solja

Thank you all very much for the helpful advice.

I ended up lowering my price a bit to see if perhaps this was just a negotiation tactic on their part and I tried to briefly explain the difference between buying a print for a wall and buying a license for commercial use. I should hear back from them today as to whether they'll take it or not.

Being a small market with not many photographers, if I can make this work, there's a pretty good chance that they'll come back for more in the future - I believe the project they're using my photo for is an annual publication, so I may be able to establish a recurring sale to them. We'll see...

Thanks again, I really appreciate all the help.

I recently got a call from a small governmental entity asking if I'd sell them a

photo in digital format to use in some promotional material (panoramic photo,

they want it 300dpi, 7.5" wide, 4" tall or roughly 1/4 page). The initial run

will be 500 copies, but they may want to produce more.

This is my first foray into this sort of sale, so I consulted this forum, some

stock photography pricing calculators, and some stock photo sites to get an idea

of how to price the license.

The photo they want to use is my best-seller as a print. It's a pretty unique

shot and is a panorama, so it took a bit more work than others to put together.

In the end, I quoted $1,500 for a license.

They came back and said that the price was higher than they anticipated and they

wouldn't be able to purchase the print. They went on to say that they thought

the price would be around the same as my advertised print price and so that's

what they'd budgeted. In the end, there were a lot of contradictory statements

made by them - "we can't buy your print," then later, "well, I'm not the final

decision maker, I'm the bottom rung here," and "paying the print price is how

we've always done it," followed later with, "I really have never worked with the

photographers, so I'm not sure how we've done this in the past."

My initial thought is that they're simply trying to get a lower price out of me.

Who in any sort of position to purchase an image is going to think that getting

permission to print 500 copies of an image to use in a commercial endeavor is

the same as buying a print to hang on your wall?

In any case, the person kept encouraging me to contact other local photographers

to see how they'd approach this. I don't want to do that since I'm in sort of a

small market, so I was hoping I could get some thoughts from others here.

I figure I have two options: 1) lower my price or 2) stick to my price and see

what happens. My only concern is that I want to make this sale work - I've been

shooting photos for a long time and have never had this sort of opportunity.

Anyhow, any advice would be great. Thanks a lot.

Lex,

<p>

I too totally understood why someone would rate a 7 in aesthetics and 1 in originality. Like you said, she could have thought the photo was technically excellent, but thinks bugs are aesthetically displeasing, I don't contest that.

<p>

My only concern was that both an excellent and very poor rating were left without comment, which I thought was still a requirement for such ratings. I've been out of the loop here for a while, so I didn't really know that rule had been changed. Now that I know, it's no problem - I thought there was a flaw or loophole in the code or something. Since now I know the rule has been changed, my original question is moot.

<p>

I don't know why the person retracted their rating. I wasn't complaining about it, I didn't go revenge rate her or leave a bad comment or anything. I'm sorry if the person read this post and decided to retract their rating, that wasn't my intent and I agree that it does defeat the purpose of a rating system if she retracted after interpreting my question as a complaint. The rating <i>was</i> weird, personally I've never seen a rating like that before. But I didn't mean that to be taken badly or to say I didn't agree with the rating.

<p>

Oh well... I wouldn't mind if the old rule of commenting on 7 or 1 ratings was reinstituted, but I don't care either way. A rating is a rating, I care more about what people type. :)

<p>

Thanks,

Well, I guess that explains it! :)

Thanks,

It's been my understanding that in order to leave a 7 or a 1 rating,

you must leave a comment. Is this still the rule?

If so, a most odd thing has happened. Check out the ratings here:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings_breakdown?photo_id=1624489

Notice Susan Max - she rated the photo a 7 in originality and a 1 in

aesthetics. Though the ratings are a little weird, I'm more concerned

that she didn't have to leave comments to rate either way. Did the

policy change or did she just find a loophole?

I-Liang,

<p>

Here's a good comparison of my YashicaMAT with/without the wide-angle attachment:

<p>

Without - <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1156779">http://www.photo.net/photo/1156779</a>

<p>

With - <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1156764">http://www.photo.net/photo/1156764</a>

<p>

The "with" image shows a bit of softness in the rocks, but it's not bad. Here are some other photos taken with the wide angle attachment:

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1252497">http://www.photo.net/photo/1252497</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1250332">http://www.photo.net/photo/1250332</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1267734">http://www.photo.net/photo/1267734</a><p>

Hope this helps!

I got my EL2 for next-to-nothing as well, simply because the staff thought the meter didn't work and the camera only shot at one shutter speed!

<p>

Steve, when you do get this camera, remember to turn it OFF when you're done shooting (the little 'safety' switch on the shutter release). Leaving the camera 'on' for anymore than 2 or 3 days will result in a dead battery the next time you try to use it. The camera still shoots at 1/90, but you lose all other shutter speeds and metering. Oh yeah, and it costs you a $6 battery each time. It adds up after a while!

<p>

Have fun with the camera!

I shoot MF with a YashicaMAT-LM TLR - I have some Rollei close-up lenses and a Yashica wide angle lens attachment.

<p>

The close up lenses do what they're supposed to, but it doesn't sound like you're interested in those. The wide angle attachment is good, but you get some pretty noticeable vignetting beginning at around f/11. The Yashinon lens on my camera is an 80mm, I'd say the wide angle takes it to a 55mm or 60mm equivalent. I don't know for sure, that's just my best estimation. Aside from the vignetting, when used between f/3.5 and f/8 (and sometimes f/11), the image quality actually doesn't seem to suffer too much. I've done some informal testing setting up the camera on a tripod and taking photos, first without the attachment and then with. Between the two, no noticeable softness was to be seen and the color rendition was the same. That was using the same speed/f-stops as well.

<p>

Anyway, just my experience. I'm glad I purchased it, as I was beginning to feel a little confined with just one focal length with MF. Makes ya think more, tho!

Bob,

<p>

Just to clarify what I meant - I wasn't endorsing or asking why the 'double-blind' system hadn't been put into effect. I was wondering why we make the number of ratings and actual rating totals visible to anyone but the photographer.

<p>

It may or may not fix anything, but if the ratings are simply there to determine the order of a 'High-rated photographs' gallery, why show others the rating information at all? <i>Maybe</i> it would quell some types of abuses, because raters wouldn't know 1) how other raters rated this photo, 2) how many ratings this photo has gotten, or 3) how large of a difference there are between photos in the high-rated gallery.

I was wondering - I know the 'double-blind rating' system has been discussed before, where neither the rater nor the photographer knows who they're rating or who placed a certain rating. Has anyone ever thought of making ratings invisible to everyone but the photographer?

<p>

It's been stated that the ratings system was designed primarily to filter and display 'better' photos more prominently than others. Why not make ratings invisible? Then those 'better' photos will be at the top, but people won't know the actual Aesthetics/Originality ratings or see the ratings breakdown. It might curb such abuses as seeing a buddy who's only .05 of an aesthetics rating or 6 ratings away from a better position in the gallery and thus rating them higher than usual to help out. Why do we need to see number of ratings/ratings totals/ratings breakdown of other photos anyway?

<p>

Just a thought... Nothing more! :)

Chris,

<p>

What I've done in the past is this:

<p>

Open a command line box as described in the first response. CD to the directory where your JPG's are stored. Type the following command:

<p>

dir /b > rename_jpgs.txt

<p>

In that directory, you will now have a file called "rename_jpgs.bat" that contains one filename per line. You can now either open it from a your favorite spreadsheet program (Excel) or text editor (Notepad would work best). I prefer Excel - you will have column A with one filename per cell. Insert a column so that column A is now column B. Type "ren" into the first cell of the now empty column A and do a fill-down to the end of your filename list. Then column C and the rest of the columns, you can put in a variety of static and dynamic content to make up your filename, in the last column put ".jpg" for each entry.

<p>

So now, you have a spreadsheet set up like so:<br>

<table border="1">

<tr>

<td>A</td><td>B</td><td>C</td><td>D</td><td>E</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>ren</td><td>1.jpg</td><td>2002-12-28-1D-</td><td>001</td><td>.jpg</td>

</tr>

</table>

<p>

In this example, column A "ren" refers to the DOS rename command, column B is the current filename, column C is the static part of the filename, column D would be a formula that adds 1 to the previous row, and column E is the new filename's static .jpg extension.

<p>

Export this to a text file (Save As>File Type>Text (Tab delimited)), use Word to get rid of the [TAB] characters in the new filename (Excel will insert tabs between columns C, D, and E in this example. For this example, use Word's 'Replace' command to replace "1D-^t0" with "1D-0" and "^t.jpg" with ".jpg"), add "@echo off" as the first line of the file, save the file as rename_jpgs.bat and double-click it. Now you command line box will pop up for a moment, disappear, and your files will be renamed. The syntax is "ren old_filename.jpg new_filename.jpg", so that's how your finished text file will look.

<p>

Experiment with this idea a bit on non-essential files or copies of files before you go renaming everything. The good thing about "ren" is it won't overwrite files or move files to unknown locations if you mess up the syntax.

<p>

I know all this looks like a bit of work but it's really quite easy once you get it all down - stuff like this really comes in handy when you have a directory of 400 files that need to be renamed.

<p>

Anyway, this is how I do things on my side. Others may have other ways and maybe some easier ways... Good luck!

Brian,

<p>

I've e-mailed you a couple HTML concepts... The most recent may be of more interest, it's the one I'm focusing on at the moment. Anyway, hope you find some of it useful. If not, heck it was fun anyhow!

Brian,

<p>

Just a suggestion: Might it be possible for you to implement a JavaScript function that reads the user's resolution and at that point returns how many columns should be displayed in the table? So if a user is running 800x600, 2 columns are displayed, if the user is at 1024x768, 3 columns are displayed, etc. I'd be more than willing to write up a little demo script for this, if you want, so you don't have to spend your time on something that may/may not be feasible.

<p>

Another possibility is giving an account the option to select their resolution on sign in, and save that setting in a cookie. Then the page refers to that cookie to determine how many columns to display. In either case, JavaScript or cookie, if the browser doesn't support it, it would just default to 2 columns. Again, just a suggestion. Thanks for your hard work on the site.

I'd agree with Brian, I'm not sure it's the table that's causing your problems. I might be wrong, but on my side of things, I've <i>never</i> had the Unified view load incremementally. I've always gotten the top items of the normal Photo.net page, i.e. the logo, search bar, and gray menu bar, then I had to wait for all of the unified topics to load then I got them all at once. This came out to a 10 - 15 second wait both on my cable connection from home and on my T1 connection at work, running Win2K Pro and IE6 at both locations. So, I'm not sure the table is causing your problems.

<p>

I'm a web designer and I use tables quite often and I rarely see any problems with them taking longer to load than a normal list.

<p>

Anyway, Brian thanks a LOT for the alternating gray bars. Makes readability much better, I use this approach quite often when displaying long lists of items, either on the web or in spreadsheets. Great idea, thanks!

Read the manual... If you've lost it or can't find it:

<p>

The film will rewind automagically when you reach the end of the roll. The frame number will count down from your last exposure (12, 24, 36, etc) down to "E" for empty. If your LCD shows a number, you've still got film left to shoot. If it shows "E", could it be possible the film rewound and you didn't know it? Maybe you could take it into an absolutely light-tight room and open the back to check. If there's an "Err", there's something else going on - take it somewhere that a lab tech can stick it in a changing bag or something to see what's up. And, as always, it could be that your batteries are dead and just need changing.

<p>

Otherwise, if you're mid-roll and NEED to rewind NOW, you can hit the "BKT" button next to the command dial and the "+/-" to the right of the LCD simultaneously to start a midroll rewind (note that you'll lose any unused frames). Both buttons have a small red 'film' icon above them noting this feature.

Regarding underlining links - I really do prefer the thread links on the "Forum" pages to be underlined as it makes it easier to follow a thread from title to author to forum. For the other links, I really don't care, but when I go to the Unified Forum, the individual threads are separated only by their colors and the little bullet at the beginning. With the underlines, it was much easier to distinguish and read a thread's info quickly, from right to left.

<p>

And for ads, I don't mind banners too much. I do understand that revenue comes in from ads AND subscriptions, but why should someone who paid to be a patron have to see an ad describing what the patron icon means and how to get one? I see the site sort of like shareware where you get a demo version of a program that pays the programmer via ads. If the user pays the programmer for the software, the ads go away. But, again, I do know that photo.net needs the extra $$$, so it's not a big deal to me. HOWEVER, if I <i>ever</i> get a popup ad, I'm gone! :)

<p>

Just my 2 Alaskan cents...

Have you tried using lithium AA's just as a comparison to the NiMH ones you're currently using?

<p>

I have an N65 and the MB-17 pack with 4 lithium AA'ss, so while not a direct comparison, I can tell you that I've put at least 20 rolls through the camera, using on-board flash occasionally. This also includes a lot of long-exposure night shots, often in below-freezing weather. The battery meter still shows 3 out of 3 bars, rewinds are still fast, AF is still fast, and continuous mode is still fast.

Just my personal way of doing things (or at least how I <i>try</i> to do things), I file them in the normal negative holders and put them in a binder. Then I make up a little 'index' of which negatives are where, like 'Boat, Page 1, Row 2, Neg 6' and if I've made prints of that neg before, I have additional columns for enlarger f-stop, filter, exp time that I can write in later. I stick this sheet in an 8.5x11 plastic sheet protector along with a contact sheet if I made one, and put it in front of the negative sheet in the binder. So when you open the binder, you have a front page listing what negatives are where in the negative sheet, you turn the page and you have a contact sheet on the left, the negatives on your right.

<p>

Hope this helps!

As Chad said, there are a lot of ways to do what you describe. The way I add digital color to black and white images is similar to what Chad described, but instead of using the Channel Mixer, I use the Hue/Saturation adjustment and down in the lower-right of the dialog box is an option to 'Colorize' - I check that, adjust the hue to get the color I want, set the saturation to control how 'bright' I want the color, and use the lightness bar to change the apparent tonality of the selection. It works quite nicely, here are a couple of links to photos I've done this to:<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1023570">http://www.photo.net/photo/1023570</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1025728">http://www.photo.net/photo/1025728</a><p>

Hope this helps...

I don't have a preference one way or the other on the background color; I don't find white too bright and I would be fine with grey. However, making the background user-selectable might not be a bad idea and would be pretty easy to implement with a little CGI or PHP scripting and some style sheets. Then those that think the white is bad can choose grey, those that like the white can stick with the white, and those that don't care don't have to do anything!<p>

Of course, on a site as large as photo.net with what looks like static HTML coding, implementing style sheets would be pretty tough. But if you ever decide to go the dynamic route and need some coding help or whatever, I'm good with PHP, I'd be willing to chip in!

Wow, I've been doing this wrong for the past 8 months! Guess that's what happens when you decide to learn something on your own, huh? In any case, this is what works for me, your mileage may vary!

<p>

I load my Paterson reels in the darkroom, not in a changing bag. I sit down, grab the film, and tear the paper where I'd sealed it after exposure. I unwind the paper till I reach the film - you can definitely tell when this happens. Then using a pair of scissors, I feel out the corners with my left hand and round them. Then I load THAT end onto the reel - everyone else here seems to unwind the film, then load the taped end on first. Guess that's the traditional way? Anyway, I load the other end on and 'walk' the film onto the reel, letting the paper backing and film separate as it goes on, when I reach the tape, I feel out the end of it and cut it. I tried peeling once, but it made these little blue static sparks and I was afraid of fogging - these sparks are neither bright enough nor do they last long enough to cause fogging, but I started cutting the film instead of peeling and now it's habit.

<p>

Again, this is just my unconventional method, it's worked on a lot of film!

When you trespass, bait, and otherwise annoy an animal to get a good shot, you're no longer a nature photographer; at that point you've become a nature exploiter. This is my humble opinion, of course, but a true nature photographer enjoys taking photos of nature undisturbed by human encroachment. When someone asks you "How did you get such a great photo of that (owl, moose, bear, etc)?" a true nature photographer wants to say, "Well, I saw that (owl, moose, bear) across a field, 200 yards away from me. I stayed low in the grass, stayed downwind, and crawled until I was just 20 yards away. Then I setup my 600mm lens and snapped a few shots, then crawled away - the animal never saw me!"

<p>

That's not always the case, of course. Animals get spooked, but then they just fly or run away, they're afraid of you, that's natural. When you bait an animal, you stress it because it doesn't want to get any closer to you than it has to. But, it's putting that natural fear aside to get food. Kinda like putting a briefcase full of cash in the middle of a 4 lane highway - it just gets messy!

<p>

I love the feeling of getting within range of an animal without it knowing I'm there. It's satisfying, it's a joy to get so close to nature in a purely natural way, as if I were just another plant or animal. Sharing that experience through photos is what nature photography is all about.

<p>

When someone goes to the lengths of the photographer in question to get a photo of an animal, they're not doing it for their own satisfaction or to get a shot for themselves - they're doing it to get a good frame they can sell for good $$$ to some otherwise ignorant newspaper or magazine. Nature <i>exploiter</i>, not nature photographer.

Frankly, I agree with Bob. I don't think much in the way of simple rating system changes will affect how people hand out ratings. If you limit their ratings, the people that were mate-rating before are still going to do it, they'll give the highest rating they have to their best friend, and hand out all the rest to people they know. If they're going to do it, they're going to do it no matter what. The problem with the 'unlimited 4s and below' is that those people that like messing with others by handing out unjustifiably low ratings will continue to do so.

<p>

I also agree that by making the ability to rate a 'member only' option, you'll at least limit the raters to those that are serious enough to shell out $25 to help themselves and others learn more about photography. However, you can still have members that choose only to rate their own group of friends, but at least you'd mostly eliminate those people that choose to create an account at photo.net so they can just go through and rate photos low, just for the fun of it. To me, the most viable ideas are the 'curator' system and/or the double-blind rating system. Combining the latter with a member-only rating system would create an environment where not only are you limiting raters to those who are (hopefully) serious, but they also can't tell who they're rating, unless people include their name in the border. That practice could be discouraged, however. It might also be better to not only limit raters to paid members, but limit it to paid members who've been members for 2 months or more and/or have more than 5 uploaded/public photos. Maybe then people will have time to check out the site, check out how other photos are rated, and just LOOK at other photos before going and rating.

<p>

Anyway, I figured I'd share my opinion here. As some other user said, if you just sit back and watch photo.net degrade into oblivion without ever saying anything, you have no one to blame but yourself!

Alright - as others have suggested, open the back, insert the film, and try pulling the leader over the takeup spool. Even try making sure the sprocket holes are aligned correctly over the teeth.

<p>

Close the back. If the camera is on, it should automatically try to take up the film. You should hear this happen. If the camera is not on, turn it on and again, you should hear it try to take up your film. If it doesn't catch, the 'E' will continue to be an 'E', if it does catch it will go to '1'.

<p>

If the camera is on and you closed the back and you don't hear anything, something is wrong with the camera. You don't need to press the shutter button to get it to load your film. If you close the back and you hear something, double- and triple-check your film loading. Make sure the leader is in position to be taken up, make sure the teeth are aligned with the sprocket holes. If all of this is correct and still it doesn't load your film, call Nikon. You may still be able to get this fixed under warranty.