djphoto

Is Dan Heller, the prolific stock photographer and author of "Profitable Photography in the Digital Age" and other books still around? His web site is still up at danheller.com and he also has a blog, but neither appear to have been updated recently.

We are thinking about going from Vancouver to Victoria, then taking a ferry to the mainland. Any suggestions about this?

We will arrive late afternoon, stay the night, all the next day, the next night, then drive to Boise the following day. Our hotel

will be near Pike Place Market.

My wife and I plan to be in Vancouver, BC for two days and Seattle for a day in September as we make our way back from a trip to

Alaska. We would welcome any suggestions as to things to see and do (not necessarily photo-related) in those two cities/areas.

<p>I've seen a few statements in various threads that wedding clients are too unsophisticated (or something) to be able to see the difference between good professional photography and work by amateurs or many of the people working on the fringes of professional photography. This study commissioned by the National Press Photographers Association would seem to indicate that people can, in fact, see the difference. <a href="https://nppa.org/news/eyetracking-photojournalism-new-research-explores-what-makes-photograph-memorable-shareable-and">https://nppa.org/news/eyetracking-photojournalism-new-research-explores-what-makes-photograph-memorable-shareable-and</a><br>

As a working photographer, if your prospective clients can't see the difference, then maybe they are just not the right clients for you or maybe you need to up your game.<br>

Upping your game, by the way, does not necessarily mean improving your photography. You may simply need to work on your business skills. An average photographer with good marketing and business skills will almost always make more money than a photographic artist with mediocre skills.</p>

<p>I am glad to recommend Chad at http://www.happyfishdesign.com/. Check out his web site.</p>

<p>Dave Jenkins</p>

<p>I think you're right, Puppy Face. I use the grid screens. As I said, it's been ten years since I used the cameras, and I've obviously forgotten a lot of stuff! I do have the manual, though, which was not much help with this problem.</p>

<p>This forum seems to be mostly about digital Canons, but I don't see anyplace else to post this question.<br>

I haven't used my Canon EOS A2 cameras for about ten years, but recently I thought I would dust them off and shoot some film. I installed a new 2CR5 battery, and everything seemed to work properly, except that the five little squares on the focus screen that indicate the point of focus would not light up in red as they are supposed to do when focus is achieved. In fact, even the little black outlines are not visible. It seems to focus okay, but I can't be sure just where it is focusing! Any thoughts on this?<br /> <br /> Also, since the camera does not lose its data when the battery is removed for changing, I wonder if there isn't a button cell somewhere in the body. If so, where might it be? It surely needs replacing by now.</p>

<p>Genuine Christians believe the Bible is the word of God. The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. A ceremony joining two homosexuals is therefore wrong, and is not in fact actually a wedding. It would be a violation of my conscience to have any kind of participation in such a ceremony. I no longer contract to photograph weddings because of the danger of invoking legal action of this kind. Just because something is legal does not make it right.<br>

<br />I realize many of you are going to be all over me because of this and I will probably get some hate mail. Tough cookies! Paraphrasing someone once said (I believe it may have been Abraham Lincoln), if something is wrong, ten thousand angels yelling at the top of their voices that it's right will not make it right.</p>

<p>I have a couple of Arca-Swiss Polaroid backs for the Hasselblad 500 series. They take Type 87 and 88 film, which was the almost-square 3-1/4x3-3/8 size. As of a few years ago, no one made this size. I've been doing a search and can't find any, but does anyone on this forum know if such is available?</p>

<p>I have a pair of the Domke F3X or F8 bags (forget which -- I've had them for years), but I don't like them at all for my Olympus Micro 4/3s outfit. I'm planning to get a Swissgear Zinc bag, which is what Thom Hogan uses (sansmirror.com).</p>

<p>I get good results with a Nikon SB-28 in Auto mode on my OMD. Can't use the camera's auto ISO mode, though, so I set it to 400 or 800 for most indoor use.</p>

<p>I purchased my OMD with the 12-50 kit lens. I also had the Oly 40-150, which I sold in order to buy the 14-150. That is the perfect "walking-around" lens for me. My 12-50 is also for sale. The 14-150 and 20mm Panasonic make a great combination for most of my photography.</p>

<p>I've been using Zookbinders for 15 or 20 years and have always been very happy with their quality, price, and turnaround time.</p>

<p>No, you guys have a mental condition that needs seeing to. By definition, if something exists, then it is possible for it to exist, whether it fits any "scientific" theory or not.</p>

<p>Scientifically, it is impossible for a bumblebee to fly.</p>

<p>So, which are we going to believe? Q.G., Jens, et.al., or our own lyin' eyes?</p>

<p>In answer to Q.G.'s question, I have worked with the Canon 5D system for the last five or six years. My specialty is architecture. You can check out my work here: www.davidbjenkins.com.</p>

<p>You theoreticians don't seem to understand the basic fact about photography: photography is about how things look. If it looks good, it is good. Whether it fits into your little formulas or not.</p>

<p>Really, you're just silly. Have fun peeping at your pixels. I live and work in the real world, and I'm outa here!</p>

<p>Heaven save us from the pixel-peepers! Jay Maisel made and sold very large prints from a 2.74 megapixel camera that satisfied his own very high standards, standards that were honed by 40+ years of shooting and making dye transfers from Kodachrome and Velvia 50. If the quality were not there, he would have known it and would have continued using film until he felt that digital were up to the job.</p>

<p>Try putting a pair of #357 silver oxide batteries in it.</p>

<p>Let me follow up by saying that I will do the same for anyone else who would like to see the two 16x20 prints and is willing to pay the postage both ways.<br>

<br />In response to George's smug comment about cameras with two and even three megapixels being sold as "professional" tools, I offer this link to an article about Jay Maisel written by Berman and Maher, which appeared in Shutterbug Magazine in (I think) 2002.</p>

<p>Maisel should need no introduction, but in this digital age, many new people coming into photography have no idea of the history of the medium, even the recent history. Suffice it to say that Maisel has been one of the very top editorial/commercial/annual report photographers in the country for the last 50 years. He's over 80 years old now, and still working, but these days he makes much of his income from the sale of limited editions of his large prints. He was one of the most successful photographers of the last half of the 20th century and moved into the 21st with a flourish.</p>

<p>A Kodachrome shooter for almost all of his career, Maisel switched to digital in 2001, with a Nikon D1 -- a 2.74 megapixel "professional" tool. As detailed in the linked interview with Berman and Maher, he only shot one roll of film from that time on, but continued to do his professional work and sell his prints with the D1.</p>

<p>I don't know you, George, and I wish you well, but frankly, someone of the stature of a Jay Maisel has far more creditability than you. Here's a link to the article. I hope you'll read it. Also, check out Jay on the internet. He's easy to find. </p>

<p>http://bermangraphics.com/press/jaymaisel.htm</p>

<p>George, give me your address and I will send you the prints if you will pay the cost of sending them back to me.</p>

<p>I scan 35mm film with a Minolta-Dimage 5400 unit, which gives me 13x19-inch scans that easily make sharp 20x30 prints. For medium format I use an Epson 4990 with the Epson software. The largest print I've made from that setup was a 40x60 from a 6x7 Fujichrome 100 transparency shot in a Pentax 6x7. I have been a full-time professional since 1972, so I'm not totally ignorant of this field.</p>

<p>This whole digital vs. scanned film thing which has been under such intense discussion became a non-issue for me in 2003 shortly after I acquired my very first digital camera. The gig was a bridal portrait, which I planned to shoot with my standard rig at the time, a Pentax 6x7. I didn’t yet know or trust my shiny new Canon 10D, but thought I would make a few shots with it for comparison purposes.</p>

<p>The 10D files showed promise, even though from only a six-megapixel camera, so I had 16x20 prints made of similar poses, one from a 10D jpeg and the other from a professionally scanned NPH negative. When the lab owner gave me the prints, he said "Hmmmmm." Another local pro, who worked with the Mamiya RZ system, came in as I was looking at the prints. He said "Hmmmmm." Then he said "Well, I was saving up for a trip to Europe, but it looks like I'm going to have to spend my money on something else."</p>

<p>I showed the prints to others of my fellow commercial photographers and several of the art directors I work with. Only one could tell which was which, and I later learned she recognized the digital file because it had more depth of field.</p>

<p>Some of you guys say you can tell the difference between film and digital. Maybe you can, but I can tell you that a bunch of experienced professional photographers and art directors in my city couldn’t. And neither can I, except that digital usually looks better.</p>

<p>I will concede one thing, though. Even though digital is better in almost every way, film was more fun. Or maybe I’m just waxing nostalgic.</p>

<p>I tried #357 silver oxide batteries, but they did not help.</p>

<p>When I got the camera, I noticed that the mirror was in the up position and the film advance lever was locked. Turning the meter on/off switch to the battery check/reset position released the mirror. I could then work the film advance and fire the shutter one time, but when I worked the film advance lever again the mirror would snap into the up position and lock there until I again moved the meter on/off switch to the battery check position. This happens in both manual and auto exposure and also at the 1/60th shutter setting.<br>

<br />I like this camera for sentimental reasons because the OM system was my mainstay during some of the most productive years of my career, when documentary and PJ assignments took me to 27 countries and around much of the U.S. My all-time favorite camera was an OM2n that I used during those years. But whether it's worth the cost of a CLA to restore this one to working order is something I haven't decided yet.</p>

<p>Thanks, John. The camera had LR44s in it when I got it. The previous owner said it was working when he shipped it, but it has never worked for me. What batteries should I get?</p>

<p>I love the electronic viewfinders on micro 4/3s cameras because they enable one to do what Kirk Tuck calls "pre-chimping." With my OM-D in A (aperture-preferred) mode, I look through the EVF, and if the scene looks too light or too dark, simply turn the exposure compensation dial under the shutter button until the scene looks just right. If I want to change the aperture, I turn the other dial on the right side of the camera top.</p>

<p>This is so quick and easy to do that I shoot mostly jpegs now. In fact, I have yet to shoot a RAW frame with my OM-D, although I occasionally have shot a few with my E-PL1.</p>

<p>Fresh batteries did not help. Apparently, nothing was going to help short of sending the camera in for repair, so I had to regretfully send it back to the seller.</p>