camerartus

<p>I know this is an older post, but I've gotten fantastic real world results with the 10 fps on my Sony, mostly at baseball games and catching cyclists and joggers. The baseball was with lights, not daylight, so that says something. However, unless you do a lot of sports or other shots that need that, then you have to take other things into consideration. I got most of my Minolta lenses before they skyrocketed. If all else balances out on the body, one has to think about the lenses they have, vs the ones they'll want if they change from one system to another.</p>

Here's a final thought on the digital vs. film issue. First off, I

don't have a problem, per say, with digital, but I still stick with

film. (Save a relatively inexpensive digital camera for backup.) One

thing to consider is that the color resolution, not the same as pixel

resolution, is different. The digital system bases its color on what

each receptor receives. So, on the RBG system, you got one R

receptor, next to B, next to G and the system/software guesses what

the median color is between the three. Don't get me wrong, many

digitals guess rather impressively well, but the more obsessed with

color resolution purity you are, then the more of an issue it is for

you to stay with film. Now, eventually, that is going to change.

There is a new CCD that being developed that works on the same

principle of film, that is, in layers. So, you'll have the color

resolution of film with the digital advantages of, well, digital

cameras. :-) The price is also expected to drive the price of digital

SLRs down. When I get a 'serious' digital camera, it will be with

this new technology, which means that I'm going to wait a few years.

Even then, I expect to use film fairly regularly.

Darin,

You've received an amazing amount of mostly good advice. I myself am starting out into the pro world, but without depending on it for my main income. I'm planting seeds. For example: offer to do freebies, or otherwise charitable contributions with your photos. My personal examples: I took a couple of photos and, using Photoshop, created a really cool t-shirt design for my college's rock concert that sold really well. I'm also plan on making other t-shirt designs of my work to wear them with an email address on the back (maybe a phone # too)and will give some to friends to wear. I also donated some nicely done photos at an auction for my college. This worked out well because now I can state what my photos have gone for (in this case, it was $105.00). Those 3 photos are now hanging in a successful lawyer's place! The cost was very low for me to make it, (practically free)! I signed my work and my College is now a connection for more work. Find out what your nitch is, and market yourself towards that. I personally am not wedding material, but I know what areas I'm good at and enjoy doing. I also have a trusted friend that can do matting and developing for me at a good deal and I have the tools to do my own framing. I offered to pay for her matt cutter and to give her a cut of the profits. Form relationships! I've got some friends at a monestary and I'm going to either set up a website for them with photos done of them and a biography, or make a book of the same for them (using my computer and printer, etc. It's good for them and for me: at most I'll only charge cost, and may even take a loss, but this is a popular community with wealthy connections. In effect, doing a good deed and can pay by giving you good free advertising, and that's worth a fortune. My work is spreading and I've done very little timewise and costwise to make it happen. Once you have a reputation, you can then start charging more and get more profits while you perfect your craft. But never forget to do an occasional charity, no matter how successful you are. Thats makes people happy, and happy people are what spreads the word around about your work, and it can edify you too for its own sake.

Good Luck!

Dow

Hi, I actually wrote the following as a responce to a similar issue at this website:

I think that as long as you're not misleading people from history, or future and present history, it's not wrong. There is nothing wrong with the picture of the little boy; it's not like you made him to look like another race, or anything like that. The purpose of that photo was to capture 'him', which you really didn't seem to alter as opposed to the problems with the background. In regards to the latter, the background 'fixing' is no different than cropping a photo for aesthetic reasons...in my opinion.

However, in other cases it's wrong to alter. For example, at the University of Dallas, a picture was altered of someone in the administration to make him look like he was smiling in a publicity photo when he wasn't! That is wrong, because it's a historical coverage/shot (of course, if he did smile at that time, but the shot was missed, then it's not as serious). You, however, only changed the background, not the subject; even if you had, it was a family photo, not a public 'history' photo.

As far as your project goes, I think that 'made up' photos are fine; as long as you eventually make it known somehow that it was never real (your "exhibit in a gallery" example should assume this for the person of average intelligence). If, on the other hand, it's going to be about public history and the representation thereof, and not with the intention of making a truthful point through a realistically artistic endeavor, then you should avoid alterations that mislead away from history. In reference to this latter scenario, just like a great novel tells a truth through fiction, so can your project, but if such a novel/photo(s) was ever presented as history, rather than representing a truth about life via fiction, then it becomes propaganda for the purpose of misleading away from what is true, or factual. In short, it depends on what you want to say, and how you say it, and how it's generally understood in context. With that in mind, press on, and good luck.

Peace,

camerartus@yahoo.com