paul swenson

<p>You could also say it's silly to spend a couple a hundred bucks, when you could get the same quality job done for 20. It all depends on your point of view. And not a big risk financially if you are not satisfied with the results. </p>

<p>I used to own a 9000 ED, during those transitional years where folks were transitioning to digital and scanning film was still king over shooting digital. At the time I did a fair amount of research, on this site in particular. Long story short, rather than buying the expensive Nikon glass holder, I made my own.</p>

<p>Here's how I did it: I took the stock medium format clip/clamp glassless holder and carefully removed the hinged clamp. This can be done with out breaking it, and it can be reattached later if wanted. I took the holder down to a local picture framer and had him cut two pieces of his best quality non-glare picture glass (ground on one side only) to size, so that they would nest in the opening of the holder.</p>

<p>To scan, the film is placed emulsion side down between the two pieces of glass, with the ground part of the glass contacting the top and bottom of the film. Care must be taken to make sure the glass is clean and dust free. Put a small piece of black tape on either end of the two pieces of glass to hold it all together. The film sandwich is carefully laid in the holder. I never used to tape the glass in place on the holder. The weight of it seemed to be adequate to hold it in place, but you could carefully tape it to the holder.</p>

<p>Feed the holder into the scanner as per usual. scans are clear and edge to edge sharp. In my experience the ground glass in no way interferes with the quality/clarity/sharpness of the image. I don't remember having problems with newton rings</p>

<p>For optimal quality I always heard that the wet mount holders were the best for hiding dust etc..</p>

 

<p>Ziggy, I can't speak for others, but here's why I coat my prints. <br>

1) Increase in archival properties. One of the biggest enemies of inkjet prints is atmospheric contaminants. A spray helps to seal the ink surface from these contaminants. Some also use spray to protect the prints from water or fingerprint damage.<br>

2) Reduction in bronzing, and a more uniform surface. I print on semigloss type papers where bronzing is an issue, as well as the noticability of uninked surfaces on the print when held at an angle. Prints look more professional once they have been sprayed. And I do sell my prints, so the latter is important<br>

3) Spraying also give a slight increase in gloss and dmax on semi-gloss and gloss prints, an added benefit IMO.<br>

The Premiere Art Shield goes on very easily and in no way diminishes brightness on the papers I use, unless you consider increased depth in the dark colors a loss of brightness. As with all things Ziggy, I recommend you try it for yourself - Your mileage may vary depending on the paper/spray combination.</p>

 

<p>I've looked through photo.net and the web and haven't really found any good feedback to this question. I've been using Premiere Art Print Shield spray for some time as a protective coating on my ink jet prints. I print primarily on semigloss fine art papers, like Silver Rag, Fine Art Pearl etc. I really like Print Shield and am happy with it. It subtly enhances the print surface, and is <em>super</em> easy to apply - that's a real plus. I once tried the Krylon brand and had difficulty, to say the least in getting an even coating, that didn't have uneven patches of glossiness. The Print shield goes on like a dream, not to mention that is highly recommended by Epson.</p>

<p>What do others use as far as these solvent based spray coatings? Shades of Paper sells Clearjet for example, which is less expensive. Anyone with experience with that? Sorry if this is a redundant question, but there are a lot of these products on the market and I have been unable to find an article or thread that does a good job of comparing, so I thought I'd poll the photo.net community. If there is a thread or article, by all means point me to it. Thanks to all in advance.</p>

 

<p>This was a tough one. I have prettier "artsy" images, but I felt this photo epitomized what we do best as wedding photographers. This wedding was the joining of two families. The photo taken seconds after the couple had walked down the aisle as man and wife, and their children converged on them.<br>

Canon 5D, 24 -105 at 40mm f4.0. Bounced fill using a 580ex.</p><div></div>

<p>Very funny, those of you who couldn't resist telling me not to use music, when I plainly stated I was NOT looking for anything but TECHNICAL advice. I've already read widely on this site the views of those opposed to music on photography sites. <br>

If you wish to visit my site and see how I used "music", please be my guest.<br>

For the record, the music is just one "song" which the visitor has the option of whether to play or not - it does not turn on automatically. In addition, it is a style statement, not musical background. But do I really need to explain all that? Why can't you be respectful of the posters wishes? It's pretty annoying. Although after having researched this topic on photo net I should have known I was asking for it, unsolicited opinions on something I hadn't asked about.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks Amanda!</p>

<p>I'm doing a total redesign on my photo business website. I have one MP3 that I am integrating into the site. Visitors will have the option to play the song if they wish. Don't worry, it is not copyrighted material, it's something my son wrote and recorded.<br>

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone who has integrated music into their site could recommend a player.<br>

Please, I am only looking for technical recommendations here, not opinions on whether I should have music on my site. Thanks in advance for any help.</p>

<p> </p>

I've been doing some research on coffee table style books for my wedding and portrait clients. I'm pretty sold

on the quality and service that Asuka offers, but the long turnaround time (4 to 6 weeks) on their books is a

drawback. Then I stumbled on an ad for WHCC and saw that they also offer press printed books, for a LOT less,

and an unbelievable turnaround time of two or three days. I called today and asked them to send me some sample

pages and cover materials, but I'm curious if anyone has comparative experience with these two companies

products. I realize Asuka has more options in the style of books as well as paper finish choices, but I'm most

curious about the general print quality and book construction and how that compares. I'd appreciate any feedback

anyone has to offer.

 

Thanks, Paul

In instances like this I look at the film leader. If its black, you have underexposure issues. If

it's faint, as with the rest of the film it's development. With any developer and film

combination with your given set up there is going to be some trial and error nailing the

development time. If you are certain that you had your temperature and mixture correct,

shoot a test roll and do another developing run. Increase the development time by 50% and

reevaluate. I wouldn't worry too much about what Ilford's table says.

I second Copper Hill. There is a VERY thorough tutorial on their website. And considering

that getting your sensor cleaned is going to be a once in a while thing, it make sense to learn

to do it yourself.

Thank you all. Love the restaurant recommendation - an unexpected bonus!

-Paul

I'll be taking a trip to New York City. Other than the obvious BIG museums like MOMA and The Met

etc..Can anyone recommend any must see spots for viewing photography?

Douglas, to answer your question, yes. Also a highly revered paper for these purposes is

Museo Silver Rag.

One other thought Nicole. If you are hoping that the photographer will store them for you

long term, because you don't want to, or can't afford to purchase them, what happens if your

original album or photos do get lost or damaged? Well, then you are still looking at a most

likely costly replacement/reprinting of those images through that photographer.

Nicole, what is it that you want from this photographer? Do you want her to promise to

store the negatives for you, indefinitely? Are you waiting for her to go out of business so

you can get them for free? When do you think that will be? What if you've moved, or if the

photographer moves, and there is no way for anyone to contact anyone?

 

The photographer has assured you that they will store the negatives for for now, but she is

under no legal obligation to give them to you. If it is your hope to negotiate with her and

get her price down, I don't think you are going about it in a very good way. I think, based

on how important this film is to you, that your best bet is to try to negotiate a price with

the photographer and buy them now while you can.

 

The photographer is running a business, and they do own the negatives, period. I refer

you to my post above.

I thinks it's reasonable for a photographer in this case to charge a fee to cover - time

taken to contact you/shipping handling/archival packaging costs of the negatives. Time is

money, and it is reasonable, if you consider how many clients such as you he/she may be

trying to contact, that it is wise from a business standpoint to charge for this. With that

said, I can see $50 - $100 for such a service.

 

Obviously the photographer's $700 price, as they see it is liquidated damages, for the loss

of any future print sales. And though you could argue that enough years have gone by

that you would never order prints, how could a photographer stay in business if every one

of his clients never ordered prints in the hopes or knowledge that they would get free

negatives a few years down the road? This is how photographers make money, by selling

the images from their negatives/digital files. It's not being cold and calculating and

something often misunderstood and unfairly maligned about the photography business.

 

I've had clients who have given me very generous print orders, and I've felt comfortable

giving them the negatives, and clients who have, despite excellent work on my part, been

budget minded in their dealings with me, and so the last thing that I would probably do is

just give them the original negatives that I put my heart and sweat into.

 

I don't know your history with the photographer, but perhaps one tack may be to offer a

generous print order, and ask if for a much smaller fee he/she would be willing to include

the negatives.

 

If it's true they are threatening to destroy them if you don't purchase them, well that's the

part that bothers me. Though, it's possible they are just saying that to entice the sale.

 

 

But before you go getting all legal I suggest you try appealing to this photographer, by

letting them know, in some way, you understand they are running a business, and that the

work they performed for you has great value to you. This could soften things up and pave

way for a negotiation.

Corri, one area you might consider toying with is not so much your poses, but your

lighting. It seems to me that your lighting, though good is generally flat. Perhaps it is the

tantalizing drama of the light that you are missing from your pictures.

 

Outdoors turn that fill flash way down, or off. Shoot just before sunset for that magic light.

The location may not be so critical as the time of day you are shooting. More modeled

light.

 

In the studio, let the light fall off more in your background to separate your subject. Try

using one main light only and a reflector for more dramatic effect.

 

Granted, this is just what I get from looking at the one gallery.

If your original images were taken in RAW, it's likely there is a lot more detail in that

background, You can create two RAW versions of the same image and layer them using a

luminosity mask in Photoshop, then dodge and burn selected areas to get the balance you

want. This can work beautifully.

 

Regarding the brides other complaints, it's always hard to hear criticism. But it's an

important lesson. You were hired based on a certain level of expectation and reputation

of your skills as a wedding photographer. That is the standard which you must hold

yourself too, and hopefully drives you to find a way to get the excellent shots regardless of

the circumstances. If you are doing your best to accomplish that - and only you know if

you are - then you can sleep well at night.

You might try stopping down a couple stops from wide open, say f8, and see if that

improves the bokeh. From a practical standpoint, shooting macro shots with the lens fully

extended and wide open yields too shallow a depth of field. At the focal length and camera

to subject range you are using, smaller apertures will still give you nicely blurred

backgrounds, but with less of the distortion you are experiencing.

For real Mike. I couldn't tell you why/how. But this is all in the manual, and a feature I use

quite often to test my wireless setups.

 

-Paul

If you were merely firing the 580 by pressing the button on the back of the flash, then the

system sees this as a "test" firing, and there will be a delay so that you can see that all flashes

in your circuit are firing.

 

Firing the flash from the camera will give you normal synchronization between flashes and

camera.

I can personally vouch for the tutorial and products at this website:

 

http://www.copperhillimages.com/

 

Very thorough and conscientious.

Those lines may be on the other side of the glass that covers the sensor, if wet cleaning has

no effect and you can't detect them visually (though they are awfully small). Don't ask me

how they got there, unless they were there all along. Is your camera under warranty?

I suppose I should have mentioned, increasing the drying time between print head passes

might allow the ink to set up or harden more before it hits those wheels. It could be worth a

try.