simon_meeds

<p>Dear Jean-Marc,<br>

Thank you for your response. Unfortunately the message you responded to was almost four years old. My friend has now returned to the UK and I don't believe he is now considering setting up a business as I described. Nevertheless I will pass on your message to him in case it is relevant.<br>

Regards<br>

Simon</p>

I'll add a vote for Paint Shop Pro. It's about the same price as Photoshop Elements, but isn't crippleware. It has all its functions enabled, and that's pretty close to Photoshop (although maybe one about version behind). The latest is Paint Shop Pro Photo XI - I'm still waiting to see a review of it.

A blue sky approximates to "18% grey" so an automatic exposure should be "correct". Maybe the underside of the bird was in shadow? If so then the image is a correct representation.

Red eye reduction usually uses several pre-flashes with the aim of closing the subject's irises, thus reducing the area available for reflection from their retinas. This however means a considerable delay between pressing the shutter and taking the photograph. Be sure to hold the camera steady until the shot has been taken. If you move the camera during the exposure and there is sufficient ambient light to register on the film (or sensor) you may end up with a ghostly smudge around the main image.

I am sure others will answer your questions with more authority than I can manage, though you have to realise that the situation may well depend on the country in which an event takes place.

 

Here are some extracts though from an article I read recently which is relevant to your question. The article is from the August 2006 issue of "Market Newsletter", the magazine of the Bureau of Freelance Photographers (based in the UK).

 

"Some celebrities are well known for imposing restrictions on published photos and features, often insisting on 'copy and photo approval' before agreeing to be interviewed.

 

"Serious publicatios tend to resist such flagrant encroachments on their editorial independence...

 

"Other publications - particularly the more trashy celebrity titles... will do anythintg for an interview with an A-list celebrity. If this means allowing the celebs - or their agents - to virtually write the copy themselves and decide what photos are to be used, so be it.

 

"Robbie Williams is the latest personality to attempt to impose his celebrity muscle on the press. He is facing a boycott from hournalists in Germany after banning some photographers from covering his concert for refusing to be bound by a number of draconian restrictions. These included yielding up their copyright in all the photos they took at their concert.

 

"In other words, their work was to be handed over lock, stock and barrel to the singer!

 

"The German newspaper Dresdner Neueste Nachrichton responded to this by leaving a blank space in place of a picture of Robbie Williams, with the following explanation: 'In this place we wanted to publish a picture of the Robbie Williams concert held on July 10. But we refused to do sobecause the singer's management wanted to constrain photographers' work by an adhesion contract which is unacceptable to us. The local chapter of the German Association of Journalists called the restrictions a flagrant example of an immoral contract and called for a photo boycott.'

 

"The leading German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeittung also decided against running a picture of the singer. Instead they chartered a helicopter to enable a photographer to shoot a bird's eye view of the concert arena, which they published after the concert had come to the end of its run..."

> Simon, if i followed that otption for a 17" long image i'd have a

> file size of 1888MB and that's a grayscale 16bit TIFF too big for

> downsizing in CS2!

 

Then your practical maximum optical resolution is less than that.

 

I am sure I have handled files that size (with a slower PC than I have now), but then I don't use Photoshop :-)

 

Sorry if that comes across aggressive, it's not meant to.

The usual advice is to scan at the highest optical resolution available, save that as your original, then downsize to what you need and work on that as a copy.

<p>Here's someone who does something like you intend: <a href="http://www.webphotoforum.com/artist_gallery.asp?fID=8998">Carl Yeager</a></p>

Interesting. It looks at least as good as the MZ-M (ZX-M) I bought in haste when my wonderful Super-A (Super Program) had to go for service just before I went on holiday a few years ago.

 

With those two working Pentax film bodies though I am waiting to see what the 10MP Pentax digital has to offer when it comes along. That and the film bodies should really be a way of maintaining value in the investment in K-mount lenses, and encourage the purchase of excellent cheap Ms and As in the future.

<p>> Most of the newer medium format cameras I have played with are a<br>> little delicate compared to something like a Nikon F 35 or an old<br>> brass framed Perl folder.</p><p>Most medium format cameras are made to withstand professional use, and as such as buit like tanks.</p><p>> Nothing like nearing the end of a roll and suddenly realizing that<br>> at some time during the last three hours the film back cover catch<br>> must have brushed against something because it is now ajar.</p>Get the later backs with two catches - they are more difficult to open accidentally.</p><p>> Further I am finding, at least with the Bronica AE II meter/viewer,<br>> the things eat batteries. Two batteries a day wasn't unusual.</p><p>If switched off (neither A nor M) when not in use the batteries will last a fair time - I can't quote how many shots or months, nut a reasonable time. You can get away with leaving it on for minutes, or maybe even n hour or two once in a while, but leaving it switched on all the time is asking for dead batteries.</p>

Here's a similar discussion regarding a Hasselblad - I added my contribution based on my Bronica system: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FBzD

The card design suggests to me professional/interesting/modern, but using a gmail address implies amateur.

You could try http://www.scantips.com/

I don't know whether it applies in all legal systems, but in all I know, if you took the image, you weren't working under a contract that assigned the copyright to someone else and you haven't subsequently signed over the copyright to someone, then it's already yours. There are various measures for setting things in place that go some way to allow you in the future to prove that it's yours, but intrinsically it is.

Check your site in multiple browsers (at least IE, Firefox and Opera). I am using Firefox and your text (e.g. "* Westfield vs. Cranford Little League Championship * July 21st 2006 * Finished: January 1st, 2006" appears superimposed on the images, thus spoiling both image and text.

 

Your text needs proof reading (e.g "johnny", "non", "pleas", "organazation")

It's down (14:05 BST 08/08/07)

I am no expert on Fuji digital print technologies, though I have had prints done on Fuji Crystal Archive up to 15"x10".

 

www.photobox.co.uk was recommended to me (though I haven't used them and therefore cannot comment on quality). I notice they do prints up to 15" x 10" on Fuji Crystal Archive using FujiFilm Frontier printers and "posters" up to 30" x 20" (76cm x 51cm) on FujiFilm Professional digital photographic paper using a Polielectronica Laserlab printer. Maybe (as I believed up to now) Crystal Archive and Frontier only supports up to 15"x10".

Which country?

It sounds as though you have renamed xxx.jpg to xxx. - try renaming one of the files to xxx.jpg (where "xxx" is the filename) and see whether it's one of your images. If it is then try renaming the others.

Maybe it's like the ETRS; I haven't got a manual, nor is my camera easy to hand, but the shutter release lock on the collar round the shutter release has three positions. The first (with the mark at 9 o'clock) is fully locked), the third (with the mark at 6 o'clock) is fully unlocked, and the second (with the mark at about half past 7) allows the main shutter release to operate, but not the shutter release on the SpeedGrip (if fitted). I haven't tried it, but I think the second position may also lock the cable release socket (?)

PSP is compatible with Photoshop plugins.

<p>You're not getting any quick responses, so I'll have a go - others should feel free to shoot me down. I have some images on Alamy and have just had my second sale.</p>

<br>> 1. Exactly how big are they relative to other stock agencies? Is it<br>

> an independent stock agency, a portal for many small-to-medium stock<br>

> agency or a mix of both?<br>

<p>They see themselves behind only the big two (Getty and ?)</p>

<br>> 2. What's the nature of service provided to stock photographers -- <br>

> do they just serve as an online stock photo catalog or do they <br>

> actively go out and market stock photographs? How's the visibility <br>

> of your work?<br>

<p>Yes and yes. Have a look on <a href="http://www.alamy.com">Alamy</a>. If you're lucky you might get featured on the home page or at least in the "showcase". Otherwise visitors can search by keyword. Try searching for "Simon Meeds" to find my images or <anything> to find images on a subject. They have relationships with distributors worldwide and you can opt into having your images distributed on a per-country basis, changing your selection each year if necessary.</p>

<br>> 3. Do they publish any annual bestselling printed catalog?<br>

<p>Not as far as I know.</p>

<br>> 4. What's the quality of customer service (both buyers and <br>

> shooters)? How quick in due settlements etc?<br>

<p>I haven't had any problems. While I have made two sales, when my storage fees and commission are deducted I haven't yet made the threshold for the first payment, so I can't comment on settlements.</p>

<br>> 5. For those who are registered there - any unique features over<br>

> other stock agencies that you like?<br>

<p>There is no mimum submission. Generally they rely on the photographer to edit submissions, so all submissions are accepted unless they break a few rules (e.g. files too small, many similar images from the same photographer, faulty images). Although there is a storage fee it is never charged to you, only deducted from sales, so there is no bottom-line cost to the photographer. Currently they only accept submissions by post (on CD or DVD), but they are migrating to on-line submission later this year. 25-35% commission depending on the subscription option you take.</p>

<br>> 6. How are the online tools such as search, lightbox etc. compared <br>

> to other agencies?<br>

<p>I don't know the comparison. Try it out at <a href="http://www.alamy.com">Alamy</a>.</p>

<br>> 7. Who do you think are their competitors?<br>

<p>I have no experience with competitors.</p>

PicturesToExe - www.wnsoft.com

"Most photography clubs require conventional film and printing, and tend to eschew digital processes of any sort."

 

This may have been true 10 or even 5 years ago, but in my current experience most clubs are much more than 50% digital (make that 80-90% for the club to which I belong - I am one of very few "still" taking film, and I believe we only have one film-only worker).

 

Perhaps you haven't come across the RPS Digital Imaging Group? - www.digit.org.uk

Puffins also at South Stack (www.rspb.org.uk/reserves/guide/s/southstack/). I went there in the eighties and got within a few feet of them.

 

You have to be aware of their habits. We were in the Farne Islands one year and they were all off out to sea - we saw one flying low across the waves, but that's it. Never mind, we didn't go specially to see them and there was plenty of other life to see... "Adults arrive back at the breeding colony in March and April and leave again in mid-August. Some remain in the North Sea at winter, other move further south to the Bay of Biscay." (www.rspb.org.uk/birds/guide/p/puffin/index.asp)