michaeldaggett

<p>I'm starting to begin my research on Corporate headshots. I'm looking to start taking headshots for social media sites, mainly LinkedIn, and Facebook. I'm exploring different lighting setups and generally feel a 3:1 ratio for male headshots seems to be the most pleasing, while a 1:1 seems most common for a female headshot. <br>

Is there a particular style that works best for each gender? </p>

 

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

San Juan, PR<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Craig,<br>

Do you think Gentile originally stepped on shaky ground when he manipulated his photo - turned it into a piece of merchandise by adding a border, and a caption? Do you think the dissenting opinion would have sided with the majority had he simple sold the photograph as seen, without the inclusions to make it more resemble a piece of merchandise?<br>

Would photographic paper, versus poster paper made a difference?</p>

<p>Thanks Paulie and Craig - very informative indeed.</p>

<p>Sidebar: If I had drawn the image, rather than photographed it, does that change any of the above responses?</p>

<p>Thanks Eric, I had considered that angle - that was one of the first avenue's I considered when I started my research. <br>

Contacting the NFL directly won't give me a definitive answer, it will give me their opinion, one which I'm sure lies heavily in their favor. Not to say their opinion isn't also provable as fact, but I'm trying to do as much research on the subject beforehand, so the I know how best to ask the question.</p>

<p>Yes you are correct, the other sites where i've read about fair use weren't as clear as this one. It seemed to be along the same lines, but this is spelled out better - thanks for pointing it out.</p>

 

<p>This seems to be a grey area, with most erring on the side of caution. Rightfully so, the NFL certainly has more money to protect their name than most individuals, but does that fear alone prohibit the average person from profiting from their photography efforts under free speech and fair use?</p>

<p>Thanks Matt, that's kind of my thought as well, please guide me if Im on the wrong path. Me selling the print to them isn't an issue, it's their use of the print that may be the issue? Is that accurate? What's the difference between me selling it to them, and them selling it to the public?</p>

<p>What if the person interested in purchasing the print is currently license to sell NFL branded merchandise? </p>

<p>I need some guidance on my most recent project. I've taken a photograph while standing in a public street, open to the public. The focus of the print is the Super Bowl XLVI letters on display downtown, with an iconic monument in the background. I'm interested in selling the print.<br>

I'm certain the NLF has copyrighted/trademarked the XLVI,Superbowl,Patriots and Giant's Logos. The inclusion of these logos do make my photograph more interesting. However, does the fact that they were on display in a public setting offer me the permission to profit from a photograph?<br>

This is on public display during the entire Superbowl Week for everyone to enjoy. There is no ticket, pass or permission needed to view it. Where do I turn for my research on the matter. </p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/15062455</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks all. Much appreciated.</p>

 

Thanks Matt that helps a lot.

 

The 8x10 is being printed by mpix pro - online lab, and they are not coming out as sharp as the 4x6 does. At first I

wanted to say it was the lab, because like you said an 10mp image should make great 8x10's. The original digital file

is sharp and in focus. However the lab is pretty reputable so I want to search for other possible scenarios.

 

From the screen captures posted above, what do the 60.2M and the 28.8M pixel dimensions represent?

<p>slight correction, the5DMKII file is direct from LR export after a desaturate.</p>

<p>The attached screen captures shows two SOOC files. One from a Rebel, the other from a 5DMKII.</p>

<p>Im trying to figure out the coorelation between pixel dimensions. The Reble file is 28.8 M and the 5DMKII file is 60.2M</p>

<p>How is it that the rebel is half the size as the 5DMKII? What am I missing? Does the document size have anything to do with it? The rebel files is 54inches x 36 inches? But the 5DMKII is 15.X23. If I change the document size of the rebel files to something that closely resembles the size of the 5D file, the Pixel Dimension drops to around 2M. </p>

<p>The Rebel file is from a friend, and says it's SOOC. I can not validate it. The reason this came up is because the rebel file prints "blurry" when printed at 8x10.</p>

<p>Thoughts? Help? I appreciate your time.</p><div></div>

<p>TFP Shoot - cc welcomed.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1016223</p>

 

<p>I rented the 85 f/1.2 - it was nice. Perhaps on my to buy list soon. Though even on a full frame you need lots of room indoors :)<br>

I've got my business cards finally - I have a website, I've taken a few TFP shots. All in all I'm progressing slowly. My next step is to find a few models to shoot so that my portfolio on my website is full of pretty people :)<br>

Thanks for the support!</p>

Thanks Scott - I already have the 5DMKII 24-105 and 1 580EXII. So I'm ahead of the game. The tilt shift lens is fun,

but I primarily focus on people, I'm considering the 85mmm 1.2 next, (have it coming in the mail soon as a rental) out

of curiosity, what's your reasoning for the 135 f2 L?