bill c.

<p>I agree with the previous respondents. Florescent lighting is a kettle of fish, all of different species, and the LED/florescent replacements will give us a whole new set of challenges. However, if you suspect that there is any kind of greenish tint to the light, here's a dodge that might mitigate much of the problem, and can be used as a general approach when you can't get a read on the exact color temperature.<br>

Put a 30 magenta filter over your lens. Put a 30 green filter over your flash. Use the flash as the main light, and drag the shutter as much as is feasible to bring up the room lights in the exposure.<br>

While it may not be exact, the 30 magenta is usually a good ballpark filter to use with florescent. It will be an exact match for the light coming from the (green filtered) flash. Any green from the ambient will be close to properly filtered out, and any non-green ambient that gets into the mix will have a magenta cast, which is usually preferable to green. However, as mentioned, if there are full-spectrum daylight florescents in the mix, or LED's, all bets are off.<br>

Set your camera to daylight balance or RAW for this technique, do NOT set the color balance to florescent. You've already corrected that with the filter. Best of luck, -BC-</p>

<p>My response would be, "For each image, $25 per year use fee plus $1 per thousand page views, with my name and website link next to each image. There are also transfer fees and upload fees for each image. What's the name and phone number of your web designer?"</p>

<p>For commercial use, double those prices. Offer batch image use (maybe ten images for $300 municipal/$600 commercial) with discounts and no transfer fees or upload fees. Write into the contract that you have complete access to the page counter. You might want to get some of the page view money up front, or even have them estimate the page views and give them $.50 per thousand estimated clicks if they pay up front. Check the counter frequently and bill them more if they go over. Have it written in the contract that they lose use rights and violate copyright if they intentionally or grossly mis-state anything. -BC-</p>

<p>To Dennis Williams-- NO! No! No! No! If the photographer uses the image to promote himself, that is freaking ADVERTISING! What don't you people understand about that? A model release is required for this kind of use, or at least some sort of permission.</p>

<p>While it may be rare and totally unprofitable to pursue a lawsuit against it, legally you should still have a model release even if all you are doing is putting a photo of someone in your portfolio. Showing art or writing, etc. to more than three members of the general public is LEGALLY considered "publishing" (though there are exceptions for professional critique, etc.). I won't even use an image I took of a bride in my portfolio without permission, but I have such permission built into my contracts.</p>

<p>The parent might want the poster to confirm that the child's image will not be used again. I'd offer to sell it to him at a discount rate, then set your regular rates very high. -BC-</p>

<p>I agree with many of the people here who advise about finding a middle ground. What you need to do is let the people at the bakery know that they are getting something that is valuable, while at the same time creating the good vibes from a low-cost trade. It's a fine line.<br>

HOWEVER, there is a way of circumventing this completely. There are many good on-line gallery sales sites (SmugMug, Zenfolio, etc). Get a professional account with one of them (personally I like SmugMug, they have a slick system and everything works, but putting in custom prices can be tedious). Set the gallery settings so that the images are viewable but NOT download-able. The potential client can see all the images, but they can't use them without payment. Note that there is a way for clients to purchase digital copies of the images, but you can turn that off. If you want, you can enable them to purchase prints. If you don't want just any Joe Blow to be able to view the images, you can password-protect the gallery.<br>

This way anyone can see the images, but you still maintain complete control-- AND they have the option of purchasing. It sure beats sending out a CD full of free-for-the-taking images, and it eliminates the hassle of burning one and delivering it.<br>

Happy shooting. -BC-</p>

The person who commented about it being similar to "how much should I sell my house for" was pretty much right. However, that's not saying that there some general guidelines can't be passed along.

 

If you have professional-level lighting and camera equipment and turn out consistent professional-level results, people on this forum have stated that they are getting $120-$250 per person for corporate head shots, and the really top-tier shooters can of course get more.

 

I usually bring in a full three-head strobe lighting kit (main light, hair light, background light), background, umbrellas, octabox or softbox, reflectors, and shoot on a D2x. I'll put my work up against anybody's, but then I've been around for a while. I'll start out at $180/person for less than three people, but if a dozen sign up I'll drop that down to $110, on a sliding scale. If the company is making the individuals pay for the photos, that gets the ones who have signed up into encouraging others to sign up, as it will lower their price.

 

That price includes one image from the shoot, I charge extra for burning a CD with all the shots from the shoot on it. You'd be amazed at how many people might want to bring their kids in and get a family portrait-- that's happens on most of the shoots and I charge for another head, plus CD burn, etc.

 

If you are any kind of a decent professional shooter, you should be able to come away with at least $1,300 for a day's work of that type.

 

Happy shooting. -BC-

Leigh-- First of all, check to see if it is the cord or the camera. To check the cord, while it is plugged into the flash take the tip of a key and touch it to the camera end of the PC cord, shorting out the space between the outside ring and the little pin in the middle. Give it a good (but gentle) couple of pokes before deciding if the cord is no good. If it is good, you will be able to make the flash trigger this way. If it doesn't, you may need a new sync cord.

 

Note that if the cord itself has a short in it, then the flash would be exhibiting the behavior you mention. If you take the cord out and the flash will not fire using the on-board trigger button, then the problem is most likely with the flash itself.

 

If you can get to a camera store and try a different sync cord with the flash, that would be a good way to help with the diagnosis.

 

If it does fire using the key technique, then the problem is most likely with the camera. But whichever it is, you should be using the X sync with an electronic flash.

 

I know a couple of other techniques if you are handy with a VTVM meter, wire clippers, and a soldering gun. Let me know. Best of luck, -BC-

Michael-- I think I know what you're looking for. First of all, I suggest you try using a darker backdrop. I've had good luck with the felt-blanket-type, but seamless would also work. What happens with the darker backdrop is that, first of all, the light can be made to drop off more quickly (which might help with the "dramatic" part), and you can actually control the tones through a larger part of the spectrum.

 

You can always light up a dark background (within reason, of course), but if a light background is getting too much spill, in a normal (read: not having as much room as the photographer wants or should have) studio there's not much that can be done about it. However, for good lighting control the background should be as far away from the subject as feasible. Best regards, -BC-

Matthew-- Try checking out these two threds for suggestions:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ECS7

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00F4Js

 

Happy shooting. -BC-

Gene-- In terms of "cheap", if you read my post properly, you will see that I was referring to digital (a Leaf back is digital). You used film, which has a longer latitude than most *digital* sensors, and indeed can be able to hold details in certain tonal ranges better, depending on the technique.

 

Since O. didn't specify that he was using film-- and these days pretty much everybody who still uses film will mention that in a post where they ask a question-- it was certainly safe to assume that he was intending to use digital. In terms of using digital to replicate such a shot, yes, a cheap camera is not going to cut it here.

 

In terms of film, of course, pretty much any applicable camera that will hold the film flat and give an accurate shutter speed might be made to work, as it's the film itself (combined with whichever developer is being used) that will create tonal range and smoothness (the greater or lesser resolution of the various formats and lenses still needing to be taken into account). I have a number of what people might consider "cheap" film cameras that I use for specific techniques myself.

 

Can you replicate the technique in question with a digital camera that costs less than what your Pentax body would sell for on Ebay? I would seriously doubt it. At minimum maybe a Canon D30 or Nikon D200, but more likely a D2x or 1DsMkII, and none of those are what anyone would consider cheap. Of course the MF Leaf back has a far greater exposure latitude than film, but for costing up to $30,000 it better have.

 

Digital is overwhelmingly pervasive in the photographic world today, and as I say, it is safe to assume that unless film is mentioned as the medium, the meduim in question will be digital. If I would have meant a cheap FILM camera, I would have specified a cheap FILM camera. In that situation, the same conditions might not apply.

 

So, Gene, why don't you spend another ten minutes and replicate the technique exactly, as you say you can. I'm sure O. would be extremely interested in knowing how you did it, and there would probably be a bunch more people around here who would like to know as well. Feel free to use a camera of whatever value you want, just let us know which medium you're talking about.

 

Happy shooting. -BC-

Why don't you give it a try, and post some samples. I'm sure it will end up being a very educational experience for you. -BC-

Shelly-- It's been a while since I've had the time to log on to photo.net, so forgive me if I post this far past the time you asked your question. Hope it is still of any value.

 

First of all, I need to say that digital has changed the face of photographic lab services radically and permanently. Things that were available inexpensively and quickly are now hard to come by, expensive, and time-consuming.

 

That being said, getting good prints from slides has always been a challenge both technically and economically. While you can get kind of OK prints directly from slides at most full-service photo labs (or at least you could a few years ago), previously you needed to get either an internegative (the lab takes a picture of your transparency on large-format negative stock, and prints from that), or something called Cibachrome to get really good quality.

 

While those are still available, nowadays what you will probably want to do is shoot slide film and simply have the lab scan the slide on a good scanner. It should cost about $1-$4 each at between 4000 DPI and 4800 DPI. The lab should be able to print from that (often at decent rates, depending on your requested quality), or you can print it off your printer at home. Happy shooting, -BC-

Christopher-- Based on my years of shooting for major magazines and other publications (including the National Geographic Society), my decades of work as a photo educator, my awards from national organizations (including "Magazine Cover of the Year" from the National Art Directors Association), my degree in photography from a major university, and my nearly 40 years as a professional photographer (working for major newspapers since age 15), the hundreds of weddings I have photographed, the thousands of advertising images I have produced, and the countless portraits, headshots, and promotional images that I have taken over the decades, I stand by my assessment.

 

Before you make such a statement again, you might want to click on a person's name to get their background. -BC-

Eric-- For solid, inexpensive, and surprisingly versitile tungsten lighting, you might want to consider Lowel Tota lights.

 

They don't get much more basic, just a tungsten tube and a simple reflector that folds up over it. Let them cool down, then fold them up and toss 'em in the bag. They're less than ten inches long and two inches thick when folded, and weigh about a pound each.

 

On the downside, they get hot and there's not much of a way to handle them when they do. They take some creativity to be able to make them do what you want. But you can pop two of them into umbrellas or even into corners (but NOT too close to the walls) and get great even light in a decent-sized room. And they're about $125 each, plus the bulb. You should also get an umbrella adapter, which kind will vary depending on what equipment you have.

 

Happy shooting. -BC-

Andre-- I get good, conventional results with the umbrella positioned just outside of camera angle and a bit closer to the subject than the camera.

 

The first photographer I assisted for shot for Playboy, and his dictum was, "If the umbrella isn't so close to the camera view that you're not cussing because it's in the way, it's not close enough."

 

As a starting rule, for one person you might want to take a 42" umbrella, put it off to one side of camera view and put the bottom of the umbrella just even with the lens, perhaps two or three feet closer to the subject than the camera. Then use either a reflector or another strobe for fill as per your chosen technique.

 

Happy shooting. -BC-

O.-- As you can see from how different Jack Wagner's shot is from your specified examples, there is a whole lot more to this than first meets the eye.

 

First of all, there is a huge amount of shadow control, and it is done by means of some very large reflectors. How large? So big that you cannot specifically see them in the eye reflections in some cases. That means that they are so large that they reflect in the entire pupil.

 

Also note that, especially in the shots of people with dark hair, the background is NOT jet black. It is more like one zone up from that. There is a very tiny and extremely well-controlled tonal separation between the dark hair and the backdrop, which is just slightly lighter (in some of the shots).

 

There is also a fair amount of PhotoShop involved in this, but exactly what steps and what effects will vary greatly depending on the equipment used.

 

Doing something like this as well as that photographer has done will take 40-100 hours of concentrated studio experience to learn and even more to master. The exposure control is super-tight, and the control of the lighting contrast is even tighter. You won't be able to do this with a cheap camera. It might even involve a Leaf back and MF. Happy shooting. -BC-

Matthew-- Speedotron has a system set up to handle just such a situation. It's something different than what Larry Hunt was talking about, which had to do with stagger triggering.

 

What you need is a four-tube head, and each tube powered by its own power pack. Yep, I'm talking about using eight power packs to light your shot.

 

Your problem, of course, will be getting enough AC 120 amperage to cycle those power packs. I would not put more than two packs on one 20-amp circuit, and just one on a 15-amp circuit.

 

What makes this set-up into something that can recycle very quickly is that you can dial down each head to a half or a quarter power.

 

My guess is that you will have to get in touch with a lighting supply company-- the kind that supplies equipment for major studios when they come to town-- and line up a generator truck to power something like this.

 

Note that there are two types of quad-tube heads available for Speedos, so make sure you get the type you need. Check with the rental company as to which will do the job.

 

There may be other brands out there that have the same type of thing available, but I'm not familiar with them. I'd do a search on the B&H website and also Google for "quad-tube head" or "quad-tube flash head."

 

Best of luck. -BC-

For the price, the AB's are great. I wish to gosh that they were available when I was just out of photo school, I'd have been a lot further along a lot faster. About the only thing I can say negative about them is that when they are dialed down to the lower power settings, there can be a 0.3 stop variance between one pop and the next one. About half of that is normal even in the higher-end strobes. Also, they are not supposed to be as tough as their White Lightning kindred in terms of the number of shots per hour you're supposed to subject them to (600), but I have heard from others on this forum who have greatly exceeded that on a regular basis for years and have had no problems. -BC-

Mike-- Let's give you a practical answer.

 

As well as having some very serious studio strobe equipment, I also have a couple of AB 600's. At ISO 100 I can bounce one of them into a 60" or 72" umbrella (nice, new, and highly reflective) and get about f8 with the umbrella about six or seven feet away from the closest point on the subjects. I'll also use a 40" FlexFill or even a large piece of fome as a reflector opposite the lightsource. (Note that I usually use the umbrella reflector for this.)

 

I'll use the 42" umbrella for one person, the 60" for two, and the 72" for three or four. I'll use the other AB as a hairlight.

 

I tried to shoot six people with two AB's bounced into umbrellas, but to get the even-ness I wanted I couldn't get more than about f 5.1 out of them, which was not enough DOF for me. On the other hand, my daughter has borrowed my lights and shot an extended family of nine with just that one AB 600 and the 72" umbrella, using ISO 200. It came out OK, but she shot with a wide-angle, lined the people up so that DOF was not too much of a factor, and used f 5.6.

 

So for up to three people, the single AB 600 with a bright new umbrella and an efficient, effective reflector should do you well. For more than that on a regular basis, I'd get the 1200.

 

If you get two, I'd recommend getting them of the same power so the modeling lights will end up proportional.

 

Happy shooting. -BC-

Photo Girl-- Believe it or not, as much will depend on the throw (usual or maximum available shooting distance) than will depend on the size of the backdrop itself.

 

Think about it. If you have a shooting space with a high ceiling and big walls, but you can't get very much distance between the camera and the subject and the subject and the backdrop, you will need a larger backdrop because you will have to shoot with a wider lens. If you have a nice long throw in your studio that gives you adequate space between all the elements front-to-back, then you can get away with a lower and less-wide backdrop, especially if you desire the compression that longer lenses can give you.

 

So, as for your question, the answer is "it depends." What lens are you going to be using, and what format? Do you need to shoot up on your subjects? How much of a throw do you have?

 

Your answer is to do some testing, and see what dimensions you need. There are a number of factors involved that you may not even know to ask about at this point.

 

Best of luck. -BC-

Carla-- That was good advice from Tony. In the future, here's a link to a very inclusive useage contract:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00F4Js

 

Best of luck. -BC-

Back in the 1980's, photographer Carol Highsmith donated her photography to a museum for use on a poster. They spelled her name wrong ("Carl Heightsmith"). It was early in her career, and the exposure was a huge part of her compensation.

 

The result? A $22,000 print run of the posters had to be destroyed, and re-printed.

 

Credit and exposure can be a major part of the compensation given to a photographer, especially in a showcase piece. As a previous respondent stated, how tough can it be to put the credit next to the images in five-point type? People look past it, it is not distracting, but if the photographer needs it for his portfolio, it's not a small thing.

 

I'd stick the credit in if I were you. Cheaper than a lawsuit and having to re-print the piece. Best of luck. -BC-

Felicity-- Let's put all this in a nutshell. First, he does not own the images or the copyright to them. He did not pay you, he does not have a contract that states he purchased any rights from you, etc. However, in terms of you having the right to use the images because of what is contained in them, there you may have a problem.

 

If you, for example, sold the images to a magazine (at least here in the US, and I'm sure things in the UK are similar), he would not have a legal leg to stand on, as the images were being used to "educate or inform," and in fact would be doing him good, publicity-wise. However, as you are merely trying to sell the images, that is a very strange legal kettle of fish, especially in your situation. In a court of law, very strong arguments could go either way.

 

The person who advised you that getting a lawyer would be inflamatory was correct. What I would do before taking that step (and note that you might like to operate very differently) is contact the producer and tell him that:

 

1. You strongly believe that interpretation of the copyright law is incorrect.

 

2. You believe own the copyright to the images.

 

3. However, you respect his need for control over how his show is presented, and will work out a way that you can get some recompense for your time, effort, equipment and other expenses, etc. Tell him that you were in no way trying to infringe on his work, but the work you did for him was worth something and you got paid nothing.

 

The attitude should be one of, "Hey, you're wrong but I respect where you're coming from, I think I've got a way we can both get some good stuff out of this." If you approach with a compromise, legally that looks good later.

 

I've had "grabby" clients like this, though (one even tried to tell me that I couldn't produce any materials for any other clients similar to what I had done for him). In every case, all the adversarial individuals involved had horrible reputations and when they tried to bad-mouth me, my reputation actually went up.

 

If the person turns out to be a total jerk and won't compromise his (legally untenable) position, don't be afraid to destroy the images and walk away from the situation. In the end, if you don't blow it up, it will remain a small thing. Best of luck, and let us know how it turns out. -BC-

Kari-- First of all, if you are located in the US you should know that it is illegal in the States to remove a copyright notice. That can get a copyright violator worse off than just for minor infringement. However, if the edge is cut off the problem is proving it, and in that your information is correct.

 

You can get a rubber stamp at just about any office supply store. They can have them sent out to be made custom, or you can get a make-it-yourself stamp kit for about $20 or so. Just be aware that most rubber-stamp ink is very liable to smudge or be wiped off of the back of most printing papers, especially if you are still using the kind that works with a darkroom and chemicals (i.e., resin-coated).

 

You are better off going to a custom print shop and getting a roll of labels with your copyright and contact info on them, backed by "security" adhesive. This type of label is very difficult to pull off of whatever it is stuck onto, and the harder the miscreant tries to pull it off, the more it is evident that a label was tampered with. In some cases, the paper will rip before the label will release.

 

a much cheaper method is to sign the back of the prints with a Sharpie permanent marker. Just test it to be sure that the ink will not seep through the paper before you do it for real.

 

The method I'd use, though, would be to watermark each image with a copyright notice. It's time-consuming, but worth it if you are that concerned about getting your images stolen.

 

Happy shooting. -BC-

Most photographers get at least half-day rates (those who are still charging in that obsolete manner, anyway) for travel, and anywhere from half to full day rates for scouting. However, often it is the assistant who is doing the scouting, and in that case usually half-day rates apply. -BC-

Mandy- The best way to meet the top working professional shooters in your area is to contact the ASMP. Get on their assistants list and go to meetings. Learn everything you can about the technical aspects of photography and then knock on doors.

 

Back in the 1980's, assistants were expected to be able to build 1000 watt-second strobe systems out of aluminum foil, paper clips, and a roll of toilet paper in ten minutes or less; overhaul large format lenses blindfolded; and be on a first-name basis with the receptionist at every top model agency between LA and Milan.

 

The requirements have gone down with the decline of the photo industry, and nowadays you could get hired just for being able to hold a flash unit over your head and point it in the right direction.

 

But when they ask you what's in your crash bag (you do have a crash bag, don't you?), you should be able to answer them down to the brand names.

 

Best of luck. -BC-