craig_shearman1

<p>I'm looking at a picture of your camera and it has a built in flash. So if you want to use a flash to trigger an off-camera flash with an optical trigger, you can use the built in flash.<br /><br />But I agree with Rodeo that using an on camera flash as the trigger is not the best way to go. You can pick up a radio trigger for less than the cost of a flash unit. <br /><br />Using a flash as the trigger isn't necessary and it causes some problems. The on camera flash will contribute to the exposure, potentially washingout out the light from the off camera flash, defeating the purpose of using an off camera flash. You can use the on camer flash as fill if you dial it down, but on camera is still not the best position. You can dial is down to where it does not contribute to the exposure and only puts out enough light to trigger the off camera flash, but then you'd might as well just use a radio trigger.<br /><br />David Hobby of Stobist fame has been recommending Phottix radio triggers lately as a very good value. there are other brands for less that many people are happy with. Even a pair of basic Pocket Wizards can cost less than a flash.<br /><br />And you can always just use a long sync cord, though you may need an adaptor if your camera doesn't have a PC contact.</p>

<p>Since you are giving them the files for the purpose of making prints, I see no reason not to give them the highest quality files possible. That means go ahead and use 12. The point isn't whether 12 is much different than 10 but rather than there's no reason not to go with 12. Memory is cheap these days -- I saw a 64GB thumb drive this week for $12.95. 4GB DVDs are maybe 25 cents.<br /><br />There are other photographers who only give their clients low resolution files so they need to come back to the photographer to buy prints. The risk of that is that clients will make prints anyhow, and end up showing their friends poor-quality prints that don't reflect the quality of the photographer's work.</p>

<p>In referring to the "little lever" do you mean you have removed the bottom plate? <br /><br />I have a jammed shutter on an FM myself and fixing it is on my to-do list. But when I googled a couple of years ago there was a page somewhere that addresses this problem and how to fix it. My memory is that it involves removing the bottom plate and doing something inside -- perhaps the level you are referring to.<br /><br />If you can fix it yourself, do so. If not, you can probably buy another FM body for less than what it would likely cost even to get someone to look at it let alone fix it. My FM is one of my favorite film cameras along with my four F2 bodies. But even back when they were new, my newspaper colleagues considered the FM a "disposable" camera because it was cheaper to replace than repair.</p>

Hurricane on US east coast yes. Typhoon in tropics no.

<p>Other issues aside, how could the inside of your camera get wet? Enough moisture, let alone actual wetness, to cause something like this would also likely significantly damage the camera and cause the film to jam. I've never in 40 years of photography had the inside of a camera get wet, not even when shooting in pouring rain, at the beach or out on a boat.</p>

<p>Are all of these shots where this happened made with flash? If so, you simply have the shutter speed set too high and there is nothing that needs to be serviced. Set the shutter speed at 1/60 while shooting with flash and you'll be fine. If this is happening without flash, then you have a shutter problem. As Glen suggested, it might work itself out. Unless it is a high end expensive camera, the cost of repair would likely exceed the cost of replacement.</p>

<p>Here's a basic Sekonic brand new for about $100. You can find something used much cheaper but you want something recent so you don't get into the obsolute battery issues others have mentioned.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/200224-REG/Sekonic_401_208_L_208_Twin_Mate_Meter.html">https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/200224-REG/Sekonic_401_208_L_208_Twin_Mate_Meter.html</a> <br />I agree that a spotmeter can be useful in landscape work. But there are also tricks to using them so you're better off starting with a standard meter.<br />I do not trust smartphone meters. I have one on my phone for fun. Sometimes it's right on. Other times it's completely wrong. Part of the problem is that it sees what the smartphone camera sees, and smartphones have very wide angle lenses. So it's difficult to be precise in what you're aiming it at -- you could be taking in half the sky (which is bright), for example, and underexpose. Or picking up something else that throws off the reading.<br /><br />You don't need a meter at all if you remember the sunny f/16 rule and follow some of the old guides that used to be printed on film boxes or instruction sheets. </p>

The most important thing is that the heat from the brighter bulb could damage your slides. Anything from fading to melting if the projector can't dissipate the heat. Bite the bullet and buy the correct bulb. Or dump this projector and get s standard Kodak Carousel.

<p>"Plastic sleeves are strangely expensive where I live and they don't seem terribly convenient to store alongside their prints."<br /><br />Where do you live that you can't get pages at a reasonable price?<br /><br />PrintFile pages have been the industry standard for storing negatives and slides for 20 years or longer. They are very conveniently stored either in three ring finders or in hanging file folders in a filing cabinet. I have rarely seen anyone do otherwise.<br /><br />Before plastic pages, a lot of people used glassine envelopes. That was a sort of wax paper. But you ended up with long skinny envelopes that were awkward to store. And the film had to be taken out to make contact shees. <br /><br />Film is almost always kept in strips. Six frames is standard for 35mm and usually four frames for 6x6 MF. <br /><br />Some labs would cut MF negs individually and you would put them on special cardboard "cards" for printing that were designed to fit in special negative holders on the labs' equipment. But single frames are a huge pain to handle on a regular darkroom, so you don't want to do that.<br /><br />I highly recommend that you stick with PrintFile. Next to that look for glassine envelopes. </p>

<p>Hot shoes are pretty standardized and both flash manufacturers and radio trigger manufacturers have been making units to fit them for years with no problems. If both CC and Rodeo are having trouble with YN triggers fitting, that sounds like a design problem.</p>

<p>Started serious photography in high school myself (junior high actually). I highly recommend a DSLR for someone in your position. It's the most versatile option and pretty much the standard. I would not bother with a bridge camera -- you can get an actual DSLR for just a couple of dollars more. The V1 is more a specialty tool -- if you want something like that later, go for it. But get a DSLR to start with.<br /><br />As I've often said on "what camera to buy," stick with Nikon or Canon. Other brands are perfectly fine and can make great pictures. But Nikon and Canon have the largest market share and therefore the widest range of lenses, accessories, etc., not only from their own lineups but from all the third party manufacturers as well. And they have entry level models that are no more expensive than the other brands, so really no reason not to choose them. I bought my first Nikon (an F2) at age 16 before I bought my first car. That was 40 years ago, it still works and the lenses from back then work on my current Nikon DSLRs. <br /><br />Good point was made about learning the business end of things if you want to do photography professionally. Consider that when you choose your major in college. But for now you need to learn enough about photography to know whether you really want to pursue it as a career. The proper route is to learn photography, learn that you love it and then you decide to make it a career. You don't want to be one of those people who say I'm opening a studio, what kind of camera do I buy?<br /><br /></p>

<p>By headshot, do you mean a tradtional head and shoulders portrait? Or do you mean a model/actress headshot? The style for the two is different. And with either you might be shooting for just one finished image or the client might want a variety of shots. (An actor/model might want medium length or full body shots in addtion to the basic closeup.) And more images means more time both during the shoot and after.<br /><br />In my experience, most photo jobs involve about three times as much time as is spend shooting. You start the timeclock with the first contact from the client, and any addtional communication back and forth. Then there's getting ready, which might mean just turning on the lights in the studio or it might mean going out to scout a location. Then there's the shoot. And after that there is editing, post processing, etc. with the images. Followed by delivering them to the client, getting the clients' selections back, addtional work on the images and delivery. And then collecting your payment and, if need be, depositing the check. It adds up.<br /><br />For a one-hour headshot or portrait session of one person, my ballpark would be a minimum charge of $250, plus more for prints (for the clients who still want them). That works out to maybe $80 an hour. And you still have to take amortization of your equipment into account -- if you have even only $2,000 worth of equipment (camera body, lens, lights) and only shoot one $250 job with it, you've lost $1,750. <br /><br />And don't forget how much you paid for the computer you edit the images on, any extra hard drives, the printer you print the invoice on, your Internet service.</p>

<p>If the images are merely reproductions of your artwork, then they aren't really photos as such. They are just documentation of what the artwork looks like. If the artwork is flat, like a painting or drawing, then the image has no real significance of its own. If the artwork is three dimensional like a sculpture, you might argue that the lighting, composition, etc. has some influence, but it is still primarily a documentation of the artwork.<br /><br />Based on that, the photos most likely have no value in and of themselves, IMHO. Rather, it's the artwork that has value, and that's what someone wants to reproduce in a calendar, clothing design, etc. When someone makes that kind of use, you should be pricing based on the value of the art, not on what a photographer might get for a quarter-page reproduction of a photo. And the number could likely be significantly higher than what a regular photo might bring.<br /><br />If the photo is for a news organization, you should not be charging at all. You are the one receiving value in that situation, since they are providing the publicity that makes you "known internationally as an artist" (and keeps you known if you already are).<br /><br />I would say that magazines most likely fall under the category of news organization, along with newspapers, news web sites, TV news programs, etc. <br /><br />With books, it depends. For an academic textbook about the "great artists of the world" or great artists of a particular style, I would say you should not expect to be paid. Again, it is publicity that helps establish or maintain your reputation. For a book called "The Artwork of Chris Maynard," that's a commercial venture that hinges entirely on being able to show your artwork. But again, in that case you should be getting paid for granting the right to the publisher to make money off your artwork, not for the comparatively insignificant amount a third party photographer might receive for taking photos of your artwork.<br /><br />In short, it's the art that has value. The photos of the art (unless there are details I'm not aware of) are just a mechanical reproduction of the art, something used to get art from the museum wall or pedestal onto the printed page.<br /><br /></p>

SmugMug is not a stock agency. It's a site where photographers post there own images either for the public to see or clients to orders prints and downloads. I suppose you could use it to run your own stock service if you could drive enough traffic there. But it's nothing like Getty or shutterstock.

From the time and temperature you used you should have gotten the film edge numbers even if the roll had never gone through a camera. Sounds like problem with having made the developer from scratch. I suppose there's some fun in doing that. But for my money just buying D-76 is much easier and less likely to have a problem.

<p>Assuming you're in the U.S., the images belong to the photorapher in the absence of any contract saying otherwise. Therefore he can do pretty much what he wants with them.<br /><br />But I'm not sure how photos of Town A's even could be used to promote Town B's event. Is Town B going to say "we're having something that looks like this"? <br /><br />I'm guessing the photos are somewhat generic. If you're talking about a carnival, for example, and the photographer has pictures of people on carnival rides, that looks the same regardless of where it happens. Town B using carnival pictures from the Town A's photographer would be no different than if they got generic carnvial photos from a photographer in Town Z on the other side of the country. If the event is something more specific to the town, things could be different.<br /><br />WW is correct that model releases can be required for people seen photos put to commerical use. But using photos to promote an event does not necessarily constitute commercial use. If they are handed out to local newspapers, for example, as publicity photos, that is editorial use. And editorial use does not require a release.<br /><br />All that said, any ethical consideration is on the part of Town B, not the photographer. If Town B shows photos from Town A and claims they are from the Town B event, that would certainly be misleading.</p>

<p>Watch TV on any given night and you'll see a huge mix of video and even film formats edited together. Some material may have originated on 1080 60 fps as you say. But some of it can be 60i and some 60p. Then there are other HD formats, and standard definition, which was shot at 30 fps (actually 29.97). Not to mention international video format different than US. And of course movie film at 24 fps.<br /><br />Bottom line is that just about anything can be edited with just about anything and will ultimately look fine on the screen.<br /><br />As far as conversion software, most modern editing software can handle most formats and automatically convert them to whatever your output format is.</p>

<p>In film days, these were done any number of ways. As one person mentioned above, you could put a piece of nylon stocking over the camera lens or enlarger lens. A whole range of filters were made that did the same thing. There were soft focus filters, fog filters, etc. You could also simply breath on the front of the lens to fog it up for a few seconds.<br /><br />All of those can still be done today, or you can get the same effects in Photoshop. But keep in mind you could spend an hour fiddling in Photoshop to create an effect you can do in a matter of seconds in the camera.</p>

<p>Hiring an attorney to write a contract from scratch will cost more than you're likely to be paid. There are plenty of standard photography contracts that can cover this. Look online for ASMP forms. But everything depends on the details of what you're talking about here.<br /><br />By "I was hired by a salon to do photography on a part time basis" do you mean you are an employee but part time? Or do you mean they want to contract with you as an independent photographer to shoot jobs for them from time to time?<br /><br />If you are an employee and your job is to shoot pictures, then the images you create (at least in the US) could fall under "work for hire" where you have no rights to the images unless you have a contract saying that you do. If you are working as an independent photographer, then you own the images in the absence of a contract saying otherwise. The two situations are 180 degrees opposites.<br /><br />"The only stipulation is that if it ever goes to a national or multinational scale, we have to have to discuss further compensation."<br /><br />No, that's not the way it works. You have to have that spelled out at the beginning or you can easily end up arguing over it later.<br /><br />What do you mean by salon? Hair salon? Nail salon? Arts salon, which can mean art/photography gallery? There are lots of "salons" with different meanings.</p>

<p>Hasselblad has always been the gold standard of medium format. The only reason not to buy it was that back in the day it was always outrageously expensive. But today you can pick up used Hasselblad gear at reasonable prices not much more than other brands.<br /><br />Personally I can't see paying the price of a used car for a MF digital back when you can get very good quality out of a DSLR. But if you're going to go that route, there are probably more options available for Hasselblad than other brands.</p>

<p>Sounds to me like you have the camera in auto white balance, or you are using one of the all-automatic program modes that forces it into auto white balance.<br /><br />Put the camera into either manual, A, M or P mode. Also go into the WB setting and put it into manual WB at either 5500 or daylight (which are essentially the same). Shoot that in daylight and see what you get.<br /><br />Auto WB will constantly adjust the WB setting to get what it thinks is normal. So it could range anywhere from mabye 4500 to 6500 in "daylight." Doing that cancels out any warm reddish look of sunset, cool bluish look of a winter day, etc. <br /><br />Personally, I never use auto WB, with the rare exception maybe of extremely mixed light conditions. <br /><br />Both daylight and flash are plus or minus 5500, so you can leave your WB on that most of the time. The two most common reasons to set it to anything else are shooting under tungsten light (household light bulbs can be as low as 2800 and standard photo lights are 3200/3400) or under fluorescent.</p>

<p>Leave it alone and it will be fine. In fact, it's probably already dried out since you posted your message. Definitely do not take anyting apart.<br /><br />What happened is very common, and it happens in both the winter and summer. In the winter, it happens when you come in from the cold into a warm or humid environment. Classic example is having your camera maybe in the trunk of the car, then coming into a heated basketball gym filled with sweaty players.<br /><br />Many years ago I was shooting with my 124G in the snow and a couple of flakes melted when I came inside and got between the groundglass and the fresnel lens. I made the mistake of taking it apart to dry it instead of being patient. Was easy to take apart but took forever to get back together. And I never did get the pop up part of the hood right. To this day, I use a piece of gaffer tape to hold the hood up.<br /><br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>I would strongly recommend that you buy a DSLR.<br /><br />There are many fine mirrorless cameras, they can take great pictures, many people love them and for all we know they may become the standard camera of tomorrow. But the fact remains that a DSLR is still the more versatile camera currently and is the standard camera for most photographers today. <br /><br />IMHO, a mirrorless camera is a special tool for special jobs. The smaller size and lighter weight can be an advantage. There are many subjects that don't require the features of a DSLR. There might be times when I would choose to take out a mirrorless. But if I were going to only own one camera (or were choosing my own main camera beyond a P&S or bridge camera) it would be a DSLR.<br /><br />Personally, I have a Nikon DSLR system -- two bodies and about 15 lenses, plus lighting gear, etc. When I don't want to carry the big stuff I have a Canon Powershot G15 and, of course, my iPhone. I also have Nikon 35mm SLRs and a whole basement of just about everything from a Leica M3 to a Calumet 4x5 view camera. I consider each of those a specialty tool as well. There are things the view camera can do that an SLR/DSLR can't, for example. But I wouldn't take it to a football game or news conference.<br /><br />I would recommend an entry-level Nikon or Canon DSLR with kit lens to get started. They are small and lightweight, unlike a big bulky pro SLR body, yet they would give you the versatility of a DSLR and get you into the excellent Nikon/Canon systems.<br /><br />In addition to recommending DSLR, I highly recommend sticking with Nikon or Canon. Other brands are just fine but Nikon and Canon have the widest range of lenses, accessories, etc., not just from Nikon and Canon but from all the third party manufacturers as well. And for entry level models the price is about the same.</p>

<p>I thought the "pictures on magnetic tape" article was going to be about an early proposal for digital/electronic still photography. He does touch on the concept of what would amount to still photo frame grabs from videotape. But really what he's describing is just the initial rollout of videotape, not electronic still photography. He did correctly predict that video would replace movie film for TV newsfilm.</p>

<p>At that price, how much do you have to lose? But for maybe $200 you could get a Mamiya 645 or Bronica ETR with lens, and either would be of far better quality that a Kiev. You could definnitely get a Yashicamat or Mamiya TLR. Sort of depends on whether this is just a chance to pick up a cheap amera or if you seriously want to get into medium format (assuming you're not already).<br /><br />I would at least bargain them down as much as you can.</p>