photographer_barcelona

I also think that part of what you're seeing is not as much lighting as post-production.

 

Photoshop screenshot attached.

Web design looks good. I find the site map with the thumbnails easiest to navigate through.

 

One small thing, though: as happens with some galleries that are driven by JavaScript, if someone has JavaScript disabled for whatever reason, they won't see anything on your page.

 

Also, you have a link called "Something Else" which doesn't lead anywhere within the "Portfolio" page.

 

The photos look fantastic, particularly the landscapes.

 

As for suggestions for content, I would put more text describing what you do and make use of your alt tags to describe the photos. As it is, there is little more than your keywords and title to get you indexed in search engines. Also, explanatory text accompanying each section of your portfolio may give more of an overall feeling of organization to your site.

 

Good luck!

Thanks, Zave.

 

Yes, I just needed to know if I was on the right track. In any case, the shoot is already done, and I changed the contract as above.

 

I plan to hire a lawyer to revise all the possible variations of my contracts as soon as the money comes in from the next job.

 

Thanks again for responding!

 

Louis

This question has been addressed to some extent in the following thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009bjI

 

But I have a slightly different situation and a follow-up question as well.

 

I'm doing a photo shoot with a non-professional model for an advertisement that

will come out in a local newspaper. I'm doing the ad as a favor for a graphic

designer who has helped me out a lot in the past, so no money is changing hands.

The model knows what the photos are for, and has agreed to do the shoot in

exchange for a DVD with the retouched photos.

 

These photos are not for my portfolio -- they are for publication. But from

what I understand from the above post, I am only required to provide something

of value (in this case, the photo DVD) to make it a legally binding contract. Is

that correct, or do I still have to pay a token sum of money (like investors who

buy indebted companies for one dollar)?

 

Now for my follow-up question -- a sort of shot in the dark. Does anyone know

how to phrase this in legal Spanish (Spain)? I have no idea if "for valuable

consideration received" has a legal equivalent in Spain.

 

My current "photos for monetary payment" contract contains these lines:

 

"Yo el fotógrafo declaro que entregaré ____ euros como pago a la modelo.

 

"Yo la modelo, aceptaré la entrega como pago por la cesión de mis derechos de

imagen sobre las fotografías realizadas el día ____ de ___ de 20__, y declaro

estar conforme con el presente acuerdo."

 

Can I just change it to "Yo el fotógrafo declaro que entregaré un DVD que

contiene las fotos realizadas como pago a la modelo" (and leave the model's

declaration the same)?

 

I understand that my best route is to hire a lawyer -- just wanted to check here

to see if someone might have an idea for a temporary quick-fix.

 

(By the way, if I'm asking this question in the wrong forum, please let me know.)

 

Thanks in advance!

By the way, Tony, a small thing I noticed on your site: when you hover over a picture, the img title is the whole text list below, bullets and all. You need to close your img title tag with ">, not leave it open like that.

By the way, you should change the DNS server settings and configure the redirect option in the same way that you did with your Yahoo-registered domain. In theory, then, whenever someone types in either www.your-old-domain.com or www.your-new-domain.com into their browser, they will in both cases be automatically redirected to your smugmug site.

 

Another warning: some hosts might charge you a little something for the redirection option.

 

And an interesting asterisk to my note above about e-mail: some hosts give you the option of adding on e-mail accounts for a few bucks more. For example, webmasters.com gives you the option for $9.95 a year. Take a look at www.webmasters.com under the heading "Domain Names" for a description of the various options.

Tony, in theory yes, but it will take some detective work on your part. First, go to any WHOIS lookup and type in your old domain. One such lookup can be found here:

 

http://www.register.com/retail/whois.rcmx

 

See who the domain is registered to. It should be you. Now look at the bottom of the registry and note the DNS server settings. I'll come back to those in a moment.

 

Most registrations are for one year, and the going price now is about ten bucks a year. So if you registered your old domain more than a year ago, chances are that your registration for that domain has already expired. So just register it again (if someone hasn't already snatched it up) with Yahoo Domains or whoever. If it is still registered in your name, though, you should be able to "retrieve" it (though it's not really "lost," it's just pointing in the wrong direction).

 

I'm certainly no expert, but my understanding of how this works (as you see with your Yahoo Domains experience) is that a host only registers the domain and perhaps gives you some limited amount of service options for moving that domain around. The main service option we're interested in now is the ability to change the DNS server settings in your registry. See, right now your DNS settings are still pointing to your former host's servers. No good, because you currently have no hosting account with them. What you want to do is point them to your new host's (smugmug's) servers.

 

How do you change the DNS settings? Well, the best way is to contact whoever registered the domain for you initially (your former host, I assume) and ask them. You can also ask smugmug or even Yahoo Domains, but it may very well be that they can't do anything. Many servers lock the domains they've registered to avoid fraudulent domain transfers (aka domain hijacking).

 

Hope that helps.

Another option that most hosting services provide is a set of e-mail accounts related to your domain name. For example, your contact e-mail would be laurenm@yourname-photography.com rather than laurenm@yahooo.com or laurenm@hotmaill.com. Another touch of professionalism. Don't know if smugmug gives you this possibility, but it's worth checking out.

Lauren, whoever you registered your domain name with is a middleman between you and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). You pay a registrar (e.g. Yahoo Domains) a fee to register the domain in your name with ICANN. So the domain is yours. In theory, you can take it to another host, redirect it, park it, play with it, push it, pull it, break it. It's yours. You don't have to host with someone just because they registered your domain name for you.

 

You should be able to modify the DNS settings of your domain from your current host's control panel to point to smugmug's servers.

 

It's a good idea to check with both smugmug and your current host to make sure you're doing everything correctly. As you said, most of these services are good about answering questions. I felt embarrassed at the beginning asking novice questions, but they were generally very gracious and helpful about it (and at least at webmasters.com, quick to reply).

 

But all this would mean that you're paying an extra 100 bucks a year for hosting services you're not using. If you go Tony's route, cancel your hosting services and ask for a refund on the months you've already paid for in advance.

Jon, I'd never used the high-pass filter before for sharpening. Wow! Great tip.

David's correct. Also (and I hope I'm not stating the obvious), please note that all his recipes add up to 100%. Of course you should use your own judgment, but it's a rule of thumb. I use Photoshop (so I don't know what PSP allows you do), and there you can crank up each channel independently to 200%. No good unless you're doing something high-key or intentionally bleached out.

 

Another thought, assuming you're shooting RAW (and assuming PSP has a RAW dialogue box): what if you were to desaturate the photo using the RAW color saturation controls, then toy around with the white balance (color temperature) adjustment? This seems to work in both the Photoshop RAW dialogue box and the Canon Digital Photo Professional software. What do you folks think -- is this a possible alternative?

Oops, sorry. On this line:

 

| </span><span class="text">portions © 2006 SmugMug, Inc.</span>

 

you should erase that very first little vertical line so it doesn't print, but leave in the </span> tag (although it's just closing a span for something called your "shopping cart," which you apparently don't have activated anyway, so you might even take out that whole part as well to reduce code bloat).

Tony,

 

You have these two lines of code on your page:

 

<span class="text">powered by <a href="http://www.smugmug.com/" class="nav">SmugMug</a></span> |

 

and

 

| </span><span class="text">portions © 2006 SmugMug, Inc.</span>

 

They are located in the footer section. Again, I don't have smugmug so I don't know what they give you to play with, but if you have something like a page template to modify, you could try taking these two lines of code out. Make sure, though, that they don't require you to keep these on your page in their Terms of Use policy.

By the way, I don't have a smugmug account and therefore don't know what options smugmug has -- looks like Tony has the scoop on me there.

<p>One limitation is that you don't have your own domain, but a subdomain of smugmug. In other words, your website would be located at http://laurenm.smugmug.com rather than at http://www.laurenm-photography.com. The latter is obviously more desireable from a marketing perspective. And plus, if smugmug were to go under, you wouldn't be stuck with a lot of potential clients looking for your webpage and finding nothing there.</p>

 

<p>Aaron is right. At least have a main page on your private domain that links clients to your smugmug gallery. Better would be to create your own gallery on your private domain. There is plug-and-go software availiable for free on the web -- even Google's Picasa has a webpage generator.</p>

 

<p>If you know absolutely zero about web design but need something now, you can sign up with a blog service like <a href="http://www.blogger.com">Google's Blogger</a>, where you can basically just plug your entries into their forms and post them immediately. Sign-up takes less than a minute. Two disadvantages to this option, however, are 1) While designed nicely and with various templates to choose from, you have to stick with the blog (journal) format unless you know how to alter the template (which I assume you don't). 2) You still have the problem of not having a unique personal domain (it would be www.laurenm.blogspot.com). This can be fixed by transferring your site to a host via ftp (this is a bit technical, I guess, but within your Blogger control panel it explains how to do this). So you can basically use the Blogger service to plug in your content, then send it via ftp to the hosting service where your domain is located.</p>

 

<p>This means you would have to sign up with a hosting service and get a unique domain like www.laurenm-photography.com. I have an account with <a href="http://www.webmasters.com">webmasters.com</a>. The cost is around 100 dollars a year, I believe, for the hosting and the domain. So far I've had no complaints with them.</p>

 

<p>My personal opinion, however, is that all of this should be a temporary band-aid while you learn how to create a webpage yourself. There are massive quantities of tutorials on the web, (for starters try <a href="http://www.w3schools.com">w3schools.com</a>), and tons of templates and samples you can use or alter to suit your needs. Yes, learning how to build websites continues to be an incredibly frustrating experience for me, but there's too much happening on the web for a businessperson not to be savvy about how to utilize it properly (for example, this post was written using HTML tags).</p>

 

<p>And think of it this way -- once you've learned, you can add the lucrative "website design" to your list of services.</p>

Conrad,

 

You're right about TTL. The last time I went out to take photos on the street, I thought I'd try to be a hero and shoot everything on manual using the partial light dial on the flash (I felt that my reliance on automatic settings in uncontrolled environments represented a gap in my knowledge). But instead of finding the Holy Grail of formulas, I found that I lost a lot of interesting photo opportunities because I was fiddling around with too many buttons and dials. Chalk it up to a learning experience. I should have played it safe and used E-TTL.

 

Seeing in this forum that most people are using TTL for these type of shoots is a relief for me. But more importantly, everyone here knows WHY you use certain settings and not others. Which means I have to beef up a bit on some technical aspects of my flash functions (which, if I might add, the manual doesn't even begin to address). All the advice and links people have provided here have given me a place to start.

 

One small note: I've seen that many photojournalists and paparazzi have their flash heads pointed directly forward at the subject, some with the Sto-Fen Tupperware dish, all presumably using TTL. While I'm not suggesting that their goals are similar to ours in social event photography (for us, harsh shadows are usually a punishable offense), it is worth noting that they get the job done, and in the end they have a decently exposed photo of some drunk starlet stumbling over herself on a nightclub dance floor.

 

As for focus, I have to admit that one reason I rely on auto is that recently I've had trouble discerning a focused shot from an unfocused one through the viewfinder (perhaps I spend too much time staring at a computer screen?). It only gets worse the darker the room gets. So one question is: which do I trust more in a disco setting -- my eye or the camera's? Another is: should I try a wider DOF (at the expense of ISO or shutter speed) to give myself more leeway with focus? And yet another is: if I decide to use auto-focus, is there anything I can do to help the camera get a crisp shot (and of the correct subject, not the pretty lights behind him / her)?

Thanks, Neil. Great pictures, by the way. I especially like the series in your portfolio of the kids playing in the leaves.

Thanks, Nadine. The links you gave are enlightening. I'll try experimenting with dragging the shutter and see what comes of it. Also your "Assignment 2" threads are helpful in explaining some of the flash workings.

 

I also took a look at the extremely in-depth article at

photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/

 

The Flip-It looks interesting. I assume you purchased the Demb Flash Diffuser Pro (flip card + frosted plastic shield) found at dembflashdiffusers.com and not just the Big Flip-It (card only) found at joedembphotography.com/flipit . The photos on the site look nice and evenly lit, and the price is a definite advantage. International shipping is the same as domestic (!!!), meaning it would only cost me $29 total. For the Fong Lightsphere, B&H calculated $75 total to send to Spain (ouch! I'm thinking it's shower cap time). I don't even want know what Fong's e-store would charge for sending it to me through UPS Worldwide. I looked around at various websites here for distributors that might carry it, but had no luck (that doesn't mean it's not here -- it's just that all things internet in Spain are still at a very Fred Flintstone level).

Wow.

That's what I needed to know. Thanks!

Is anyone aware of any issues with the Canon Shoe Cord 2 (for a Canon 20D)

working with the Metz 54 MZ-4? The salesman in the photo store today said he

wasn't sure if the cord supported the TTL function of the Metz flash.

Thanks, everyone, for your input. Sounds like:

 

1) I need to get some new cards. The Dane-Elec cards sort of remind me of that silent kid next door who always seems to be standing in his doorway staring at you when you get home at night. He hasn't done anything wrong yet, not that you can prove, but deep down you suspect he's got bad doings on his mind. So although the Dane-Elec have generally worked fine, I'm giving them the sack on account of weird behavior. I'm going to get 2 new 1GB SanDisk cards (that's all my budget will allow for the moment). That combined with a new 40GB portable drive for uploading cards should be enough. Just to be fair I'll keep the Dane-Elec in the camera bag for back-up.

 

2) I need to get the new Firmware. Yikes, I had no idea there were compatibility issues with some of the CF cards. I'll install it as soon as I get the SanDisk cards.

 

Thanks again for all your advice.

Thanks for the Lightsphere thread, Nadine. Since you seem to have toyed around a lot with various portable lighting methods, do you have any idea how the LS compares to a mini-softbox? Obviously with the softbox I won't get the extra side-bounce you spoke about in the thread. If the LS is indeed something I should have in addition to the softbox, I'll put it on my giant List of Things to Get When I'm Paid Again.

 

Another (unstated) reason for this thread is that I'm worrying about some photos that I'll have to take for websites later on this summer at outdoor festivals (of which we have a lot here) and in nightclubs. I have yet to take three equally well-exposed and sharp photos in a row while working outside at night. To overcompensate for a dark blur, I adjust the flash and shutter speed ... and blast the person's face clean into oblivion. Of course, when you're taking photos at night with no bounce, you have lowered expectations of what's going to turn out well. But I refuse to believe that it can't be done -- I'm just doing it wrong. I don't mind black backgrounds as long as I can get some good shots of the people. The softbox will help with this, I'm sure, but are there any "magic settings" for working in this kind of situation? Perhaps one improvement, as some have mentioned above, could be getting in closer to my subject. But my jerk reaction is always to run, run, run far away to someplace where my flash can't reach its victims.

 

By the way, I love the shower cap idea. I think in the same way -- "Geez, I should be able to make this thing from stuff at the drugstore." What prevents me is the idea of showing up at a professional engagement with a shower cap tied around my flash. Most of those 40 dollars go to pay for the presentable look of the accessory.

 

Above JF R says,

"Then you have the choice between dome on or off and pointing up or forward in the case of black ceilings. Just don't point it forward with your flash on auto (with any type of diffuser) because it will spill light on the sensor of your flash and thus underexpose your image. If you get close to take a picture you'll probably be allright with leaving the Lightsphere on and pointing up all the time."

 

Is this true for the softbox as well? From what I can tell, the canvas housing shields the light from the sensor.

I appreciate everyone's input. I've taken notes, and now it's time to go bar-hopping with some friends and do some lighting experiments. I've just ordered a Lastolite softbox for my flash. I'm also going with a Canon sync cord so I can try juggling the flash off-camera for some shots. I'll do some experiments with these two and see if I need the bracket now or can wait a while on it. Since I'm also buying a couple extra gigabytes of CF cards and a portable drive for uploading the cards, this job might just about pay for all the extra equipment I'll have to buy for it.

 

Hopefully I'll be able to bounce and can leave all the trinkets in the camera bag, but it's good to be prepared. Thanks again for all your advice.

I have some 2GB CF cards from Dane-Elec that I use with my Canon 20D. They hold

about 200 photos in RAW, give or take a few. Yet one thing I've seen is that

once I start getting down to the single-digit shots remaining (around 7 photos

left) I start getting a read error message. In some cases the camera even

allows me to "take more photos" -- I put this in quotation marks because I get a

shutter-click and flash, as if it were taking a photo, but no photo is

registered on the CF card. Very dirty indeed!

 

Anyway, I've come to accept that "Read Error" is my camera's way of telling me

there's no more space, and I just have to keep an eye on my shots remaining and

change the card when I get to 10 or so left. Is this normal? My cheap

point-and-shoot camera says "Memory card full." It seems to me that with such a

complex and expensive piece of equipment like the 20D I should at least be

getting a message more similar to, "Excuse me, dear sir, pardon the

inconvenience but you haven't any more space on your memory card" and maybe a

light spray of perfume.

 

To complicate things, the camera recently froze up after I overshot the 7-left

mark, giving me a read error as soon as I turned it back on (with that

particular CF card -- the other worked fine), and not letting me view the photos

or connect to the computer to download. I read the manual, and it says that if

your card starts acting naughty, you can try 1) reading it with a card reader 2)

formatting it 3) tossing it in the garbage and letting it return to the elements

from whence it came. I don't have a card reader, so I unfortunately didn't get

to try that experiment. I would have bought one if I hadn't already saved the

useful photos on the card, and the rest were just lighting experiments I was

doing on a tripod with my own face (yeah I know, maybe that's what broke the

camera, ha-ha).

 

In the end, I formatted the card. The goofy camera sat there "formatting"

throughout the entire second half of a football game. It seemed to be stuck, so

I tried to shut it down, but the camera "helpfully" wouldn't allow me to turn it

off until it had finished its formatting, which might have been next year some

time. Determined to assert my alpha-male status over my camera, I removed its

battery. On reconnecting the battery everything seemed to work fine, and the

card was formatted. Since then I have used the card and it seems A-OK.

 

I like my camera a lot, and it hurts me that it doesn't return my doting and

caressing. Does anyone have any idea how I can improve my relationship with it?

I'd like to know:

 

1) Does this happen to anyone else, or do you get a "memory full" type message?

 

2) Could it be that my camera just doesn't like Dane-Elec CF cards?

 

3) Does a CF card with read errors in-camera still work with a card reader or

portable reader / viewer like Archos Gmini (ie you can retrieve and transfer

photos)? Or when it jams up, do you just forget about those 200 photos, format

the card and start thinking about the next 200?

 

Cheers, Louis