dm1994

If they're making you an employee (paying a salary, not contract rates), then yes...I would approach them with standard rates from a rental shop. You can negotiate from there.

Wow, those really are some nice shots! It looks to me like Zach used several very soft lights (maybe big soft boxes close to the subject). He has also done lots of post processing. The skin tones are so even that it's obviously not "real." For the shot your referenced, I'm guessing a softbox to camera-left, and hair light high and right (opposite the key light). There may be some additional fill from camera left; maybe a big reflector. And there is almost certainly more light on the background. This is not a "simple" setup.

Make sure you have a wide lens. You'll likely be limited in the amount of space to shoot the "studio" shots. Real estate is valuable, and you probably won't get as much as you like. If you try to use a 70-200 on a digicam, you won't be able to go wide enough. I've used my 28-105 successfully in similar situations.

Good answers above. Don't go smaller; use a grid. And you can use any brand of soft box, just make sure to buy their AlienBees/WhiteLightning/Balcar speed ring.

Buckeye Color Lab in Ohio, and HS Photo in Georgia both do them. I've used the Buckeye cards and gotten good feedback.

I use the Bogen background system (about $200 @ B&H) and love it.

 

I've purchased from Amvona before, and had similar quality issues with a Dynatran boom arm. I wouldn't recommend them.

I have two AB's and have been very happy with them. But I'd stay away from their umbrellas. They're not put together well at all. I bought Photogenic umbrellas that are still inexpensive, but the build quality is much better.

I bought a boom stand from them. I think it's constructed fairly well, for the price. The Bogen stands are nicer, but much more expensive. My beef with them is that the stands aren't packaged well for shipping. The stand arrived and both the counterbalance and the stand were damaged so as to make them unusable. Returning/replacing the stand took two weeks, and the replacement showed up in poor condition. This one wasn't broken, but it was scratched pretty heavily. Within only a few weeks of veeeery light use, one of the knobs has come loose.

 

I won't be purchasing from them again. I like a bargain as much as the next guy, but this one isn't worth the cost savings.

You have to decide whether speed is important to you. If you have a relatively slow PnS digital, then you should be alright with any name-brand card. But I bought a SanDisk Ultra II and have been VERY happy with it. I paid more than the Simple Tech cards I have, but it's WAY faster. I clear the buffer faster, and am able to review images much faster. Take a look at the CF database at www.robgalbraith.com Even if you camera isn't listed, you can see the relative performance of different cards.

"Both parties win and the tax folks are happy."

 

Really? This seems like it's too good to be true. I guess with a sole-proprietorship you could have them pay the business, and make the donation from your personal accounts. That would separate the financial transactions a bit, and just might work. I guess I just worry that if you were audited that they'd see the matching amounts/dates and tell you that you can't deduct services, which you would essentially be doing with the check swap. Sounds sketchy. If this were legal, I could bill my time at $10,000/hour and save myself thousands of dollars per year in tax liability (depending on tax bracket). That's shaky ground if you ask me.

I agree that they deserve "something." Yes, they provide all the things you mentioned, including help. My question to you was how much is appropriate. Do you have a suggestion? 5% of total revenue? 10%? 20%? 50%?

I have the opportunity to shoot portraits at dance studio. I'll

charge a sitting fee, which is what they're used to, but the studio

wants a cut of the sitting fees. Is this common practice? What

percentage of the sitting fees would you expect to pay?

You may have a clogged ink nossle. Try running through the head cleaning procedure. I've had the same problem before, and cleaning the heads fixed it for me.

I'm not familiar with the Nikon glass, but I'll say that you need to weigh two things. Longer is better. Bikes are small, and you may not be able to get as close as you'd like. If you can truly be within a few yards of the bikes, then either lens will be fine, but if you need to be farther away, then the 400mm would be nice. Focusing speed is also important, though. If they're both quick, then maybe that's not an issue, but certainly don't take a lens that people complain about the focusing speed on.

 

It's hard to go wrong with the 80-200. You might take a 2x teleconverter, too. Then you'll know you've got a great lens that's faster than the 80-400. Don't worry about the VR capability. You need to keep your shutter speeds high anyway.

They're in Lilburn (15 mins outside 285).

Yea, the Evaluative Metering leaves much to be desired. Well, actually I desire the E-Metering on my Elan II. It works GREAT. Too bad Canon couldn't just use the metering out of that body.

I have just purchased a D60 and am generally quite happy with it.

However, it is underexposing my images. It is metering correctly, as

confirmed by an incident hand-held meter and two other TTL meters.

However, the images are underexposed by about a half stop. When I

called Canon tech support they suggested that I just dial in +1/2

stop of exposure compensation. Sure, that'll work most of the

time...but that's a lame answer. Shouldn't a $2k+ camera come

accurately calibrated? If I'm using TTL metering that could work

alright, but if I'm using an indecent meter (say for studio flash or

tricky outdoor lighting) I don't want to have to remember to adjust

by 1/2 stop on every shot.

 

Have any of you experienced such a problem? If so, what was the

resolution. Canon says I can send it in and they'll get it back to

me in 7-10 days. Suggestions?