in the shoes of a pro who

depends on income from wedding shoots to feed his or her family. I don't want

to make light. And the impressions that follow are only that: impressions of

one with no experience marketing photographic work.

 

FASHION, PUBLIC RELATIONS AND OTHER COMMERCIAL WORK: My guess is that prospects

here are at least as good as they've ever been. The reason: First, there's

still a need. There always will be new fashions, new products, new movies to

make posters for, and the people who hawk them always will want still images

that show them in the best light. And second, the learning curve to acquire a

Martin Evening's mastery of studio lighting and Photoshop after-the-shoot

processing is going to remain loooong and steep. That means that years of

self-study and hard work can yield a skill that will remain sought after, in

relatively scarce supply and lucrative, and that won't be phased out by

technological breakthroughs. (No matter what the Nikon D5 does in 2011, it

won't substitute for lighting or Photoshop work.)

 

WEDDING PHOTOGRAPHY: I'm guessing that this is only lucrative for photographers

who cater to a relatively high end market ... which is to say, families happy to

spend thousands on wedding photography. To me, it looks iffy. First, unlike

fashion or advertising professionals, families aren't professional evaluators of

photographic ability, and can be seduced by a charismatic newcomer who schmoozes

well and gets more business than she or he deserves. And secondly, doesn't it

depend on the fickle taste of the rich and upper middle class for elaborate

wedding shoots? What if plain n' simple weddings catch on?

 

PHOTOJOURNALISM: Tragically, prospects here look abysmal ... and I think this

is a real shame. I think that some of the great news shots we see can only be

grabbed by a PJ with lots of practice working with on camera flashes and making

spot decisions about what angle to go for, what to put in the frame.

 

NATURE PHOTOGRAPHY: to me, this has always looked much more like a labor of

love than like anything that could generate income. The commercial outlets are

so few -- National Geographic? Sierra Club Magazine? -- and undoubtedly

deluged with submissions with top rate competitors. I'd be happily surprised to

learn that I'm wrong, but my guess is that income here is earned only by a tiny

number with established names.

 

STOCK PHOTOGRAPHY: This brands me as an amateur; don't know a durn thing about

it. I have read that Corbis changed everything, but don't know how.

 

Fellow photographers, I'll be very curious to read what you think of these

impressions. Thanks.

Ben, I strongly second your idea of shooting in both JPEG + RAW -- as long as your memory card is big enough, as Tommy DiGiovanni points out. You'll have more latitude for after-the-shoot correction, and also will have a much better baseline to start with should one of the shots prove to memorable and worthy of being enlarged and framed.

This is going to look a bit like a plug, so I'll say at the outset that I think the author -- knowledgeable as he certainly is -- is a bit too close to the Adobe clan to be as objective and detached as I'd like him to be:

 

That said:

 

*Before* reading and studying the Schewe/Fraser (now just Schewe, as Bruce Fraser is no longer) Camera raw book, I used DPP and Canon's Raw Image Task, and just scratched my head a lot with ACR loaded.

 

*After* reading the Camera Raw book, I now use ACR just about exclusively. Much more powerful than DPP. Much.

 

Recommended reading. 30 bucks or so.

My uninformed two cents: I wouldn't risk it. I lost images on a CF card only when I used a card formatted in my PC. I'm too lazy to look up the reference, but I believe that one of the rules listed in the recent Fraser/Schewe camera raw book is to format the card only in the camera in which it will be used.

 

Patrick, I'm not an expert on this. But were I in your shoes, I wouldn't want to brook even a tiny risk of losing a whole shoot because of a file format irregularity. But: your risk, your call, your photos.

I doubt very much that the following method will come close to what you'd get from a tripod, but you might be able to surpass monopod results by looking for a well placed ledge or railing, and firmly bracing the camera (or elbows) on that before shooting.

 

Of course, this limits what you can shoot -- the ledge/railing has to be available.

 

If you need an up / down angle after this bracing, you can slide something solid under the camera body, or, if possible, under the lens. This makes the bracing less solid, but might make the difference between getting the shot or missing it.

 

My two cents. Good luck.

I've used both the Mark I and Mark II on a 5D ... and not on a 1.3x crop camera, so please take that into account as you consider this post.

 

I think that the Mark II is slightly better. Less lens flare, less distortion around the frame edges with the lens wide open, and perhaps a bit sharper. The difference between Mark I and Mark II is real, but slight. So the calculation is something like: how much the difference means to you +/- price difference +/- available funds for a purchase of this type.

I second the suggestion to experiment with the 'Hi' setting for ISO, rather than settling for 1600.

I'll chime in hastily here, as I have only a few minutes to post.

 

I read the Digital Photo Pro article with interest, as I respect and am a fan of Andrew Rodney's technical writings. I also read the Luminous Landscape article.

 

Trouble is, the shooting I do is all 'on the street' type stuff, with no time to fiddle with settings. I gauge the scene, take my best guess, adjust camera settings accordingly, fire away, and either get the shot or say goodbye to the shot forever. Few opportunities to bracket.

 

After reading the tutorials, I experimented with setting camera exposure to + 2/3 stop for a couple of days.

 

The result: too many blown highlights. The Luminous Landscape article indicated to ETTR until highlights are blown -- but that happened as soon as I jacked up camera exposure in the plus range.

 

A fair trial? Probably not. But I abandoned the experiment.

 

For wildlife/nature photographers, I definitely can see ETTR ... and that's what Luminous Landscape is mostly geared for. But not for 'decide in an instant' street photography, at least not for me.

 

FWIW, though, the two articles linked above convinced me to stop shooting -1/3 or -2/3. I used to do that occasionally. No more.

My camera strap near miss, for whatever it's worth here:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IDj8

Unfortunately, according to the Rob Galbraith team, the 1.0.9 firmware update doesn't make much of a difference:

 

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9006#july20

If you buy the Arctic Butterfly, I suggest heeding their warning to stay away from the edges of the chamber -- the brush can pick up gunk there and smear it on the sensor. That's what happened to me. It probably wouldn't have happened if I'd paid closer attention, so I don't blame the product.

 

I've had better luck with sensor swabs, FWIW.

Thanks to those who contributed responses.

 

If others use Internet resources as I do, some will google 'camera strap' for pre-purchase information on what can be expected from what they're thinking of getting. I started the thread, back in March. The strap broke. I nearly lost a lot of money. I thought I should share my experience, in the hope of sparing others a similar fate.

 

Mike Needham, I'm glad you've had good experiences with your Op-tech straps. I did buy a cheaper model, as -- ironically, it seems now -- I didn't want to trust the quick release snaps.

Update: it broke!

 

Please see the thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IDj8

On March 27, I asked if I could trust my aftermarket Op-tech neoprene camera

strap, rated for ten pounds, with my nine pounds of camera equipment. Many here

generously responded. The link to the thread is:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FnlO

 

I feel obliged to provide an update, for those who use past threads as reference.

 

In short:

 

It broke.

 

The neoprene snapped in two just above the stitched oval connecting the neoprene

to the camera strap itself, leaving only a gauze-thin outer covering supporting

the weight of the camera.

 

I happened to notice that something looked amiss when I put the camera rig on a

table, and glanced at the strap before picking it up again. I consider it pure

luck that I spotted it when I did. If I'd been in a hurry, I would have hung it

around my neck again without looking at it, and shortly would have seen

thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment fall clattering to the floor.

 

To be fair:

 

(a) As noted, I was close to the weight limit for this strap.

 

(b) I had gotten out of the habit of inspecting the strap. I _think_ that the

tear in the neoprene occurred without warning, but am not certain.

 

Would I ever get one again? No way! I'll use the stock Canon strap from now on.

I had several good experiences with a photo frame supplier about a year ago,

told myself to give him a plug online -- and never got around to it. A year is

a long time to wait to get a testimonial, but, better late than never ...

 

I purchased several 26 x 20 frames from 'Frame Destination' for 13 x 19

enlargements from my Epson 2200. I had never ordered a picture frame before and

had no idea what to buy. Light Impressions is bigger and has done well by me in

the past, but as a newbie photo framer, I couldn't figure out what I needed to

order to get my prints on the wall. Frame Destination made it quite easy. The

framedestination.com web site has a bunch of ready made packages to choose from.

 

So, I took the plunge with a small first order, and waited nervously to see what

would arrive. And was pleasantly surprised.

 

Bottom line: if you're new to framing, I think this is an excellent way to go.

The owner is very attentive and obviously wants satisfied customers for repeat

business. The order arrives on time, everything's there, he answers questions.

If you're a fussy collector and/or already know picture framing, you might want

to go elsewhere -- but I think that there are so many people out there like me,

who just want to mount and hang their photos and don't know where to start.

 

I often suspect that online posters are stealthing as shills for businesses, and

won't feel offended if you suspect that this what I'm doing. If you do, please

take a look at my posting history and decide for yourself. I just think he

deserves a plug.

You also can change CF-8 on the 580ex to enable quick flash with continuous shooting.

I'm glad you liked the feedback!

 

I should add: I'm not dissing the Arctic Butterfly. Others have said it's a great product. But if you choose it, be real careful not to touch anything in there with the brush that shouldn't be touched.

I have less experience than others who've responded, but you may still benefit from my two cents:

 

1. Bulb blower. Online reviewers give this a thumb down, but this worked pretty well for me, for minor stuff. The advantage, of course, is that the sensor/glass cover aren't touched.

 

Can't hurt to give it a try. Bulb blowers are cheap. I intend to try this Canon-recommended method first, from now on.

 

2. Arctic Butterfly. The docs warn: "Do not use on camera chamber or parts other than sensor, otherwise you will smear the sensor."

 

I guess I managed to touch the fine strands of the brush on something I shouldn't have, because I did smear the sensor, creating a nice mess.

 

3. Sensor Swabs and Eclipse fluid, from photosol.com The 5D takes a Type 3 sensor swab, tailor made for the full frame sensor.

 

This worked quite well, and left no residue -- but I still have a smidgen of smearing in one corner of the sensor, the aftermath of the session with the Arctic Butterfly.

 

Just one user's experiences, yours to consider or ignore, as you see fit.

I agree that changing batteries could make a big difference. Also -- although this might be off base -- it couldn't hurt to change custom setting 8 on the 580ex to enable quick flash with continuous shooting. Details are in the 580ex manual.

Hi, Will,

 

I'd hoped to find a better thread than the link provided below, but this one should get you started:

 

http://www.prophotocommunity.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/419019/an/0/page/7#Post419019

He might not have heard of the Adobe forums.

 

http://www.adobe.com/support/forums/main.html

 

I think it would have been more constructive to provide this link than to spend several paragraphs faulting John Willard for daring to ask the question here.

 

If you don't like the question, wouldn't it be easier to skip it, and go on to another thread?

I'm still a new Canon shooter, so take what follows with a grain of salt: but, I'm happy with the 580ex / Canon sync cord combo on my Stroboframe Press-T. No complaints about the flash.

 

Mr. Ing, my hat's off to you for being able to handle that enormous Pro RL bracket! <g> Fantastic versatility, but boy, was it heavy!

You might be interested in this experienced shooter's work flow:

 

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-7893-8285

 

He uses Raw Image Task, also supplied free by Canon, for Raw conversion. I experimented with this after reading the article and did like the colors a bit more than DPP output.

 

OTOH, many here will swear by other Raw conversion programs -- ACR, etc.

I noticed this yesterday and regard this as the worst piece of news I've had as a photographer in some time. So many knowledgeable users provided feedback, and the moderators culled the mean-spirited posts that are the bane of online forums. I felt privileged to be able to post questions and get answers from top professionals.

 

As Rob Galbraith and Mike Turk probably will happen across this thread eventually: many thanks to both of you for hosting these forums as long as you did. You provided a great service to photographers worldwide.

The 5D should have arrived with Digital Photo Professional (DPP) on CD for free. You can use that to convert raw files. Others have compared DPP quite favorably to extra $$ programs that do the same thing.

 

But, if you already have CS2, you can use them both.