ransomsix

lost-luggage.com

 

The clear plastic pages are kind of "dated" as far as portfolios go. I always hated them when I was art directing a magazine. The glare is no fun.

 

I like the lost-luggage books with the inkjet pages... they aren't spill proof or anything, but you can reprint as needed. In my opinion they have a more professional feel.

 

A lot of commercial photographers have gone this route. They are expensive, but really, really nice.

 

I have two, each was a few hundred bucks, but well worth it in return.

The web is important, but a lot of print directors still want tactile books, which I understand fully.

My previous studio was 14'x 35'. I matched the paint to a gray card (18 percent gray or so) and it was perfect. Initially it was painted slightly off white, and the whole place turned into a giant soft box. The gray was excellent. Total control, without eating the light.

I've own both the Turbo and the Lumedyne mini-cyclers.

 

I prefer the Lumedynes, in size, recharge time, and weight. This is compared to a standard size turbo.

 

Both units use the same cord from flash to pack, which is nice if you have both, it makes switching really easy. The Lumedynes are actually cheaper too, which is an added bonus.

 

I regularly shoot sequences with mine, without a problem (10-20 frames at a time with short breaks in between the next sequence) and haven't had a problem. As with any flash, if you're firing away on it heavilly you're going to kill it.

 

I haven't messed with the new turbos at all (smaller size), so I can't speak for them. I've had my Turbo for over ten years, and replaced the cell twice, for $35 each time. It's a work horse.

To add to what Ellis said:

 

A wedding is never one days work. There are pre-wedding meetings, post production, post-wedding image consultations, album prep, etc.

 

Even if you're paying an assistant to do that work, it's still got to be paid for. A wedding is several days work in most cases. Especially to do it well. People think it's easy money... not necessarilly. Also, most geographic areas have wedding "seasons" so you aren't necessarily shooting 52 weekends a year at those rates.

 

What a photographer makes, wedding or otherwise, is going to depend on the market, and the industry. Like any other field, incomes are all over the board.

 

Do good work, and work hard and it will hopefully fall into place.

I've got a few Q-flashes as well as a Metz. Both are good flashes, and put out a quality light. I almost never use the metz these days though.

 

The Quantum tends to be a bit more bulky, and you can't run it off AA batteries (or the like). You've got to use a pack, such as a lumedyne, or turbo for the 200ws model, and a larger pack for the 400ws. Since you're not shooting candid stuff, that won't be much of an issue. With the Q's bare-bulb, and reflector options it gives it a bit more flexibility. If you were always using an on camera flash, the metz might be better, but for what you're doing I'd get the Quantum, personally. Both great light units, but the quantum has a lot of the flexibility of a studio strobe in a small package.

Try americasprinter.com

 

They do a pretty good job, and they're one of the cheapest offset printers out there. A lot of the inexpensive places put out color laser outputs and quality that doesn't cut it.

 

I've used this place a couple times and had good luck. 1000 tri-fold 8.5x11 4-color over 4-color brochures are $229. 2500 is $299.

 

I've done a few runs of various size cards there that have been pretty good.

There's a good reason. I went to school for design actually and art directed a magazine before I became a serious photographer as well. Designers, especially ones who were trained more than 2 or 3 years ago aren't accustomed to dealing with images. Prior to a few years ago, all images went to a service bureau to be drum scanned. Images handled that way are scanned based on the size they will be used, and the prepress people on that end typically handled all the major production issues from correction to sharpening. That still happens with film work, but a lot of art directors are skipping the production prepress experts and doing it themselves, but not really being experienced or educated in what has to go into it. Some of the larger publications still have people that do all this work, but smaller ones the designers are doing it all, and it's hit and miss.

 

For these reasons, even with my larger publishing clients, I rarely send Raw files, and always do color and processing here in the studio. Often I even send sharpened versions in three sizes, in addition to an unsharpened TIFF. There's still room for screw ups, and they happen, but it limits them. Art Directors still often request Raw files, but usually they're more than happy I'm doing it myself and doing it properly. Sending a Raw File is like sending a negative and saying "print this subjectively yourself." Raw Files are digital Negatives. 50% of them is what happens after the fact, and you're leaving it open to interpretation. That's another issue all together though.

 

It just comes down to the fact that digital has only recently become widely accepted in publishing of magazines. They're still learning.

 

With our magazine I ask for processed Tiffs as well as Raw files if possible. that way I see the image as they see it, and if they've monkeyed it up for press I can correct it with the Raw file.

We publish a magazine out of my studio. I also contribute to a lot of different newstand mags. If you're sending files, I'd talk to the publication before hand. While lots of them like digital for it's simplicity these days, many don't know how to handle files. They'll slap them in thinking they're ready to go. A very small percentage of art directors and designers really understand what needs to be done.

 

The problem with sharpening before hand lies in the fact that you don't always know what size an image will be used, and you also run into the chance of someone resharpening, and causing the oversharpened look. I always send unsharpened files, but if it's a new client we have a small one-sheet with file preparation suggestions on it for sharpening etc. It's amazing how many people don't understand that process, but are ultimately handling the images.

 

When we sharpen for our magazine there's no hard and fast rule. The amount varies from camera to camera to get the desired look. We do all of the sharpening in CS.

 

I would send your images RGB and let them do the conversion based on their profiles when submitting.

I have and shoot with both those bodies. I shoot mostly action sports and use the D2h for sequence shots, due to the 8fps. The D200 for most still shots that aren't shot medium format film.

 

The d200 is an amazing body from what I've seen out of mine the past month or so.

The cheapest solution is to use an optical trigger that clips into the hot shoe of your flash. They're anywhere for $30-120 from companies like Wein. The more expensive versions have a bit more sensitivity. The downside is if someone else fires a flash, your slaves will fire. Also, they aren't often that great for daylight. The other downside is you have to fire it with a flash, and often you might not want an on camera light source. Also that miniscule fraction of a second it takes to sense and trigger can theoretically lead to some motion blur or ghosting. I've used them for some good results in the past, and still keep them in my bag for fill lights etc.

 

The more expensive solution is a pocket wizard type remote device, but they run about $350 for a set. Then you can add additional recievers for $150 or so. So basically for a few flashes your looking at $500 to start. I'd suggest gettting a couple optical slaves and working up from there, if you tend to shoot on your own most of the time. For events where other flashes are firing they aren't much good.

 

Typically for skate stuff you'll be using a two or three light set up. Since it sounds like you're looking to stay on the cheap side, look at the Wein opticals. Don't buy any of the cheap ebay type radio devices.

Dust.

 

There are a variety of methods for cleaning sensors. I'm an advocate of never actually touching the sensor. I use a bulb blower, with the camera held lens opening down. Read your manual for how to lock the mirror open, and do it with fresh batteries.

 

After a few years of shooting daily in dirty dusty environments, I've never used a sensor swab, and my sensors remain clean using the bulb blower every couple shoots. I'd rather not touch the sensor unless it's crucial.

 

Unfortunately dust spots on the sensor are part of digital photography.

Your flash duration isn't affected by your switch to digital, and 555's have a quick burst at the

power you're shooting. Assuming you're shooting at 1/250th at 100 iso, your 555's should

be doing the job if you get them close enough and aren't going above 1/2 power, which you

aren't. You are in focus, right? You will need a bit more power during daylight. You may have

to move your flashes in a bit to your subject. Try to keep them under 1/2 power, 1/4 is more

ideal. Try and keep them close without them creeping in the shot.

Duration and guide numbers are two very different subjects. Guide number refers more to light output than the duration of that output.

 

Some people think a flash in itself is enough to stop action, but that's incorrect. Skateboarding and other action sports are fast moving, and to get sharp photos, you need a fast duration to stop the action. A flash with a high guide number may not have a fast duration at that guide number. Theoretically you want to always shoot action at a power that lets you have a duration of at least 1/1000th of a second. Faster is good. If you shoot fast action with a duration of 1/200th, you stand a good chance of motion blur. This principle also applies to anything moving. I know basketball shooters etc are also very concerned about flash duration.

 

As far as fussing with the settings etc. action sports shooters, myself included, almost always use hand held flash meters. I even use it for digital. In roughly ten years of shooting this stuff professionally, I've never used a flash on ttl for anything more than a quick headshot. It's simply not effective to hold lighting rations on moving subjects in the situations we have to shoot in. For that reason a flash like the vivitar is just fine.

 

As far as focussing a hassleblad, it's all in prefocus. The same goes for autofocus as TTL. I almost never use autofocus, unless I'm shooting an event, but even then I just use it to prefocus. I shoot Bronica (when shooting film), not Hassy, but it is the same concept. The shot is set up before hand, composed, lit, and then it all goes down. A lot of planning.

I agree on the Q flash. I've been using one since 1998. It's the best for the money, but you could buy 2 sunpaks for $300 and a q-flash for $1000. If you're on a budget start small.

 

Also, if you did go with a q-flash, I'd steer from the smaller models that operate from the turbo and go to the 400 w/s model. Of course that's more money.

 

As for the metz Paul recommended....steer clear of that for skate stuff. At full power it has a duration of 1/200th while the 285 Vivitar holds 1/1000th at full power. You have to go to 1/4 power and lower with the metz for that. No offense meant to Paul, it's just not ideal for this purpose.

The 285 Vivitar is one of the best action flashes ever made because of its size and flash duration at full power. I'd stay away from the Metz gear for action stuff. Go with a Sunpak 555, and shoot it at 1/2 to 1/4 power, or go with a set of vivitar 285s if you can find them. They hold 1/1000th of a sec at full power. Flash duration is crucial for skateboarding work. Also, I use a couple of sunpak 433's at 1/2 power and they work great. I use q-flashes for my main lighting, but those are a bit costly. Sunpak 555 and vivitar 285's have been skate staples for years. The flash duration on the Metz I have is crap, but I'm not sure about that model. Not the best for freezing action. I use it as a background fill for that reason (45-ct1).

Stay away from flashes with slow durations (sometimes difficult info to come across, but it's one of the most important pieces of info for a sports shooter).

Photoquote, which is a decent reference starting point if you're doing work in a variety of different areas, gives a range of about $150 to $300 for the encyclopedia. About $110 to $225 for a CD ROM encyclopedia with a similar pressing.

 

I tend to use Photoquote as more of a guide than a rule. I usually think about it, then check Photoquote to see what it says, and then make a judgement based on experience. Often times it's more, often less than what the software says. It's just a guide not a rule.

 

It wouldn't hurt to discuss the fee, and see if you can get it up, especially if it's a unique shot. If it's a sunset photo of the Golden Gate bridge that everyone else has in their library, you probably don't have as much ground. In some cases a budget is a budget, and they may say take it or leave it. That's your call based on whether you want the pressing and the credit.

 

There are many people who would jump at it, and many more who wouldn't consider taking the time to call them back worth the money they're offering, let alone preparing the photo for them. Those are decisions only you can make.

I've not had any problem with two Nikon DSLR bodies, but my understanding is that some of the Nikon bodies are rated at a higher voltage than some of the Canons. So you may want to do a bit of research on your specific body. I think that info is actually buried in the manual in small print. If your flash puts out 200V and your body is rated for a single digit, then it's a no brainer.

I rented both in LA with a few lenses I shoot before I bought. The nice thing about the Hassy is that accessories are readily available at any rental house, and the availability of digital backs.

I chose the Bronica system for a few reasons, one of them being cost and the lenses I shoot. Optically they were both great, and under a 10x loupe for my purposes the bronica images were of great quality.

If you want to own Bronica accessories (especially a few years ago) are more affordable. Of course now they've stopped making them so new equipment gets harder to find, but they're built like tanks. I also shoot fisheye regularly, and a hassy fisheye is far more expensive.

If I need a hassy for the digital back I can rent it. I have a 35mm style digital system as well, so that does the trick when I'm not shooting film.

There are a few accessory options that Hassy has and Bronica doesn't, but I didn't require any of them. As long as the system suits your needs I'd say it's a great one.

Do you need speed?

 

A lot of people don't need 8fps. That's the draw of the D2hs. It's a sports or action camera. I love my D2h but I use it mostly for action sequences. 5fps isn't quite fast enough for that work. Single shots I shoot either with another body or a medium format camera. At the same time, if you get good exposures with it you can print pretty large. I've gotten respecatable 2page spreads printed in magazines from it.

 

If you don't need the speed, then it comes down to what sort of file sizes you want, and what you can get a used body for. A D200 will provide larger files, and better noise handling and latitude at higher ISO's. 5fps is fast enough for most people.

I use Quantums mainly because I've got them, and they still work, but if I were to start now, Pocket Wizards are the new standards. Many heads now have built in pocket wizard receivers, some meters have built in triggers so you can fire your lights and meter without using your transmitter. Also, many arena lights now fire off pocket wizard systems.

They're built well, and have a good rep, but you pay for it. Many of the really cheap options aren't worth it, as you get what you pay for.

The D70 fires a pre-flash which isn't noticable to the eye, but it triggers your slaves prematurely. You need to trigger them using either a hot shoe flash, or a sync cord via a hot shoe adapter (or with a radio system). A few companies such as wein now make digital friendly slave devices to solve this problem, but since your strobes have them built in it doesn't do you much good. Unfortunately you can't disable the preflash with the built in flash.

The usual process is to charge a creative fee for shooting, followed by usage (licensing) fees for the images based on how they will be used. You mention marketing, but that can be applied in many different ways, on a variety of scales. A good starting point is fotoquote software, which gives a viable range of what common usage fees for specific usages would be. You need to find out where the images will be used, for how long, etc. Prior to determining a fee.I'm guessing a local spa will be marketing on a relatively small local level, but you never know. They'll likely have an advertising budget they need to work within as well, so that will be another factor in negotiations.

fotoquote requires a fee of about $100 to purchase, but it's worth it if you're doing any sort of commercial work, at least as a guide. I'd feel them out by asking questions about usage first, and see what they're thinking. Go from there. Also, establish your creative fee, so you can be upfront about that.

Magazine (editorial) photography is notoriously not a high paying gig. $150-$200 for a spot photo (2x2") is actually pretty good these days, especially for a magazine of that size. 80,000 circ is a moderate sized publication, but certainly not huge. If you look at photoquote (the industry standard pricing software) those rates show a little low, but photoquote is general a bit high in that area.

 

Most magazines have set editorial rates for photos. You can certainly try to negotiate, but generally unless you're a desirable name, or have some epic photo they aren't going to get anywhere else, you're probably on a wild goose chase. Typically publications have a standard editorial rate. Often if it's on assignment you have a little more negotiating room, but a lot of them have standard day rates as well, plus usage over the day rate.

 

That contract is pretty standard. I shoot a lot of editorial from small pubs to big newstand stuff, and the rates definitely vary from mag to mag, often with little bearing on circ. 80,000 by mag standards isn't huge, and the magazine business in general is slow these days from a profit point of view (with a few exceptions).

 

I've worked on both sides of it, from an editor, to a contributor and currently publish a magazine. If someone came to me playing hardball, especially a new comer, they wouldn't work with us again, no matter how good there stuff is.

 

It doesn't hurt to negotiate, but be reasonable, and understand editorial is what it is. Advertising, especially large commercial work is a whole different ball game.

There's no concrete answer to how much space is adequate, but the generic answer is the more the better. Ideally you want a good ceiing height so you can get overhead lighting in (ie hairlight etc.). If you've got an 8 or 9 foot ceiling that gets pretty tough, unless your subject is down low. I'd prefer at least 12 foot, higher is better in my opinion. A hard floor is a good thing, because you can always put something soft on top if necessary, but things like high heels don't do well with backdrops on soft flooring. I have a polished concrete floor in my studio. Looks very nice, clean and modern, and it's functional as well. As for wall color, ours are painted nuetral gray, to match a gray card. That cuts down reflection or absorbtion of light. Originally they were nearly white, and the space turned into a giant softbox. Not ideal for controlling light. As for natural light, the nice thing is you could take that away in situations you didn't want it, buy window coverings etc. You can fake it if you don't have it, but it's not true natural light. I don't have any in my space, but it would be nice in some cases. I probably would use it rarely in my work, but at the same time it's easy to take away. If you're shooting groups or portraits you need a good bit of length as well, so you can get a decent distance between subject and backdrop, and subject and lens. Then you need a bit of space on the sides for lighting etc. Figure at least 5 feet between subject and backdrop, plus your distance to the camera, and add a bit to that for comfort and you have your minimum distance.

 

Keep in mind your almost always going to wish you had more space. I thought mine was ideal in the beginning, now with accumulating more stuff, and over time, I wish I had a big space. At the same time it's not more than I need, and I've made it work.

Personally I wouldn't pose them. Let them be themselves. The key is to shoot enough so that eventually they loose their guard and loosen up. If you pose them, you're shooting what you want them to be, not who they really are. You certainly don't want the stiff, personality free "portrait shop" look when shooting an eclectic breed like a group of bikers, at least in my opinion. I like to let people fall how they will, and be themselves. Even if it's in front of a backdrop, people will come around and loosen up, and you can see who they are.