craig_shearman1

<p>Great job. Proves that it's the photographer who makes the picture, not the camera. I've done some good shots with my iPhone -- it's a matter of working within its limitations.<br> One newspaper photographer I used to work recently had a shot that ran across most of the front page. It was from an assignment where he shot something with his phone as soon as he showed up in order to get something up on their web site quickly without taking the time to shoot with the real camera, download to the laptop, edit, upload to the paper, etc. Never really intended for the print edition. But they liked it and used it and it looked great.</p>

<p>Chris, if finding film is your only problem, there is no problem. You might consider yourself an "old dog" but if you're enough of a puppy to find photo.net certainly you've found <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com">www.bhphotovideo.com</a> and all the other camera stores online. You can have an much film as you want as quick as FedEx can get it to you.</p>

<p>You can use it. But along the lines of what Peter said, don't use AWB and don't do any custom white balance after putting the filter on or the camera will see the warmness of the filter as a mistake and "correct" it back to neutral.</p>

<p>Rather than shooting AWB I prefer to get things as close to correct as possible when shooting even when using raw so that I minimize the amount of post processing. So when mixing fluorescent and flash I set the camera for fluorescent and use a greenish fluorescent gel on the flash.</p>

<p>I normally carry just three lenses -- 14-24 4.0, 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. I shoot everything from news events to conference to weddings to portraits to indoor sports and find that this covers 90 percent of what I ever need. I'm using Nikon D200 and D7000 DX bodies.</p>

<p>I can't recommend a UK supplier since I'm in the US. But for a low-cost wedding like that, you might want to look at printed photo books rather than photographic prints in a traditional bound album. Shutterfly and other US companies let consumers/photographers upload their files, combine them in books of various page sizes and page numbers, add captions, etc., then then print a bound book either in soft cover or hard cover. Pricing starts at about $20 and goes up but even the higher end would be cheaper than prints and a leather album. I presume there are UK companies that do the same. Traditional albums seem to be dropping in popularity in the US but an approach like this might appeal to young couples since it's "new."</p>

<p>My initial thought was to use a Quantum Turbo but their web site says they don't have a cable to match the Metz 400 series. Ironic, since they do have cables for Honeywell Strobonars and others that used 510-volt batteries.<br /><br />If you have or can find a rechargeable battery pack that worked with the Metz, putting in new cells is very doable. I've re-celled a number of things, from computers to battery packs for video lights.</p>

<p>I've used both Tri-X and HP5 and I'm not sure that I've noticed much difference between the two. In my newspaper days, we were supplied with Tri-X, HP5 or even Fuji -- whatever the publisher got the best deal on at the moment. I'm sure if you did a side-by-side of the same subject in an actual print, you could pick out some differences. But by the time pictures went through a halftone screen and got printed on newsprint I doubt that even anybody from Kodak, Ilford or Fuji could tell you which was which. Kodak has made a number of changes over the years with Tri-X, some of them announced, some not. (And Ilford has updated HP5 as well, an indicated by the "plus." It's not the same film as 20 years ago let alone 50, so it's difficult to make comparisons of, for example, HP5+ today vs Tri-X from 1975.</p>

<p>Depends on whether your camera if DX or FX and how close you like to be to the subject. The first wide angle lens I owned was a 28. It preferred it to a 35 since it was wide enough to get a little bit of "wide angle effect" when I wanted to (putting a subject close to the camera to be prominent in front of a building, etc.) but not so wide that it screamed "wide angle" otherwise. I eventually also had a 35 and found it good for when I simply needed a wide field of view but without the "wide angle look."</p>

<p>First thing I would do is put a flash directly into the camera hot shoe and make sure that it's working. If it does, that tells you the problem is with the PW, not the camera or the flash.<br /><br />Next I would connecting the PW to the PC contact on your camera by cable. If it transmits that way, that would suggest the problem is in the PW's hotshoe. If your camera doesn't have a PC contact, try with a hotshoe-to-PC adaptor if you have one.<br /> Definitely call them. Probably not under warranty since this model was discontinued around a year or so ago so you're probably had it at least that long. If they quote you more than maybe $50 for repair, I would keep this one as a receive-only unit rather than spending money on it. You still have two that transmit and while it's good to have a backup you only need one transmitter at a time.</p>

<p>The Zoom unit can probably record better quality sound than your camera, and the idea of putting it up on stage by a speaker is good. But keep in mind that it's a recorder, not a microphone. Its built in microphones are better than the built in microphone on your camera, but it ideally should still be used with an external microphone (two if you actually want to record real stereo but that's icing on the cake).<br /><br />Using a separate recorder also means you have to sync the sound to the picture afterward. There are automated systems for helping with that these days but in a situation like this where you don't have lip movements to match to words I imagine it would be trickier than usual.<br /><br />I could see using a wireless mike on stage by the speaker. You would get the same advantages of putting the Zoom there but by recording into your camera you wouldn't have to deal with syncing up afterward.<br /><br />This is probably entirely a moot point, but if the sound engineer is being paid, he should do whatever the people paying him tell him to do. Maybe the approach is not to ask to be allowed to "plug into" his gear, maybe you could ask him to "give you a feed" from his board. Emphasize that he's the sound expert, let him know what the organizers want, let him use his expertise to come up with it and provide the connection he is comfortable with that can go into your camera.</p>

<p>I used to use Kodak lens cleaner and Kodak lens cleaning tissue but I don't think I've bought either in 30 years. I just blow dust off and breath on the lens, then polish with a clean white cotton T shirt if necessary. Not to get into the protection-filter argument, but I'm usually just cleaning the filter -- I keep a high quality UV/skylight/clear filter on every lens all the time unless using another filter. So my lenses themselves are rarely exposed to dust or dirt.</p>

<p>In general I would agree with Lorenzo about not putting used chemicals back in with fresh. When I do B&W (which I mix in one gallon batches) whatever is in the developing tank goes down the drain, not back in the bottle.<br /><br />But I think things are different with the one litter press kits for C-41. they are rated (I believe) for 12 rolls per liter. When I've done it, I do four rolls at a time in a four-reel tank, so I'm using pretty much the full liter of chemicals and each goes back into its bottle. I would need to do three batches before I would use up the capacity of the liter.. I don't think it makes any difference whether that's one liter dumped back into an empty tank and used again or half a liter dumped back into a half-full tank. The used stuff is going to dilute the fresh stuff, but they still stay it has the capacity for a dozen rolls per liter regardless so it's intended to be reused. <br /><br /></p>

<p>HC-110 was what the newspapers I worked at used when they weren't using D-76. No stop bath -- a minute or so in running water is all it takes. Kodak Rapid Fix. It's a liquid and it comes with hardener. </p>

<p>However you mount it, I would put the power pack as far as possible to the opposite end of the monopod from the flash. That way it will act as a counterweight and make the whole thing easier to balance as it's held, and avoid having a lot of weight on the end that is being held up.</p>

<p>Back in my newspaper days before I could afford to buy anything, I would staple white paper to the cardboard flap from a reporter's notebook (like a steno pad but skinner so it fit in your pocket) and rubber band it to a Vivitar 283 or 285 with make a scoop to throw light forward when it was in the bounce position. I think almost everybody did this. I would also covered the flash with a couple of layers of white handkerchief either to soften the light or cut down output. (Still do this sometimes when using a shoemount flash as a hairlight on a boom). Cut the bottom off a large coffee can and spray painted it black inside and out to make a snoot for my Novatrons. Mounted a light socket inside a coffee can to make a small improved spot when I was a teenager. Lots of times I've clipped sheets of foam core to a stand or just propped it up as a reflector.</p>

<p>Every time somebody asks what do buy for a photographer friend, I have to answer: don't.<br /><br />Photographers always have a long list of things they want but they are very, very picky about what they want. When they want something, they want that exact, specific item. Something else won't do and there is no such thing as "the same as."<br /><br />Things that a photographer want also tend to be expensive -- if they weren't, they would have already bought it. So you run the risk of shelling out a lot of money on the wrong thing. (Using the $35 flash for example, I'm sure you meant well but the cable that connects a flash to the camera costs more than that.)<br /><br />Best thing to do is to take your friend to the camera store (or his favorite photo store web site) and tell him you'll buy him anything he wants to a certain dollar amount. If what he wants cost more, offer to contribute that dollar amount if he pays the rest. That way he will get what he wants and you get credit for getting it for him. Don't worry that it's not the same as surprising him, etc. Trust me.</p>

<p>Are you there in an official capacity of any sort, or just as a member of the audience?<br /><br />If you are there officially, the first option is to work with the sound engineer for the show and make a direct connection to the sound system. Depending on where the sound board is located (often the back of the auditorium) you might be able to drop a cable from your location in the balcony down to the sound board or go wireless. (There are transmitters that plug into the XLR connection on the end of a professional non-wireless microphone and turn it into a wireless mic. The receive on the camera end is the same as a normal wireless mic receiver.)<br /><br />The next best bet is to put your microphone as close as possible to one of the speakers. One quick and dirty trick I've learned from TV crews I work with is to gaffer tape a tieclip mic to the speaker. Again, it can be cable or wireless. Is there an additional speaker in the balcony that would be easier to get to than those down on the stage?<br /><br />Don't worry about picking up applause even if plugged directly into the sound system. Applause is usually loud enough that even the mikes on stage will pick it up. (Unless the main system is just canned music and there are no microphones.)<br /><br />Finally, and this could work even if you're there just as a spectator... Get a "short shotgun" mic and a clamp that lets you clamp it to the railing of the balcony. Point it as best you can to one of the speakers.<br /><br />In all of these scenarios, use headphones to be able to hear what you're getting.<br /><br />As others have noted, you generally want a microphone as close to the subject as possible. Most of the mics being sold as "dslr microphones" are silly toys that slide into the camera hotshoe. They aren't close enough to the subject to be of much use and pick up camera noises. If you want to see how to do sound quickly and simply, turn on the TV tonight and watch the news. You will see a couple of types of microphones in use. For a reporter doing a standup or putting a mic in the face of someone they are interviewing, 90 percent of those mics will be an Electrovoice RE50 ($200) or an Electrovoice 635A ($100). They have been around for decades and are hockey pucks. For sitdown interviews you will see tieclip mics. Sony makes professional ones for about $150 and up, or RadioShack sells OK ones for about $30. TV news cameras always have a short shotgun mic mounted on top to gather ambient sound but it's really their better-than-nothing backup mic for situations where they can't get a mic closer. you'll also see shotguns and short shotguns on a boom pole sometimes, but that requires a second person and again is not as good as getting a mic right in someone's face.</p>

<p>Definitely looks like reticulation from a temperature shift. Wash water temp isn't critical but should be close to the temperature of your chemicals. I typically run everything, both chemical and wash, around 75F.<br /><br />But the question remains as to why you would have problems with the 35mm roll and not the 120. Were they washed separately? Can't explain why one frame of 35 came out OK other than just luck.</p>

<p>No need for a model release -- as others have said, it's editorial use.<br /><br />As for the newspaper you shot for, if you are a staff photographer then it's work for hire. If you are not a staff photographer, then it's your picture unless you've signed a contract to the contrary.<br /><br />Age does not matter. <br /><br />Not a lawyer but I have been a newspaper/magazine editor and my comments are based on standard practice in the industry.<br /><br />In situations where a release is required, Jeff is correct that it's the entity publishing the photo, not the photographer, that needs the release. But most clients require the photographer to provide the release so they don't have to go back and track down somebody they never met. Bottom line is if a release is needed and you don't have one, you probably won't make the sale.</p>

<p>The equipment is fine. Absolutely no need for another lens. If I were to put money into anything it would be a second flash but you can shoot this with what you have. Practicing ahead of time with lighting and thinking about the posting are the key issues.<br /><br />Look at some family portrait books or just photographers' family pictures on their websites to get ideas on posing. With this many people you can't just line them up. </p>

<p>The first thing you do is crank your ISO up to 1600 and open up to 2.8 or wider depending on what lens you're using. That will get you to the borderline of a hand-holdable exposure. Go to 3200 if your camera can handle it without excessive digital noise. But with that kind of light level, you're most likely going to have to use flash.<br /><br />The next question is whether one light source dominates over the other, especially in the area where your subject will be, or whether it is truly mixed. If, for example, there are tungsten spots hitting a speaker's podium and the rest of the room is fluorescent, I would set the camera to tungsten to get good skin tones on the speaker and let the background fall where it may. Skin tones and people are always the priority for proper color balance.<br /><br />The same applies if there are parts of the room that are predominately one or the other -- set the camera according to where your subject is at the moment.<br /><br />If the light is truly mixed, you can do a custom white balance.<br /><br />If you're going to shoot flash, you have a number of options. If the light is primarily tungsten, gel the flash to match or the gel for fluorescent if it's predominately fluorescent. If it's truly mixed, you might just want to balance for daylight/flash and let the background fall where it may.<br /><br />It can get more complicated and sophisticated depending on the subject, the room and what you want to do.</p>

<p>Do what it takes to make her and her mom happy. The point of this type of program is to have the students showing their friends how great the pictures are AND telling them what a great person you are. All it takes is one saying that they weren't happy with you or your work to completely offset all the goodwill you get from the others. Bad news travels faster than good news.</p>

<p>I've used Canon and Epson PictureMate printers. They take hardly any power at so running them off an invertor would be no problem. I think a battery is available for the PictureMate.</p>

<p>I would definitely do something about the orange walls. Paint them if you can, but at least thumbtack up some white bedsheets or anything neutral.<br /><br />For backdrop, there is seamless paper, muslin cloth backdrops, etc.<br /><br />For lights, you'll get a bunch of recommendations but the consensus is usually that flash is best, whether it's studio strobes or speedlights. I would go to <a href="http://www.strobist.com">www.strobist.com</a> and look at the Lighting 101 section. If you already have a speedlight, for about $100 you can add an umbrella and stand to get started. Beyond that the sky is the limit.</p>