ellis_vener_photography

I highly, highly, highly recommend you read "The War Of Art" by Stephen Pressfield about what it takes to be a professional in any field but especially the arts.

If you did not take business classes there is always community college or night school. But if you don't have the entepeneural drive or impulse no amount of education will help

If your camera has liveview use that. If your camera can accomodate screw on diopters look into that option.

The worst trouble I have gotten by making photos was developing an insatiable addiction to making more photographs. The addiction is terrible and repeated interventions by family members, friends, and colleagues have failed to loosen its grip on me.

Go as high as you need to get the picture. The picture is the thing. Everything else is secondary.

Nikon D4, D4S, D5 or Canon EOS 1D X or 1DX mK II

Imaging-resource.com is also extremely reliable as are the reviews at lensrentals.com

Do you know about PPA's indemnification insurance for wituations like this? A little late now but it might be worth investing in for the future.

I once owned the wide angle version of the Fuji 690 camera. I loved it. One day an assistant dropped it (but it was in a camera bag and the shutter releas mechanism jammed. I tried for months to find someone whi could repair it but no luck. The model III version was the current version and Fuji no longer stocked parts for the II series. This was in the late 1990s. I cannot imagine that the situation has gotten any better nearly 20 years later. Get a low mileage III generation version if you can find one but be aware that repairing will be expensive if not impossible. Still: They are fantastic cameras with great lenses.

The Sinar backs are far slimmer and will slide easily underneath your groundglass frame.

I'd bite the bullet and go for the D500. You'll have approximately 2x the linear (height and width) resolution and much better signal to noise ratio. You might also appreciate the tilting preview screen.

Brian has it right.

It should fit but also look for either a Sinar 6x7cm, or Sinar Vario II back as well.

"I thought the point if a calibration tool and calibration software was that I wouldn't have to manually adjust the calibration results to match a print?" Hi Kryn, The point of calibrating is to choose a consistent set of values that you want the graphics system (gpu and display) to follow. What profiling does is to process a target created using those calibration values through the graphics system, have the actual onscreen output read by the colorimeter and the profiling software then compares the target patches numbers that make up each color in the target to what is actually displayed and generate a table of algorithms to process the original input values so that the output numbers either match or match as closely as possible the original numeric values you specified. The purpose of calibrating and profiling a display is so that you see an accurate version of the image you are working on. Profiling a printer or using a profile for a specific printer, ink and print media combination works basically the same way: the profile is there to ensure that the actual colors and tones in the print are reproduced neutrally - that is to remove any inherent bias in the combination or paper, ink, and printer. But matching what is on the display to the print is a bit like the idea of parallel universes in physics - the print and the computer are not "aware" of the other's existance. In other words, the computer's display system has no way knowing the print exists or what it looks like. To get around this we as operators have to tell the image processing program to use a printing profile to emulate what the print will look like (AKA "soft proofing"). And even then there will be some differences due to the reality that on screen we are looking at a virtual image Created by backlit projection while the print is a solid object illuminated by the light falling on it and being absorbed and reflected. As I learned from John Paul Capnigro and R. Mac Holbert, the print is the proof. " If I have to do that I might as well not calibrate and adjust display settings by sight." I agree! And using the ICC color profiling system eliminates the need to do that. But as Andrew Rodney points out in at least one of the videos he posted a link for, setting the right calibration values that will be used for your display profile and using the correct profile for your printer, ink, and media combination solves almost all of the technical problems. In the end you have to be pleased with the way the print looks. Only you will be able to see any difference between the display and the print and then only if you are also looking at the print very controlled lighting conditions..

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1958/11/08/a-woman-entering-a-taxi-in-the-rain? mbid=nl_Sunday%20Longreads%20(48)&CNDID=5209402&spMailingID=9277130&spUserID=MTA5MjM5NTM5NTAyS0&spJobID=9623 66308&spReportId=OTYyMzY2MzA4S0

Last week I started working with the Adorama Flashpoint XPLOR 600 TTL (this is the version sold in the USA of the Godox unit. There is also an. TTL version as well) I am extremely impressed with it. It integrates perfectly with the Canon E-TTL system in my 5DS, including HSS mode It doesn't yet have (but hopefully some day will) have an AC (mains) power option. No ida of how it will do HSS work with your camera since you use neither a Canon, Nikon, or Sony camera.

For a Newman-Snclair 35mm motion picture camera is my guess.

Make people interested.

The lgbting hoestly isn't very interesting, and thqt is liy by design.. If you want to see interesting lighting in fashion work look at: Irving Penn, Albert Watson, Nick Knight, and Chris Callis. In editorial portrait lighting look at Dan Winters, Gregory Heisler, and Mark Seliger.

Lubov gives Lisette Model the final word on Susan Sontag and "On Photography". To Eva Ribenstein who had a copy of it: "This woman, she knows everything but understands nothing."

deleted.

So in your opinion: 1) Is photography hard or easy? Both! But doing anything well takes work. 2) How does either of these characterizations influence the way beginners approach photography? When I started being interested in making pictures as opposd to casually snapping pictures of places I had visited, the difficulties of making an a photo that was interesting to me is one of the things that kept me going. If it had been easy I likely would have moved on. On the other hand I felt like people who made pictures that I found interesting and intriguing seemed to do it repeatedly quite easily and I guess I wanted to see if I could figure out their secret. And eventually I did figure out the twin secrets of making good to great interesting photos: dig into your self and simultaneously learn both the craft and what it really means to make art. 3) Should practitioners take offence if photography was said to be easy? Taking pictures is easy. Making photographs is harder. 4) Should we lean more toward "Photography is easy"? Is it?

It isn't what you photograph, it is how you photograph them, and that "how" doesn't refe to techical things r even technique really, but the "how" that comes from you being you.

Do you know his books? He is a fine writer about what is involved in being a photographer. I particularly like "Why People Photograph".

There is plenty in Diane Arbus' sex life throughout her life that a writer can have a field day with if like Bsworth they choose to go in that direction. What Lubow brings out is how that intertwines with the larger aspects of her life and her work. More interestingly is how who she was as a person inflected her work and inside that the photographic decisions she made. One thing I was not previously aware of as how much in demand she was in the early and mid-sixties as an editorial photographer and what set her apart from her contemporaries. I never saw "Fur" or had much interest in it.