craig_shearman1

<p>That's true. But it will reflect well enough for most purposes. And sounds like the OP is just wanting to casually look at some slides. <br /><br />I</p>

<p>It's the tripod head that can move a camera remotely, not the tripod itself. But Bescor makes one that is very low priced. You can find it at B&H. For others, google "tripod hot head."</p>

<p>Shoot as close as your lens will focus and fill as much of the picture as possible. Close down to f/16 or f/22 -- if you are only using this on the web, any sharpness you lose to difraction won't matter, and the smaller f-stop will let you get more of the ring in focus without going to the trouble of stacking. Once you've got a sharp image captured, adjust the image to whatever size you need in Photoshop.</p>

Yes you can do b&w. Just dial all color knobs to zero. Does it have a lens? If not for 35mm you need a 50mm. I am very happy with my El Nikkor 50mm 2.8. Looks like you got a great package and hopefully at a good price.

<p>Sandy makes a good point. A sheet of white foam core or poster board makes a cheap, simple screen if you have room to prop it up.</p>

<p>Ray--If you can't find a used one cheap/free $35 US sounds like a reasonable price for that screen new.<br /><br />Eward--First the screen. Now the projector. Have you explained the three strikes and you're out concept to your wife? :)</p>

<p>Generally speaking, a screen is a screen. Anything that will work for digital should work just fine for 35mm slides. In fact, any matte white wall (white, not off-white, ivory, etc.) will work fine.<br /><br />Traditional screens come in matte, glass beaded and lenticular. All work for film. I've never tried digital with a lenticular screen. Does the lens pattern cause any moire or other interference with the dot pattern (pixels) from a digital projector?<br /><br />If you're going out to buy anything, I would be cautious that anything that says digital on it it probably priced as least twice what it would be if it didn't say digital. I've heard of people paying hundreds or even thousands of dollars for a "digital" screen for their home theater when all they needed to do was paint the wallboard matte white.<br /><br />The screen in the picture you posted looks fine. The wrinkles you see are what you would see in any screen of that type. You may be able to get rid of them by adjusting the tension as the screen is pulled out. $50 U.S. would probably be reasonable for a screen like that new but if you can find one locally you can get it anywhere from free to about $10.<br /><br />Hanimex is a no-name name that has been around with photo product for years. If you have a choice, Da Lite is the best known screen brand, at least here in the U.S. Not sure if they sell where you are.<br /><br />Before you buy anything, try projecting against a wall. It might be all you need.<br /><br /></p>

Don't forget National Archives. Huge photo collection. Much of it searchable online.

<p>I have four F2 bodies, the oldest purchased in 1976, and they are all still going strong. Battery lasts for a couple of years and is only needed for the meter anyhow. Sover Wong is the F2 guru. He's in England (you can google him) but he's worth the shipping back and forth. He restored one of mine to factory specs a couple of years ago and even included a computer printout of the shutter speeds to prove it. Can't go wrong with an F2.</p>

<p>"I can't help but feel the two quotes above seem like a rewording of this...</p> <blockquote> <p>But I also have a bunch of photographers saying my work is <strong>crap</strong>, or <strong>old</strong>, or boring. So I'm not sure if I should be showing my <strong>old</strong> work?"<br /><br />I did not mean to say that at all. Other than the apparent scanning glitches, I think Shawn's photos are mostly fine. I have no problem with showing older photos -- a good photo is a good photo. Adding newer images is just part of the normal process.</p> </blockquote>

<p>As Andrew points out, the details depend on where you live -- countries, states, counties and even cities can have different requirements. <br /><br />But the short answer is that no, you do not normally need a license to work as a photographer. Assuming you live here in the U.S., photography is not a licensed profession like being a doctor, lawyer, account, or a licensed trade like electrician or plumber. There is no test you need to pass and no piece of paper required. If you have a camera you can call yourself a photographer. And if you can get people to pay you for your pictures you are a de facto professional.<br /><br />License or no license, the IRS does expect you to report your income and pay income tax on it. If you are talking a couple of hundred dollars here and there in jobs for individuals, they aren't likely to know if you're not reporting. But if it becomes your primary source of income or a substantial secondary income, they will figure it out. And if you are doing work for other businesses, the IRS will definitely find out because what a company pays you is a tax deduction for them. The safe thing -- and the legal thing -- is to always report the income. The bright side of reporting and pay the tax is that many of your photography and business related expenses become tax deductions.<br /><br />Whether you collect sales tax depends on the state your're in and what exactly you are selling. In some places services -- the actual shooting of photos -- are not taxed but tangile products like prints or frames or photo albums are. In some states, everything is taxable. If you use a third party like Smug Mug for customers to order prints and frames, they can collect sales tax on your behalf.<br /><br />Where you could get into a situation of requiring a business license is if you open a storefront, or possibly even a studio in your own home. That is usually not a matter of being licensed as a photographer per se but as a business in general. <br /><br />I speak only from general experience. I'm not an attorney or an accountant. If you get to the point of setting up an actual business, you need to speak with both. But most people, before they rush out to spend money with accountants and attorneys and on licensing fees, etc ., put their foot in the water to see if they have any business -- aka clients -- before they declare themselves to be a legally established business. As a 19-year-old shooting a few jobs here and there you have the luxury of flying under the radar for a while. You should be no more in a rush to start filing paperwork than if you were fixing a few people's cars in their driveways.<br /><br />Keep in mind that 75 percent of running a photography business is the business side, not photography. Since you're 19 I assume you are in college. Take every marketing, business, accounting, etc. course you can. They will apply no matter what business you end up in (if you want to run your own business). </p>

<p>Shawn, I think you pictures look great. At worst, they are professional level portrait/fashion work, and many have an artistic edge. So don't let anyone tell you they're not. And based on this work, I see no reason why anyone wouldn't want to work with you to create new work.<br /><br />Some of the images are showing up soft, but from the look of it I'm guessing they are bad scans and that the actual images are fine. You do need to rescan those and repost them.<br /><br />As for thinking you're old, I'm 55, so you're way too young to play that card. And as far as alleged models making demands that you meet up with them too late at night, that's not their call. As the photographer, you are the employer, the are the employee, even if they're not necessarily being paid. The photographer is in charge. So you tell them when and where they need to show up if they want to have the opportunity to work with you. They are the ones who are apparently trying to get a break and end up as professional models. You have a portfolio of work that shows you're already there. If they behave unprofessionally they don't get that break. (Even if you're really only shooting on the side, you need to take the attitude that "the photographer" is what you do and who you are.)</p>

<p>"it seems to be increasingly popular to go after a certain look that resembles the appearance of fogged film, with no blacks and a lack of tonal range in general. And they seem to be very popular, I even recall some beginners on photo.net asking how to achieve "this cool look"."<br /><br />I've seen this to. Recently here on photo.net someone posted some sample images of a "look" she wanted to copy. The photos were from some cheaply printed books and magazines from the 1950s and 1960s, all gray and mottled and washed out. Typical of cheap printing of the period but not at all an example of actual photographic prints. The individual just didn't get it that what she was looking at was poor printing, not a "look" that anyone set out to achieve. When I tried to explain this, the explanation was largely ignored.<br /><br />I've seen the same thing with video people trying to create a "film" look by futzing up their images to look scratched or faded or jittery. Yes, that's what an old beat up film print might look like. But it's not what it looked like when it was new. Again, they often don't listen when it's pointed out to them.<br /><br />I think some of this comes because people getting into photography today aren't required to have the grounding in the basic principles of photography that were once required. There was a time when you had to learn about f-stops, shutter speeds, ASA/ISO, metering technques, how to develop film, how to make a print, etc. Today, people pick up a $500 DLSR, leave it in program mode and shoot like it's a big point and shoot. They can get reasonably good images (from a technical point of view) out of the box with no knowledge at all. And once they go beyond that, they are working without knowledge of the basics. Some people don't know the difference between "focus" and "emphasize."<br /><br />Consequently, some people don't know the difference between a good photograph and a bad photograph. If you know how to make a sharp, snappy, well composed photo and want to intentially break the rules, that's one thing. But there are people out there looking at poor photos and trying to copy the "look" because they don't know any better.</p>

If money is no object a Leica m series. If it is then a Canonet GIII QL17. Aka the poor mans Leica.

I my experience the "recommended" amount of chemistry is a tank is "full." That way no question of the film being fully submerged or any problems if it isn't.

Isn't the split image rangefinder surrounded by plain ground glass? Just focus on that.

I spent many years shooting with two cameras for newspapers and still always carry two. I do not find that it slows me down in the least. Under deadline pressures better to get the shot in the camera than to rely on cropping later. And cropping will magnify any lack of sharpness, focus errors etc. Also if you have any problem with your camera the second one needs to be right there in your shoulder. If it's in the car the shot is gone before you can go get it. In newspaper work you are expected to come back with a variety of shots -- wide medium and close -- for editors to choose from so you need both lenses.

Alan gives a very complete and excellent answer. But the short answer is that you can ignore the bellows factor in most situations. It only comes into play when shooting extreme close ups. As long as you're no closer than maybe a head filling the frame you're ok.

Can't you simply put it in full manual mode?

<p>I would definitely return it. If you can't change the aperture setting, for all practical purposes the lens doesn't work. Unless the problem was disclosed before you bought it, it shouldn't be on you to get it fixed.<br /><br />One of the first newspapers I worked at back in the 70s had several C series bodies (both 220 and 330) and pretty much the full range of lenses including both the 55 and 65. I never found the 65 to be wide enough to be of much use as a wide angle, so I much preferred the 55. But both are good lenses. <br /><br />I have a 330 with an 80 in nearly mint condition I got from a fellow PPA member a few years back for $75. One of the best steals I ever got. Added a prism finder to it but still need to pick up more lenses one of these days.</p>

<p>Yes, perfectly normal. Besides five-roll packs being broken up, once upon a time in my newspaper days Tri-X used to come in boxes of 50, so stores would break those up also.</p>

<p>I agree with putting the 24-70 on the full frame camera and the 70-200 on the crop frame. That gives you coverage from (effectively) 24 to 300mm with only a minor gap between 70 and (effectively) 105. Don't worry about depth of field issues -- in newspaper work it's much more important to make sure key elements are in focus than to try for pretty bokeh.<br /><br />I spent 15 years working for newspapers/wires and 15 plus since then in the PR side of the news business. During my newspaper days (back before zooms and AF and digital) I carried two bodies (Nikon F2 and FM) and four lenses -- 28, 50, 105 and 200. That and a couple of flashes were about all I had at the time but I shot everthing from car wrecks to football.<br /><br />Good luck with the newspaper work. IMHO, nothing teaches you photography likes shooting news.</p>

<p>If it's just the battery, there should be nothing to do an estimate on. They charge a flat fee to re-cell and reburbish and it's either on their website or they can tell you over the phone. At least that's what I recall, can't say whether things have changed, but I'm sure they can tell you up front. If you think it's a problem with the head, that could be a different story. Also always a possibility that the charger has died, but those are relatively cheap, basically just a wall wart.<br /><br />I have two high-voltage flash batteries, my Lumedyne Minimegacycler and a Quantum Turbo. The Lumedyne I bought new. The Turbo I got used from a friend. He had it for probably 20 years and had it re-celled along the way. I used it for a while, let it set (along with the Lumedyne) and then re-celled it two or three years ago. Both are still going strong. I don't use them every day so I have to remember to plug them in for a few hours every couple of months. I use them both for run-and-gun news/event type shoots and for on-location portrait setups.<br /><br />What I have discovered is that you can pay something like $500 for a new Turbo. Or you take an old one like I had and get it recelled for around $100. I think Quantum even updates the circuit boards if need be. I wouldn't mind having a couple more, and I'm tempted to buy dead ones online for $30 or $40 and send them in to be recelled. Or there are people selling them already recelled for around $125 to $150. (In that case, the individuals selling them are doing the work rather than the factory, so it's probably just a straight new cell rather than a more comprehensive refurbishing).</p>

<p>Just look for a generic metal protective scrim and you should be able to mount it easily. Does not have to be specifically for a Colortran. If nothing else, Lowel sells protective scrims for their Tota Lites (and maybe other models). You could take one of those and cut or bend it to fit.<br /><br />I used Colortran Mini Pros, which arent' the same but fairly close, at a job back in the 70s. At the time they were an industry standard. Probably half of TV news cameras had one on top. Never ever saw a bulb explode. Not once.<br /><br />No, people don't get particularly hot under hot lights, despite the name. Warmer than under cool lights or flash obviously but they lights aren't that close and aren't on that long to really be a problem. Not little lights like these anyhow. 5K's on a movie set maybe a different story.</p>

<p>I agree that the F2 is a very rugged camera, one of the best ever made. I have four of them. But that's not the issue.<br /><br />The issue is that Anthony apparently bought a camera in good faith tnat it was in working order. If the seller described it as in "very good shape" or words to the effect that Anthony believed that to be the case and then it wasn't, that's what we call fraud. The film not advancing to the point that he has to force it, left unrepaired, leaves the camera essentially unusable.<br /><br />It should not be up to Anthony to spend time or money getting it checked out (by which time the seller could reasonably conclude that it was no longer his problem) let alone repaired. Unless the seller disclosed the problem up front or described the camera as "as is" or otherwise made things clear, IMHO the seller should give him his money back.<br /> </p>