dano1

<p>Let me just say that my current website does not properly reflect the full scope of my work. As I started my post, I was was saying that I was attempting to promote myself as a portrait photographer, not as landscape, nature, scenic, etc.</p>

<p>I have a good 5 years of solid experience under my belt using 2 DSLRs, plus another 3 years using traditional 35mm SLR's, Twin Lens Reflex 6x6 medium format cameras, doing everything from developing my own 120 Tri-X to scanning hundreds if not thousands of my own negatives on my Nikon Coolscan V.<br>

<br />I realize I need a better site to better demonstrate my skills as a photographer as a whole, this has been a stumbling block for me for some time I'll admit. And yes, when I do build it I will boil those 10,000 images or so down to the best 10-30, you better believe it.</p>

<p>So, in that instance, I have shooting experience, that's not a problem at all from where I sit. My current website is a very poor reflection of this as it doesn't even demonstrate the subject matter I'm discussing here. I have the gear, DSLR, some good brand-name (Minolta) lenses, yeah, they're not "white" lenses, but I'm not on a 100K/year salary yet either. <br>

<br />I have a very thorough experience in editing and post-processing of digital images, both those captured directly in a DSLR and those acquired through a scanner. I use Phase One Capture One Pro 5 for my color corrections and basic editing, Photoshop CS5 for more intense work, and more importantly I know what I'm doing. I know when to only adjust the curves on the luminance channel, and how to apply a local area contrast enhancement filter using the unsharp mask tool for example.</p>

<p>And even more importantly, I know printing. I know my CMS from my ICC, I know how to apply profiles, and I know how to use a color spectrophotometer to create my own custom profiles (I would own one if money weren't so tight). While I don't own a RIP, I do own a software that provides a good 80-90% of the benefit of a RIP, minus the driver, scaling, and postscript functionalities.</p>

<p>And by Giclee I mean professional, high-quality, fine-art prints done through an ink-jet process. Anybody (and I do mean anybody) can make an inkjet print these days, not anybody can make a fine art print worthy of being called a giclee.</p>

<p>I was most interested in the work done by a Canadian by the name of Andrew Collett. I've been meaning to watch the interview done with him by Luminous Landscape.</p>

<p>All I'm really looking to find out here is what the best way to break into this business might be. I just need some basic advice on getting my foot into the door so-to-speak. Frankly, I'm not interested in a lecture on my abilities or capabilities, I'm actually confident of those and I don't need or want people telling me otherwise.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br />Dan O. </p>

<p>Just a comment on the $10 pet portrait, I wasn't doing it for the $10, I was doing it to get my name out, "$10 Potraits!" both attracts new poeple, gets them to sit for a minute, hand them my card, they get a single print, if they want more, they call me back and set up a real portrait session, that was the basic idea anyway. :P</p>

<p>I realize those shots are repetitive, I would would love to have a portfolio of 1,000 portraits to pull from to create my website, but I don't. Currently, I have the Fire and Ice Girls, and my family, plus my class Reunion Photos, which a lot of people liked so I have been trying to keep most of them available, though I agree some of them should be pruned, they used to be, but the site was rebuilt and that was a mishap during the rebuild.</p>

<p>As for the landscapes, I do have more than 1,000 landscapes to pull from, easily. In fact, that number is likely closer to 10,000 than to 1,000.</p>

<p>I was not intending to sell over the internet, but rather market / promote, via social networking IE facebook / twitter, etc, as this has brought in numerous visits to my sites in the past, almost all from the local area as they are from my social network.</p>

<p>My target audience would likely be a difficult one for me to break into however, these types of prints generally sell best in offices.</p>

<p>What I'm learning about my local area is that it's very portrait-heavy. We have at least 20 "Pro" portrait photographers here in the metro-area, and another 20-30 who like to hire themselves our for pennies at any chance they can get because they have a DSLR. (Remember, I last worked at a photo lab).<br>

<br />There are a few landscape / wildlife photographers in the area, the one worthy of mention is of quite formidable reputation, Nels Akerlund, who has been featured in numerous magazines and publications, including National Geographic.<br>

<br />As for doing Giclee prints for other artists, I know that many big cities have well oiled machines in this respect, well ours honestly doesn't. As a former photo lab manager at one of the 2 most professional labs in the city, I can honestly say there is room for improvement in the realm of reproduction, especially onto canvas and watercolor.</p>

<p>If you're referring to the machinery itself, when the opportunity presents itself I've seen used Epson printers of the caliber that are equivelant or better than my former lab used selling for $1,000-$3,000 on eBay, I have worked on these machines, I just repaired an Epson R1900 last month, and have replaced numerous parts in a 9600 pro. Most of them however, are fortunately in good working condition, they are either upgrading or lack a current use.</p>

<p>What I'm trying to get at with this post though is that in order to suceed, any small business person, no matter their trade, needs to set themselves apart from their competitors. I feel that my best chance of doing this is through creating Giclee prints of my nature scenes and landscapes.</p>

<p>Until I can get the machinery to do it with, I have an R1900 that I can use to make small (10x15) giclees, and I am in good contacts with my former lab, and can have work done there as well.</p>

<p>Dan O.</p>

<p>Hey all,</p>

<p>I've been struggling to find my niche for a while now. For the past year or so I've been trying to market myself as a portrait photographer, but to date I've only had one portrait session outside of the family, besides that of a few pets. Needless to say, this is quite discouraging.</p>

<p>I had a brick-and-mortar studio for 3 months in the center of a newly revitalized downtown district in a nearby village. I've had a website up the entire year, I've facebooked, twittered, handed out at least 50 business cards to people individually, another 100 or so went to other local businesses in stacks. I mentioned it to most anyone that seemed like they would be slightly interested in it.</p>

<p>Everyone I spoke with and showed my portfolio to was very pleased with my work, no questions about my quality or anything like that, you can see my website now at danophoto.net</p>

<p>At any rate, I was thinking about switching gears. I went to an Arts Fair at a local shopping center recently, and I displayed both my portrait skills and my wildlife / nature / scenic / landscape shots. Lets just say, the only person who sat for a portrait that day ($10 portrait btw) was a dog. <br /> <br />I did however sell (1) framed 8x12 of late-dusk shot of Chicago Skyline as seen from Navy Pier, (4) greeting cards, and a framed 5x7 of scene from the Black Hills of South Dakota. And I suppose that got my gears turning.</p>

<p>Let me say that I have a LOT of experience in printing. I once worked for 3 years as a photo lab manager making prints on everything from wallets on a Konica R1 to 44x66" Canvas Prints on an Epson 9600 Pro. Having this experience gives me the knowledge not only in how to print, but also in dealing with the customers I know what sells, art.</p>

<p>It's becoming clear to me now that people are more likely to purchase a photograph for the livingroom or office if it's printed on canvas or watercolor than if it's printed on lustre or any other photo paper.</p>

<p>Putting 1 and 1 together I was wondering how I should go about getting my foot in the door with making giclee's of landscapes and nature scenes, most important question being how do I find my clients?</p>

<p>Would the art fairs be a good route to start with? Or should I look elsewhere? Should I promote heavily online?</p>

<p>One last question, what about other artists? Should I venture into providing this as a service for artists to have their work done in glicee form as well? I ask this because I have a few relatives that are in the art trades.</p>

<p><br />Thanks,<br /> <br />Dan O.</p>

<div></div>

Hey all,

 

I work at a local lab / camera shop and we're getting some banding on the

prints. We suspect it may have to do with exposure, as the unexposed areas

show no signs of these bands. (By unexposed areas, I mean the pure white areas

of a head calibration print.)

 

Also, the leader card shows no such banding either. I thought it may be

something marking the print that gets exposed onto the image, and then washed

off in the wash tanks.

 

We have cleaned nearly everything, there's not much left to clean, and the

marks are the same, they haven't changed much at all in the past day. I've

cleaned the exposure unit multiple times.

 

We need to get production back up and running soon,

 

Any ideas?

 

Thanks,

Dan O'Connell

Thanks all,

 

To my understanding, the problem at hand is that the previous Lab technician had to quit because of health issues leaving the store owner in charge of the lab. The store owner is much more of a camera guy than a lab guy.

 

We did just run a test strip through today, and compared it against the reference strip. If I'm reading these measurements right, then roughly 1/2 of the readings are out of tolerance, with the worst being 50% out of tolerance and the best being almost dead on target. IE, we're all over the map.

 

 

 

The good news is that my last job was as a quality control supervisor, so I do have some experience with this. Had I known about the test strips, I would have started doing this much sooner.

 

 

I believe tomorrow or the next day we will be changing chemistry as we discovered a lot of tarring in the developer tank while unjamming a leader (fortunately it was the leader for a test strip).

 

 

Once that is done, I will resume the practice of running test strips through the machine on a regular basis.

 

Thanks again,

Dan

Also, would not running control stips result in a problem with only 1 type of film, and leave all the others perfectly fine?

 

Thanks again,

Dan O.

Thanks for your response Ellis,

 

We are not running any control strips in the C-41 processor. I just started here about 3 months ago. Apparently, this was the practice a year or two ago, but was stopped for reasons unknown.

 

 

How would running control stips help this situation?

 

What should be done?

 

Thanks,

Dan O.

Hey all,

 

I'm a lab technition at a local photo lab / camera store. We seem to be

having some issues with Fuji Reala having a strong magenta cast as well as just

general bad color. Contrast is a little strong too.

 

It doesn't appear to be our scanning / printing equipment as I have had some of

my own Reala developed here and scanned at home on my Nikon Coolscan V. I

also develped and scanned a roll of Fuju Superia 400 at the same time and in

the same manner, with completely different results.

 

 

I suspect the film processor is at fault here, but I am unsure as to how to go

about solving this issue.

 

Do you think the cause is the film processor?

If so, how do I correct this?

 

 

The film processor is a Konica CL-KP46UJ-A.

 

 

Thanks!

 

Dan O'Connell

I use it quite often as I prefer Linux over Windows. My thoughts are as follows...

 

Advantages:

 

1. Histogram built into both levels and curves. I cannot express how vitally important this is when working with negatives. Trying to color balance a sunset shot without knowing where to clip the highlights in the red channel for example is a major problem. My other photo editor that I use in Windows, Paint Shop Pro X, does not have this feature.

 

2. It's 100% free as in beer. Considering it gennerally costs about $100 for Paint Shop Pro X, which only has a few features that GIMP does not, it's a great deal.

 

 

Disadvantages:

 

1. Lack of 16bit support.

 

2. Lack of easy scripting, batch processing, and batch renaming as in PSP X.

 

3. Hard to get used to interface.

 

4. Mouse wheel does not zoom in / out unless used in conjunction with the ctrl key, as of the latest version (beta).

 

5. No interpolation in the main window, film grain gets accentuated when viewed at 50% or less.

 

 

Some day I would like to ditch Windows entirely, but that day has not come.

 

Dan

Scott Eaton,

 

I was comparing 35mm color negative scans off a Nikon Coolscan V to 35mm color slide scans off the same scanner, at the same resolution.

 

It wasn't so much the portraits that I was suprized about the color, it was more so the fruit bowl. I have had a damn hard time getting negatives with odd colors to look right, especially when there are no white highlights.

 

When your highlight is orange, it makes it much more difficult to color balance.

 

I was suprised though at how little tweaking was needed with the portraits, at least with window light. I did say "with little tweaking" did I not?

 

It's taken me a while, but I have learned how to get proper color on things like Sunsets and other images without white highlights. What I enjoyed about slide film was that most of that color correction was completely unnecessary.

 

 

Trust me, I don't take my images to Wallgreens. I have my local lab develop the negatives and I scan them. The only prints I get come off my scans, as I have learned that is the only way to control output to my taste.

 

Take a look in my earlier thread for the samples of my first roll of slide film, including the fruit bowl.

 

Dan

Hey all,

 

I just had my first roll of E6 developed this week and was pretty

excited. It seemed as if everything that was bothering me about film

was solved by using transparencies. The colors were dead-on with no

tweaking, and the grain was neglegeable.

 

So, I was picking up some Reala I had shot at my niece's first

bithday, and I asked the guy behind the counter if he sold any E100G.

He told me that he doesn't sell any pro slide films anymore because

the Pros don't use it anymore.

 

I could litterally feel my heart sink at that moment. He went on

talking about how this past year all the pro's in town have gone digital.

 

I walked out with a deep understanding of how Don Mclean felt the day

he read in the paper that Buddy Holly, Richie Valens, and the Big

Bopper had died in a plane crash, effectively killing Rock and Roll.

 

Are we really getting to the point where only snapshooters and

die-hard enthusiasts use film?

 

Have all the Pro's really switched over to digital?

 

I don't know, I've just been bummed all day after hearing that.

What's your take on it?

 

Dan O.

Thanks all,

 

I just scanned some Reala 100 and was amazed at how much more grain there was than in the Sensia!

 

I think I'll be using Provia for our family vacation in Sandbridge, VA this year. It's only ~$1 more per roll than Sensia. I usually take about 5-6 rolls while on vacation, so I figure $4 a roll for Provia, plus $8.50 for development, $12.50 x 6 Rolls is $75.

 

I think I can handle that. :) Besides, the airplane ticket was $250, why penny pinch on the pictures?

 

 

Anyway, for those of you who were wondering how I got such good color and all out of this 3 year old roll of Sensia, GEM.

 

Yeah, my Nikon Coolscan V has ICE, ROC, and GEM, and I used all three on these slides. ICE was kept at low, as was ROC, but GEM only has one setting in Vuescan.

 

You all would be amazed at the difference GEM makes on Slides as well as negatives!

 

Dan

Hey all,

<br><br>

I just shot my first roll of color slide film this past week, and I'm

impressed! I found an old roll of Fujichrome Sensia in the fridge,

one that I had bought in either fall or spring of 2003 to test out but

never got around to actually testing.<br><br>

 

I have a lab in town that sends it out, but it's not cheap. :( Over

$6 a 24exp roll, over $8 a 36exp roll. There's no discount for just

cut and sleeve with no mounts either. :(<br><br>

 

I love it though because the colors are so vivid, and accurate. No

more putzing around with the color channel curves and levels *trying*

to get everything right. It's already right on the film!<br><br>

 

Just thought I'd show you a few shots of my test roll. Anyone know if

there's a cheap place to get E6 developed? I don't need mounts.

Also, anyone want to reccomend an all-purpose E6 film? I shoot mostly

shots of my 12 nieces and nephews these days, but also like to do

nature shots. <br><br>

 

(Click for full size)

<br><br>

<A HREF="http://dansfah.hopto.org/Fruit.jpg"><IMG

SRC="http://dansfah.hopto.org/Fruit.jpg" width=510></A>

<br><br>

<A HREF="http://dansfah.hopto.org/My_Father_sm.jpg"><IMG

SRC="http://dansfah.hopto.org/My_Father_sm.jpg" width=510></A>

<br><br>

<A HREF="http://dansfah.hopto.org/Statue.jpg"><IMG

SRC="http://dansfah.hopto.org/Statue.jpg" width=510></A>

 

<br><br>

<br><br>

Dan O.

The Nikon Coolscan V is a great choice, I have one myself.

 

You can buy it at B&H Photo for $550, but it might be too much of an investment for just scanning an existing collection.

 

If your Slides are in good shape, you can get by with a Minolta Scan Dual IV for $230 new or $190 refurbished.

 

The other option is the Epson 4990 which I also own and use. The neat thing about this option is that it can take up to 8 slides at a time. The Nikon is 1 at a time, which means you have to sit there the whole time.

 

The 4990 also has it's own version of ICE which works pretty good, but often not as good as the Nikon's ICE. You'll need to set the ICE to medium more often than the Nikon basically.

 

 

If you're going to be doing slide or negative scanning, I would highly reccomend Ed Hamrick's Vuescan which is one of the best scanning software's out there.

 

If you get the Pro version ($60 when I bought it) you can save the RAW images that are direct from the scanner. That way if you decide to re-scan them later when you've learned a new technique or method you can just put it in batch mode and walk away for a few hours while it re-processes all the RAW files. :)

 

Dan

"Dan, my DSLR produces 12-bit files. Many medium-format digital backs produce true 16-bit files. The advantage of higher bit depth in scanners is that you can make more adjustments without causing posterization. It has little to do with dynamic range or color display."

 

Edward, I'm full aware of the benifets of higher bit-depths.

 

It's these extra colors that prevent posterization during heavy adjustments.

 

Dan O.

Well, I guess I found the answer to the 12bit/16bit question myself.

 

It's actually 14bit, which allows for 4.4 Trillion Colors.

 

That's really cool, my scanner can output almost 4.4 Trillion more colors than a DSLR, and about 2x-3x the resolution.

 

That's a lot more information about the image!

 

Anyway, I'd still like to know if LZW or any other TIFF compressions make use of the extra 0's in the file that are put in when upscaling to 16bit.

 

Thanks,

Dan O.

Hey all,

 

Was just reading in a photography magazine how today's DSLRs are only

12bit, then upscale to 16bit. Seems like an awful waste of bits to

me. On the other hand, it allows for 69 Billion Colors, as opposed to

8bit's 17 Million.

 

What I'm wondering though is if the Nikon Coolscan V makes use of all

16 bits. It would be a great way to increase quality in images

without increasing file size.

 

BTW, do any of the TIFF lossless compression algorithims bring a 12Bit

image that is scaled to 16bit back down to 12bit file sizes?

 

I have noticed that using LZW Compression I can get file sizes down to

2/3 thier original file size. This is remarkably close to the 12bit

vs 16bit file size difference.

 

Then again, does anyone really need 281 Trillion Colors?

 

 

Thanks,

 

Dan O.

Thanks Guys,

 

I used to work with RAW images all the time. What I found was that they were taking up quite a bit of HD space. Many of them I burned to DVD, but several got the axe.

 

I Should just buy another hard drive. I've only got 160GB of HD space locally, and another 60GB on the Linux File Server. Right now most of that is full.

 

I should just buy a 200GB disk and be done with it. Well, at least for the next year or two anyway.

 

I've already blown close to $300 this month on Photography, so it will have to wait until next month.

 

Thanks,

Dan O.

<p>I wouldn't use the 2400 or 4990 for 35mm work. The optics just weren't meant for that.

 

<p>The 4990 does a much better job than the 2400 (I've had the 2450 and the 4990), but it still can't compete with a dedicated film scanner.

 

<p>Actually, unless you need ICE, and in the case with working with B&W negs you don't, I would just go with a Minolta Scan Dual IV for $218 shipped on Newegg.

<br><br>

<A HREF="http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Manufactory=1843&PropertyCodeValue=0&PropertyCodeValue=0&PropertyCodeValue=0&PropertyCodeValue=0&PropertyCodeValue=0&PropertyCodeValue=0&description=&MinPrice=&MaxPrice=&SubCategory=44&Submit=Property">Minolta Scan Dual IV on Newegg</A>

 

<p>If you need something more powerfull, or with ICE, than the Nikon Coolscan V would be the best route. $550 on B&H.

<br><br>

<A HREF="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=310476&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation">Nikon Coolscan V on B&H</A>

 

 

 

<p>The only work I would do on a Flatbed are prints, Medium Format, and Large Format.

 

 

<p>Dan O.

Thanks Micheal,

<br><br>

Seeing the good luck I had with the color 120 negatives, I went ahead and completed a scan of an old Kodachrome. I really thought it would come out over-saturated due to the preview, but man, it looks so fantastic!

<br><br>

Somehow I've never gotten colors this awesome with my negatives or old family slides that I've scanned. They are just so vibrant.

<br><br>

You're right, it is a real lifesaver!

<br><br>

My only problem now is that I've already done 150 scans without the restore colors filter.

<br><br>

I suppose I can just re-do the best ones, but it's going to add a lot of time to the project.

<br><br>

I found an old box of mostly kodachromes and ectachromes that my parents had stored away since 1980. They date back to as early as their honeymoon in 1965, and as late as my youngest sister being a toddler. So, there's photos from when each of my 7 older siblings were infants, toddlers, and a lot of when my older siblings were into junior high.

<br><br>

Here's one I just scanned tonight.

<br><br>

<A HREF="http://dansfah.hopto.org/AnneMarie1969.jpg">

<IMG HEIGHT=338 WIDTH=500

SRC="http://dansfah.hopto.org/AnneMarie1969.jpg"></A>

<br><br>

It's times like these that make me glad I'm an analog photographer. I really don't think people will be digging shoeboxes of old CD's out of their attics in 40 years and be able to access/read them.

<br><br>

Dan O.

Just thought I'd post some results:

 

 

 

<A HREF="http://dansfah.hopto.org/RestoreColor.jpg">

<IMG HEIGHT=200 WIDTH=200 SRC="http://dansfah.hopto.org/RestoreColor.jpg"></A>

Hey all.

 

I've been trying out this filter option in Vuescan. It seems to work

out great for newer negatives. However, I found some old Kodachromes

that looked pretty crazy with the option. Though, oddly enough they

did look under-saturated when I turned it off.

 

One thing I have noticed is that like several other filters, one has

to complete the scan to really tell what the filter will do to the image.

 

 

Do you guys use this filter?

 

How are the results?

 

Thanks,

Dan O.

Hey all,

 

I bought a Minolta Maxxum 5 in the spring of 2004. I used it a good

deal, but not excessivly so. August rolled around and it was our

family vacation. I shot off about 5 rolls of 36-exp Reala 100 at the

beach during that week.

 

I didn't really use the camera much during September, but when October

rolled around my sister had a good friend who was having a wedding.

She already had a pro photographer, but wanted me to take some candid

B&W shots, especially at the rececption.

 

I loaded the camera with some Ilford B&@ film for standard Color

development (I forget the model #). Anyway, it was 400 ISO, but the

Camera read 100 ISO. I set it to ISO 400 Manualy, figuring the film

didn't have DX Encoding.

 

I shot 4 rolls at the reception, and when I went to take the last roll

out of the camera, the camera died. Wouldn't wind, wouldn't unwind,

wouldn't do anything.

 

Once I managed to get the film devloped I found that it was all

under-exposed by at least 1-1/2 stops.

 

 

I sent it to Minolta as it was still under Warranty. They sent it

back a few weeks later with a listing of all the repairs they made. I

was quite surpized.

 

I don't have that list now, but as I recall it was a new PCB, a new

Winder Motor, and a new Sensor.

 

Well, 2005 was another year. The camera ran great, I used it all the

time (but again, not excessively so). I probably shot off about 20

Rolls of 24 and 36 exposure film over the next 10 months.

 

August rolled around, and this time I again took it to the beach. I

shot off about 4 or 5 rolls of 36-exp Reala, and was quite happy with

the results.

 

 

Last month (October again) I went to load up the camera for some

family event. I loaded the only roll of film I had at the time, a

roll of 24-exp Fuji Superia Extra 400.

 

I put the roll in there and it read "ISO 100". Right then I knew it

was bad. I checked out the sensor. I pointed it at the grass in full

sunlight in mid-afternoon. It read 1/10 - 1/20th of a second at ISO

100 @ F/16. That of course meant it had to be at least 2 stops off,

just like last time.

 

 

 

 

 

So, now I'm at a cross-roads.

 

Do I replace it with a Minolta Maxxum 70?

 

Do I splurge and go for a Maxxum 5D?

 

Do I abandon Minolta all together and buy a Nikon F80?

 

 

The real problem is equipment I've already invested in this camera. I

have:

 

Nikon Coolscan V 35mm Film Scanner ($600)

Sunpak Minolta Deticated Flash ($70)

Minolta 28-100mm Kit Lens ($100 if you buy it seperate)

Used Minolta 50mm F/1.7 in great condition ($35)

 

 

I'm feeling rather lost. The other big thing is that I've sort of

put photography aside for the moment. I haven't really been into it

since August. But this happens with me all the time.

 

I would just go for the Maxxum 70, but I'm not sure if this problem

will ever re-occur.

 

What I really need it for is family gatherings, and other occasions

such as Tourism.

 

Thanks,

Dan O.