corrie sweiger

Dont know about the plexiglass...but if youre in toronto, go to ikea for the white fur/sheepskin rug. I think theyre 19 for the small and 49 for a really big one.

Right now they're my only form of advertisement, other than my website, and they work TOO well.

I have two small children-and right now im taking time off from full time work to be home with them. I get too many calls as it is. So in my case, they work wonderfully. I give them to clients, and they give them to their friends etc. Mind you im not printing full brochures, just prints.

I get 5x7 prints made with information on them, session details etc. -i use a different one for differnt kinds of things.(ex. one for children's portraiture, one for adults, one for weddings etc)Kind of like a promo card.

Very easy to design in photoshop.

 

Kind of gives the client a taste of what their prints will feel like. If they request a price sheet, i staple it to the corner.

But then again, my packages are pretty simple.

If you had a ton of information to squeeze on there, it would look messy.

I use my medium format for location portraiture (along with a 35mm)- i really like the nice big negs too.

 

I honestly don't know if i'd bother with a polaroid back for this sort of thing-first because theyre quite costly. And even though from an artistic point of view YOU like them, your client wont neccessarily.

 

If you really want to find out if people would be after those cool polaroid frames, you can test it without buying the back.

 

Take an ordinary photo you took and place it in one of the 'plug in' frames for photoshop, and have some samples printed.

 

Most clients would think its the real thing. And if you get a lot of people asking for it, then maybe you'll have a better idea whether or not you should go get the back.

 

My favorite film? For black and white, i prefer ilford fp4 125 and kodak tmax 400 and 3200. If youre going to use a c41 b&w though, i'd take the kodak over the ilford in this case.

 

Also depends on what kind of grain youre going for. I personally love the grain of kodaks tmax 3200, but i rate it at 1600.

For color, Fuji NPH is beautiful, and realia is gorgeous for a slower film.-so is kodak 160vs(which i like to rate at 100).

 

It really depends on if your subject is moving, if youre using natural or artificial lighting, and how much contrast you really want.

Thanks Rich.

I dont think i'll be able to go digital for quite a while, i love film. I like spending time in my darkroom more than i do at the computer ;)

 

I still get a high off of thumbing through my negatives, and watch a print come to life in the tray(and it could just be the chemicals that get me high...haa)

 

I know someday i MAY have to go digital just to stay in business, but not until they discontinue film! (and pry my film camera from my dead lifeless fingers...)

 

No, im kidding. Digital isnt all bad. Already i do scan my negs and remove all the 'fuzzies' i photoshop. I have to admit that photoshop is fun, a LOT of fun...

For me though, digital wont happen for quite a while. Im happy where i am.

 

Thanks again, and no, i wont quit learning, its the best part;)

 

Corrie

Wedding and portraiture! He's the first person ive ever heard say such a thing...

Rich, Thank you! I think i was doing exactly what you said not to, double saving it. I've finally got one uploaded, success!

 

Thanks again,

 

Corrie

Ha, i agree. And even when you have written in your contract or paperwork that they cannot copy the picture, theyre upset because they think its their god given right to do so, since the photograph is of them.

Thanks, i tried the smaller images at 72 res as well, still no luck.

Oh, sorry christopher,

Ive tried different sizes, none of them work. Usually around 300dpi, 3x5 or something near that.

Thanks, both of you.

I tried saving for web-if someone could tell me exactly how to do it, it may help, as ive never done that before.

 

The images ive tried uploading are no more than 200k, max...not big at all. I added a picture to a post in a forum, and that worked. It just wont let me add anything to my gallery.

sorry, this is the page

 

http://www.photo.net/ps7-problems.html

I totally agree, Kim. You think you have something somewhat original, but then...ha, everyone else has the same sorta shot. Oh well...<div></div>

I have not yet uploaded any images, simply because for some reason

the site wont let me. Everytime i try, it takes me to a page that

sais something about there being a problem with photoshop 7 and

jpgs...i do as it sais, but i get nothing. Ive tried saving for web,

nothing. I dont even use photoshop 7, i use cs.

Really confusing, and ive tried everything i can think of. Ive never

had any problems uploading jpgs for anything else.

 

Here's the page that it gives me when i try to upload...

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo-add-2.tcl

 

Any help on this would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Yes Kirk,

Sorry, thats what i meant. I dont mean flat, textureless prints, and that wasnt what the photographer was talking about when he said it either-he was refering to a nice lustre papers when he said it. So odd...

Thanks for your input-i feel a little reassured ;)

I've always gone with matte(i use fuji lustre paper)and i've always

been quite happy with the results in both color and black and white.

 

Until recently i overheard a pro photographer say "anyone who gives

their client their pictures on matte paper doesnt deserve the

business".

 

Ive ALWAYS used matte...and im curious to see how many others out

there 'dont deserve to be in business'.

 

Ive always just kind of thought it was personal preferance(and if a

client tries to scan it, mattes dont scan as nicely;)

 

Thanks.

200-250 seems to be sort of the ballpark figure that i see most photographers going for, it sounds reasonable. I have seen people charge a lot more though too.

 

You have to decide also whether or not you really want your images at that resolution in the hands of others.

 

I'm sort of in the same boat, and havnt totally decided what to do yet myself.

 

I brought this up on another forum, and someone there presented a really good point.

 

If you give your negatives on cd for them to print themselves, they may take them to the nearest pharmacy in town and have them printed-really poorly.

They will give those pictures to their friends and family, and they will NOT look professional-so there goes your 'word of mouth' advertising.

They'll think that those poor prints were your work, and forget looking you up when they want to have THEIR family photos done.

 

Im thinking about offering the cd to clients, but only AFTER theyve put in an order for min. $250.00-and then i'd give it to them for free maybe.

This way, at least they see what a good print looks like, and they have ordered SOMETHING to compare it too. Also maybe give them a few pointers on where to take the cd for developing.

 

This way you still make your money, they feel like theyre getting something for free, and they still have decent prints to display.

Make sense?

Youre right though, about digital technology, it has changed the way photographers do business!

With textured fabrics the seam shouldnt show unless its pulled extremely tight, or if youre shooting with deep depth of feild.

My only advice would be to use tiny stiches, with the right thread tension for that fabric. No special machine needed.

Ah, sorry, I just read a bit closer and realized that theyre your wife's friends.-Gotcha. I would agree with the above post to scan a few for them that they chose. If they want to scan more let them do the dirty work ;)

Was this something that you agreed to do when you booked? Did you say you'd do this, or that you'd just give them the negatives?

If you were supposed to give them the negatives, do that and let THEM worry about scanning them. If it wasnt in the previous agreement, charge them for it. Scanning takes a lot of time if the negs are cut, and to have a lab do it costs a lot.

But yes, if youre going to be doing a lot of this, get a good scanner. Quite helpful!

Im going to have to try that, thanks!

In the first photography course i ever took(grade 9 highschool) we had to carry around a collapsable cardboard 'photoframe' for a month, practicing composition before we even got to touch a camera. We had to draw everything we saw in the frame and hand it in.

(Didnt make much sense in the beginning since our teacher was a drunk and didnt ever talk-or grade) but it really does make sense. No matter how 'technically' good an image is in regards to color, lighting, depth of feild etc, its nothing without the composition.

 

Sometimes if im out and i get bored without my camera i still compose by making a frame with my fingers;)

Emmanouil, what kind of containers were the square one? Those look like they'd do the job nicely.

www.asukabook.com

You can get them in hard or soft cover.

Even MATTE scotch tape(the frosty kind) taped right on to the flash can make a great diffuser. Ive heard of people making diffuser out of milk jugs, and im sure that they work great, but i doubt you'd want to show up at a wedding like that: )