joey

Ellis, how much did you charge for the other 12,600+ messages you've posted on this site?

Learn to use adjustment layers, and layer masks for dodging/burning. Master the different methods of sharpening. Don't over-Photoshop your images. Read one of the good books around (I like "Photoshop Artistry" and "Adobe Photoshop CS for Photographers"). And, finally, get yourself away from the computer screen and take some new photographs--it's much more gratifying.

Welcoming in the New Year...<div></div>

Shoot RAW, and meter through the lens with your light shining on the building. Watch out for digital noise with such a long exposure. Bracket. There are many web sites about this technique--try a Google search. Also, there have been quite a few discussions on photo.net.

Most photographers get depressed when the lighting is no good, or when it's raining outside. Most photographers don't get depressed when a catalog stops stocking a certain camera. Both of my 7's still work, by the way.

It would be an RB or RZ, no question. Mamiya 7's are great for travel, but really limiting for critical applications (compared to SLRs).

The lab may also use the interneg process. Ask them what they think is best for their setup.

Best: Aperture, View Camera, Nat Geo

Worst: Shutterbug, Pop Photo, etc.

Glossy isn't good if your shots are going to be handled a lot--they're just too fragile and easily damaaged when they're not framed. Matte paper can be nice for some shots, especially photos with rich texture, but it does tend to flaten the image, which is not always what you want in a portfolio. My favorite paper for this application is either Epson Premium Luster or Ilford Smooth Pearl. They both a have a surface that can "pop" like glossy, but it isn't damaged as easily.

FM2 with 24 and 50. Three lenses is too many. If you get the urge to shoot with a telephoto, whip out the 24 and concentrate on wide-angle compositions. Force yourself to make good compositions with limited equipment, and your photos are guaranteed to improve.

<a href="http://www.computer-darkroom.com">Computer-Darkroom.com</a>--have fun!

I haven't read the AP book, but the best I've read on this topic is <i>Photojournalism: The Professional's Approach</i> by Ken Kobre. Also, <i>The Art of Seeing</i> by Reuters is a fantastic collection. Finally, every <i>Magnum</i> book that I've come across is superb.

<i>This process takes me a long time to do, so i was hoping someone can tell me a faster way to achieve this effect</i><br><br>

 

Save the process as a Photoshop action, and replay it anytime you need it. Or, buy one of the commercial programs to do this for you. Or, create your own "sloppy border" by hand and scan it at a high resolution.

If you have time to set up the studio lights, that's the best option. If not, just set up the camera and Metz flash normally, and bounce the flash off the ceiling. With the digital camera, you'll be able to check to make sure everything is working right. Also, if you're using one of the Metz handle-mount flashes (45, 60), you can turn on the smaller secondary flash to fill in the shadows, while the larger head is bounced off the ceiling. If you can't use bounce flash for some reason (dark ceiling, unevenness, etc.), point the flash head straight up, and tape an index card at a 45-degree angle so the light is reflected back towards the subject.

The H1 zoom lens is <i>huge</i>, heavy, and expensive. I would NOT use it for travel, unless you're always near a car, and you've got good insurance. Any thief will snatch that in a second--$3,500 in one lens!! Your shoulder and your checkbook are going to hurt quite a bit with this lens. A much better choice would be a 50mm lens. Still very expensive, but much lighter than the zoom.<br><br>

 

That said... if you are a high volume shooter, the zoom lens is definitely worth the money. I don't own it, but I've borrowed it from a friend on many occasions. The optics are superb, and it handles like a dream--until your arms get tired. However, I think you should definitely rent or borrow one before you buy.

Oops, my bad Andy. 6 minutes!

HC-110 dil. B, 68 degrees F, 2 inversions per minute, condenser enlarger, shot at 400. Prints beautifully!

<i>Most important thing, I still want to be the one who takes the picture, not the camera.</i><br><br>

 

Well then, let's be fair, the type of camera doesn't matter much. Leicas, Canons, Nikons, Minoltas, Hasselblads, whatever--all are high quality tools. But they're just tools. Use your current equipment until you discover its limitations, and then the next "gear step" will be obvious.

France<div></div>

<i>Does the "published" label open up a couple new doors?</i><br><br>

It could, if people like what they see. Really, though, the only benefits of getting published (as an amateur) are 1) ego boosting and 2) exposure. One photo won't get you a whole lot of exposure; but if you have many good photos published in a short period of time, people will start to notice, and you can take advantage of that. As far as the label of being a "published photographer," that doesn't mean much. Most potential employers care more about what you can produce, not whether or not you've been in print.

Provia 100F is my favorite, too. Velvia 50 is not good--I don't know about Velvia 100F or Astia. For B&W, I like T-Max 400 or Delta 400; the T-grain films do better with long exposures than the traditional-type films.

Nothing like a full-frame 6x6 neg printed large--black borders, white edge... oh yeah, it can be beautiful if done right. Not every image works in square format, though (like a lot of portraits and still lifes). My only 6x6 camera is a Yashicamat TLR, so most of my square images are street shots. But when I do shoot square, I almost always print full-frame and sacrifice a bit of paper.

ICE won't do anything for prints--the material needs to be translucent. Film works, but not paper. The 4870 is overkill, in my opinion--even the 3200 has way more resolution than you need. However, either one would be a good invesment, because you'll also be able to scan larger film sizes in the future. Used 3200s are pretty cheap these days. They're fast, too. I think that would be your best choice.

Hey Christopher--

I was just talking about the frames that I save in my files, in case I might want it down the road. The actual number of photos that make it to print or my portfolio is far less. Maybe 1 per roll if I'm lucky--usually 1 out of every two rolls I'm really satisfied with as my best work.

Half a stop probably won't solve that--what focal length are you using? Usually, you need a shutter speed of one over twice the focal length to stop action; for example, if you're shooting at 200mm, you need 1/500 to stop action, and even that's a stretch. At 300mm I like to shoot at over 1/1000 for sports.