chris_s___hampton_roads_va

I was just about to make this same post--I've been using ProShow Gold myself, but I too am looking for a better alternative , without having to try Producer. I like how easy it is to use, and I initially liked the idea of posting the "web shows," but folks are put off by having to install a plugin to view them. I'd like to find something that would also allow me to output the final presentation as a Quicktime video that I could imbed in a page on my site. Anybody ever hear of such an animal?

After all I've read about paper/ink compatibilities, and the unknown about logevity, I've never used anything other than Epson media with my 4000. I like the Premuim Luster paper, because Premium Glossy shows way too much gloss variation on areas where the amount of ink laid down is light, and you see dull & shiny spots all over the print at different angles...

I've been using ExposureManager.com, and am very pleased.

did you already try to use the white balance tool to sample the building or one of the white garments?

I've been prety pleased with the Wolverine units...I have a 9100 and am getting an ESP. THe only gripe I've had is that I've bent pins putting CF cards in them, but it's probably just my own clumsiness...

does the card still show images back in the camera it was formatted for?

I had a problem long ago on a vacation trying to view & use a card between bodies, when I ran out of space...but only after I'd actually taken a few frames with a second one on the same card.

it might take some experimentation, but one easy thing to try is to duplicate your background layer (assuming you have only one to start with), and apply a really big gaussian blur to the duplicate layer (at least 20 px, but this is where the experimentation comes in). Then, adjust the opacity of the blurred layer. You still have the detail of the original showing through, but a soft glow results with the blurred layer. CHange opacity to taste, and experiment with different blur amounts. For me, this really works best with shots containing lots of contrast.

absolutely...run!

After this kind of build-up, I had a wedding last summer that went late (3 hour rehearsal the night before--boy am I glad I missed that), compeletely unorganized (though the folks are really nice people), I didn't actually get the last bit of money til the reception (trying not to be a bad guy, it's my own fault for not pushing the issue), many shots were ruined from the many flashes of family & friends ( INCLUDING the unofficial coordinator, who told me she had made sure there would be none). 3 months went by before I got any interest in selecting shots for prints, which finally happened yesterday. They were an hour late (somehow I was surprised too), it took over an hour (and a few tense moments of near argument between them) to decide on some 8x10's & 5x7's. RUN.

Save the money for Fong's 2-day set... much of it is a sales pitch on why you should buy his stuff, and getting images ready to send to Pictage. Inquiries of alternate methods are quickly brushed aside, when students ask about other ways. I'm not a big PS expert by any means, but some of the comments about stuff done in Photoshop is just plain wrong, either out of lack of PS knowledge, or in an atempt to persuade shooters to get his little apps... I have, incidentally, heard the same from a few folks about seminars of his they've attended.

 

I felt like I paid a hundred & change for a stinkin' brochure...

 

 

Keep in mind this is simply my opinion, but after sitting through it, I have a hard time taking anything he does seriously.

 

here's a link to a previous thread involving this:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HhCQ

Lori,

after reading Carl's post, my response was a bit short-sighted... (Carl, I still remember that awesome team shot from the Knik Thugs you posted awhile back--wow!) He brings up some very good points that I hadn't taken the time to consider. Of course you (or anyone else) shuld be able to photograph your own child's team. Selling them is where the problem could be, though as Carl said, it's odd that the shooter approached you himself. Seems like the league should be trying to somehow enforce any exclusive deal, if they have nay financial interest in it...

 

Of course, on the other side, if the shooter is in fact a "hack," who is there primarily because he's the one most willing do give money to the league, an opportunity is there for others to shove him out by simply showing better work. IF that is the case, that's exactly what he's concerned about.

 

I have had teams call me from a large soccer organization (and more recently a huge football organization), simply because they prefer my work to what the league has decided for them. I don't normally shoot the team photos at games, and only show up to their games when the team has asked me to, and don't sell anything onsite. If I'm asked by a team to shoot action shots, a team rep gets info from me on where to find them (web gallery, again, only with permission first). That way, these parents can still get work they're not getting elsewhere, and it doesn't look like I'm trying to showcase my work to undermine the league's guy.

 

I avoid agreements requiring kickbacks, simply because they can easily come down to who is most generous with the league, as opposed to quality, and for reasons mentioned above, I see them as really difficult to enforce. I don't have contracts in place with any of the orgs I shoot for; my thinking is that if my work is what it should be, the work will be there. There are more & more parents with DSLRs, so I just keep providing the best work I can.

Obviously this guy felt threatened (maybe "lens envy"...was your lens bigger than his? hee hee...). In my mind, he's got no authority to stop you from shooting a thing. Think of it: how many hundreds of cameras are there at any given day of games? As a parent, I'd most certainly have one with me. I don't even think it's a matter of being on public property. Some "exclusive contract holder" is going to tell me I can't take pics of my kid? Rigggghht. I'm no lawyer, but I'd ignore him.

ditto...it can't hurt, so it's one less thing to switch around in the middle of a busy day!

pretty easy to do in Photoshop...you can make a template & just change name, number, etc. per player...

camera companies holding back on high ISO? As hard as they're trying to stay one step ahead of each other, I'm quite sure one of them would love to be the first to announce it, ahead of their competitors.

 

Oh wait-- they might have used the really good stuff they haven't given us when they filmed the 1969 moon landing on a sound stage... :)

Hey Ernie,

 

I'm not sure a specific form is necessary, I'd just supply a list of your pricing for all of your products & services on letterhead (if you use it), maybe in the form of a letter template that you get with MS Word. That way it's formatted to look professional. IF you feel like you need a little edge, sharpen your pencil a little, but don't give away your work! Beware of those leagues that want to "share" the pot, by getting you to kick back a little for each team/order. Then it comes down to who can give up the most to the league, instead of who can provide the best work. Everyone loses, especially the parents paying for pictures. A few orgs here do that, and I avoid them. ANyway, just my opinion...

 

Hey, there's another SSP here (sspdt.com)--are you guys affiliated somewhow?

Kari Douma & Colleen Donovan

in the filter gallery, you can get a good start by combining different settings of texturizer, bry brush, paint daubs, and water color. It comes down to individual taste & intentions, as there are SO many possibilities.... are you using CS2?

sorry, author is Bruce Fraser.

Real World Camera Raw with Photoshop CS2 (or CS) is the best out there IMHO. It should really replace the Adobe manual.

try using free transform, rt. click & select "perspective," & drag a top corner outward...usually it helps with that kind of issue...

you might be able to get close to the effect you're looking for, using filter/distort/spherize...

It may not help your cause--doesn't the teleconverter take a stop from you, effectively making your 2.8 an f4 anyway?

winkletwebdesign.com?

80-200 2.8 is a good lens; it's served me well. I'm not sure how it would be with the D70, but with the D2h & D2x, it's really quick.

I find I've gotten the best results in Aperture Priority mode (I typically set it at 2.8 o4 4)and center-weighted metering, at least in daylight.

oops---above should read "hard to find a reason NOT to..."