david_henderson

<p>I agree with Jeff. Stock agencies themselves ( or at least the functions responsible for image selection) often don't know much about the need for property releases and operate on rules of thumb such as "if there are three or more buildings equally featured you don't need a release- if fewer then you do". Note this is an example of one agency's criteria not a universal stance and indeed the policies of different agencies seem to me very variable. They all seem pretty much in awe of their lawyers. But it is variable - I have a series of architectural details photographs rejected out of hand by one agency that was accepted enthusiastically by another (Corbis, as it happens).</p> <p>What they know more about is the need to keep their customers out of trouble, and that a customer who can wave a release as at potential complainant over their use of an image tends to be more comfortable, and less likely to come back to the agency saying "back me up here". In short less client angst and accusation and less potentially expensive and time-consuming legal stuff for the agency. </p> <p>But as I say the situation is variable and you might find some agencies will accept your work without releases , especially for editorial use rather than commercial ( which is where most money is). You need to show them what you've got . If you do need releases then it can be quite complex (which is why I don't give my work to agencies that require releases for it). Firstly finding out who you need to get a release signed by can be a mission; and getting contact with the right person/department in the right organisation is worse. If you know all this then you have a major start. Then you have to persuade them to sign- and why should they do so when the benefit falls outside their business? Some people just find it a lot easier to say no because it minimises the possibility of future comeback on them. </p> <p>I have to say though that the issue raised by Craig resonates with me too. You're being paid to take these shots. How will the people paying you feel about your selling the right to use these images elsewhere, potentially destroying their exclusivity? Even if you have retained the legal right to do so, that doesn't mean they have to like it, and might result in less future photography work. And one of these is your employer? I think my first port of call, before worrying about stock agencies, releases and so on, would be to approach the people you've photographed for and ask them what they think of your plans- and don't be surprised if they are pretty horrified that you have the right or the inclination to sell elsewhere. </p> <p>You might find the rules and reactions a bit easier if you want to sell a few prints, even down to a gallery show than selling through stock agencies for commercial use.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I've had an account for years and have some photographs up there, but the login doesn't work any more because Yahoo now seem to have imposed their own login on Flickr users. So guess what- I don't add more pictures, I don't check my contacts' work, or any (admittedly unlikely) messages they want to send . All I do is open the site as a casual observer and check what work has been produced in x or y environments that I might want to visit. I've long held a view that Yahoo doesn't know what it's doing, with an overlay of self importance. It's just shooting itself in the foot.</p>

<p>I'd send her a bill. I'd charge her for the studio fee- since you say she knew you had to pay this and approved the time. And I'd charge her for the time you spent setting this thing up. She may of course refuse to pay - not least because the "family emergency" may be fictitious and a euphemism for " I changed my mind". If so you may well have nowhere to go as you have no proper contract. But you might get paid so why not? She owes you, you just don't have a legal case. But some people will worry about an unpaid bill that might just pop up inconveniently if she needs credit at some future point, so there's not zero hope.</p> <p>That aside as others are saying your business practices don't sound professional. If you're doing this for money you need to have a proper set of contracts, policies and so on. There's no such thing as an amateur who does it for money. For me, I'd have arranged to meet her in an hour at which point she'd hand over the money in cash for the studio and at least half of the service she wanted to buy, and collect her contract and receipt for the payment. Some people might not want to do that even though you explained that you need to commit studio time right now. If that's the case think hard about doing business with them at all. </p>

<p>When I read Fred's message, my first thoughts were concern over what to choose, andI don't imagine that I'm alone in this. Looking at the 24 selections that precede my choice, there appear to be some clear tendencies. Black and white holds a strong majority; most of the selections involve people rather than things, and most of them have a "vintage/luminary" origin rather than representing the photography being made today. Finally there seems to be a strong social or political theme underpinning several of the choices and tending to dominate the discussion.</p> <p>So partly because I tend to make and view photographs that are different from what's gone before, but mainly out of a sense of redressing a balance, I honed in quite quickly on a few photographers I happen to like a lot. The shortlist included Edmund Leveckis, whose work always intrigues me and who I wish still contributed here. It includes Michael Kenna too, whose work I've seen in exhibitions several times and always feel the prints look better than the internet page. I have to include Edward Burtynsky, whose work straddles landscape and commentary on our effect on that landscape, and also David Maisel, who seems to me to occupy a similar territory broadly as competently. I eliminated Kenna and Ed Leveckis for no better reason than that their work is mainly or totally in monochrome, and frankly the choice in favour of Burtynsky's "Water" portfolio was pretty arbitrary.</p> <p>So for those that want to see Burtynsky's Water portfolio you can use <a href="http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/site_contents/Photographs/Water.html"><b>this link</b></a> and navigate to the <strong>Colorado River Delta #2</strong> photograph that is my specific selection. And for those that want to get right to the specific Burtynsky image I selected, then please go <a href="http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/site_contents/Photographs/image_galleries/Water_Gallery/H2O_COL_DEL_02_11.jpg"><b>here</b>.</a></p> <p>Clearly what I get out of these photographs is far different from what I might draw from Meyers Shoeshine, or last week's Eugene Smith essay, or a man being shot in the head. Not least there's no people, but colour, and an essentially abstract nature . I'm looking for a comfortable, balanced yet intriguing use of colour and composition in images like this and an essential simplicity. Burtynsky's point across this and other portfolios seems to be that the effect of man on the landscape has been very dramatic. I get that, but I see ( and I suspect Burtynsky sees) beauty in it too and that's important to me.</p> <p>Interestingly both my "finalists" mainly photograph from the air these days. I like the output very much, but I do wonder whether, in a very crowded genre, the use of aerial photography is there to make better communication, or more cynically to go where most competitors and potential imitators find it difficult economically to follow, through making this a high-stakes game.</p>

<p>If you want to be really sure use a tripod and Live View. Move the focus point to the eyes and press a button to enlarge the area around your selection to 5x and then 10x so you can see what you have got. You can use Live View without a tripod, but it isn't so precise if you keep swaying around and back and forth. </p>

<p>Looks an interesting project, well-delivered.</p>

<p>Shot MF exclusively until about 5/6 years ago and sporadically for a year after. Change to digital forced by changes in stock agency policies- most will not even consider a film submission unless it has been scanned. So either I have to scan- or have scanned- everything I want my agencies to see , not just the proportion they elect to take. This makes film and stock uncomfortable bedfellows and a totally untenable business model. <br> Still look at MF forum, but as its a few years since I sold all my MF equipment I find I have much less to say and a reducing ability to answer others' questions. </p>

<p>Diego- you're right about the hybrid process. For some years after R Types went, I sent slides 6000 miles to West Coast Imaging in California- then one of the few credible labs with a hybrid process in place, set up to meet the needs of the Western USA landscape photography community. I always got a proof. Sometimes those proofs resulted in alterations, some simple some not so. Each one of those proofs cost me , and incurred time for production and transport. The prints were great, but it took a long time and a very high price to achieve it.</p> <p>So the conclusion I reached years ago was that I had to get quality scans and make the files here on a calibrated screen and soft proof these using the profiles for the papers I chose for the final print. That process works for me and I now get good prints made in London where I ftp the completed files; getting back the finished prints after two days. They are incredibly cheap relative to what I used to pay a decade or more ago for R Types , or sending slides overseas for Chromiras, or previously,for LightJets. I chose not to own the scanner- but to buy in Imacon scans as I needed them, and use a flatbed for less demanding applications.</p>

<p>As Dave Redmann says, the materials for Ilfochrome/Cibachrome haven't been made for years. Personally I found it a pain. For every good print I saw or received there were others that looked awful and for the home user, the battles with filtration to avoid colour casts were legion. And then if your slide was especially contrasty the standard process didn't cope well and you needed to produce (or have produced) contrast masks which were labour intensive and became practically speaking unobtainable commercially. </p> <p>Mostly you'll find it hard to tell much difference between a LightJet/Chromira (as far as I know West Coast Imaging use a Chromira) and an inkjet these days with their vastly improved inks. There's probably more difference in the paper you choose for either than between the results from the different processes on similar papers. In short, the processes may be different, the results don't have to be, though its easier to get a really glossy paper for a LightJet/Chromira or Lambda than from inkjets if that's what you're after. Personally I find the very glossy papers such as Fujiflex on a Lightjet to produce prints that are just too much- too bright, unnatural. But of course that's just my taste. </p>

<p>Hi. I attended a course on colour management the other day, and happened to mention to the lecturer that when I export from LR, after having achieved what I think to be decent brightness/contrast/vibrance there, I end up needing to boost one or two of these variables in PS most of the time. In short, most of my photographs look a little duller in PS than they did in LR.<br> Lecturer indicated that it was because LR displays in Prophoto, whereas I export in my PS working space of Adobe RGB. I guess I'm asking if thats right, since my Dell 2410 display, though calibrated, will struggle to display the Adobe colorspace and will struggle more with Prophoto. So if LR does display in Prophoto, then I wouldn't expect to observe much if any difference vs Adobe 1998 on my screen.<br> Any comments anyone? I guess I've just got used to taking another look at brightness/contrast in particular after transfer to PS- thought it might relate to different background colours or something like that.</p>

<p>Maybe I'll be lucky and find someone who can help with this one.</p> <p>I bought a Colormunki Display late 2012. It worked ok, and early 2013 bought my current Dell 2410 for my PC running Windows 7. Still OK, though I had one or two strange colour calibrations a few months back, and an occasional statement that it couldn't establish LUT. In general I could get an ok calibration insofar as my pictures looked OK and prints I had made at labs would be close to my expectation.</p> <p>Then last month it started to stall in the process of calibrating. To cut a long story short I had detailed discussions with X-Rite and with Colour Confidence who provide technical support. Tried a lot of stuff including uninstall/reinstall of software, and installing on a differentcomputer. All this just got me to a point where the hardware was not being recognised at all "Colormunki Display not connected" when it was using USB ports that I know to work. At this point all agreed that it seemed like a hardware error and Amazon (original supplier) sent another today.</p> <p>But this one doesn't work either on my desktop and again I get "Colormunki not connected" every time. But this time it does work and calibrates plausibly on a small laptop, so I know this Colormunki can work. Just not where I really need it to. </p> <p>So- any thoughts on what's up here please. I'm not discounting the possibility that the problem is with something I've inadvertently done, but frankly I don't have a clue on what to do or try next. </p>