vlad khavin

Would someone mind emailing me a copy of their contract so that I can take a

look at how it's structured? (I assume that folks don't want to post such

things here on the forum.)

 

I just had an opportunity fall into my lap, but I really think it warrants some

sort of a contract. This would be taking shots not for a friend, or even

someone I just know in passing, but more for a portfolio-trade sort of thing.

It's not a wedding, but I think the structure of the contract would be similar

in this case.

 

When we booked the photographer for our wedding, my wife and her mother took

care of the paperwork without me, so I did not get to see what that looked like.

(And even if I had, this was done about 2 years ago, so I would not remember

much beyond what it generally looked like.)

 

Thanks in advance

 

-Vlad

David, thanks! Resume sent, and... here's hoping.

I've been searching through craigslist pretty regularly, looking for any sort of

opportunity to do any sort of photography that I can, without jumping into

something way over my head. I found someone looking for a photographer that

stated in their ad that they will train the right person, which sounds great to

me... and to send a resume to a given email address.

 

So, as a beginner, who has had no official photography jobs to speak of (or more

precisely, no photography jobs period, other than my own personal shooting that

I've done), what do I put in a resume?

 

I mean... I can talk about my professional experience, but that's not in

photography, and I doubt that they are interested in hearing about my IT

background. Do I just point them to my website that has everything that I can

think of? (www.khavinphotography.com) The job is doing sports-type

photography, and from their website, some portraits, which I figure should make

great practice for me. So umm... any suggestions?

 

-Vlad

Rebecca,

 

Most likely, you will have to travel out of New Brunswick, NJ to find some place that will rent that sort of stuff. New Brunswick, while it's safe enough (I lived there, or near there, a large part of my life), is not the nicest area. New Brunswick has some pretty decent areas, (Rutgers University campus on College Ave has some pretty spots and is well-patrolled and kept clean), the wrong side of the tracks is not too far away, so do be careful, and watch your equipment. I can look around and see if I can find a place relatively close that will rent the higher-end stuff like you're looking for, but, I doubt you would find it in New Brunswick.

 

And... if you ARE going to be shooting in downtown New Brunswick by the University campus, the furthest west you want to go with any sort of equipment is likely Easton Ave, if you can help it. West of Easton Ave, the area gets rougher and quickly. The area by the courthouse and the theater (south of the campus) is pretty nice, and fairly safe as well.

 

Good luck!

 

-Vlad

Those are some great photos!

 

One comment on the website, though. The first page of your site... the title is "home". You should change it to something more meaningful, like "Photos by Heather". All of your pages should have such a title. If you want to include the page the visitor is on, it should be something like "Photos by Heather - Home" or "Photos by Heather - Portfolio 1".

 

This will improve several things; it will let search engines better index your site, and if a user bookmarks your site, the title of your page is what will be used for the bookmark.

 

-Vlad

I would think that had they offered it right when she called, they may have seemed like push-overs, but at the same time, they would have saved themselves that bit of publicity. I would think that such an article, depending on how widely read will be quite the black mark against them in the public eye. I don't know the comparative value of ﾣ150 to $150 dollars, but... if it's anything similar, at least to me, returning $150 instead of running the risk of bad press wouls seem worth it.

To preface my response; I am not a professional wedding photographer, but rather a newbie that has 0 weddings under my belt. That being said, I've done a bunch of reading on the subject recently, and one approach that was suggested in my reading was this:

 

If you want to charge a daily rate, you say up-front that this covers x number of hours. After that x hourse, the hourly rate kicks in. The suggested x in the example was 8. So your package covers 8 hours of coverage, and the additional 2 hours, you would bill additionally.

 

I don't know if this approach works in the real world, but... it sure looks good on paper. Something to consider. This is the way it works in many other industries. Your salary covers 8 hours a day, and anything above that is paid as overtime.

Thanks again, Bob! Good catch, I hadn't thought of that interpretation of the phrasing.

<p>Right. So. This is the text of the ad. Any feedback is appreciated.</p>

 

<p style="width: 600px; border: 1px solid #333333; padding: 10px;">

Need Photos? Don't Have The Money?<br>

This May Be Your Answer!<br>

<br>

From life events to just needing some great pictures to send to family and friends, there are times when taking pictures your self is not possible. Sometimes, the services of a professional photographer are just not in the budget. If hiring a professional is something that you can afford, I urge you to give your business to the many great photographers in the area. The results you will get will be well worth the money spent. But if that is not an option, then this may be the opportunity for you.<br>

<br>

I am a photographer, working on establishing a portfolio. In exchange for written permission to use your photos in my portfolio, I will photograph you at the location of your choice (within reason), and provide you with the high-resolution digital files that you can print at your discretion. My interest in this is to obtain images that I can use to show as examples of my work, which is why this service is being offered free of charge, for a limited time.<br>

<br>

Lets set up a time to take some great pictures! For more information, or to schedule a time, please contact<br>

<br>

[insert contact info here]

</p>

Hehehehehe! Right. I'll try not to blow anything up in the process of learning.

 

Seriously... thanks for all the comments! Great ideas, and I appreciate folks taking a look.

 

At the moment, the site is to document, and to provide to potential employers (like photographers looking for assistants) as a sample of what I have done. Which is why I included the equipment page; to show what equipment I am currently familiar with, beyond saying "Yeah, I've used a camera before." But the more I think about it, the more I think you're right, I should probably lose that page.

 

And the thing about the appartment number... I'll fix that when I get home. "#" looks better than "Apt."

 

I've tried going down the friends and relatives route. The shots I have up there that have people are of friends. Family is a bit of a tricky thing; I'm in Kansas, they're in New Jersey. Convincing my wife to pose is often a challenge, though it's happened before. (The b&w image is proof. Heh.) I'll certainly try and convince more of the friends around here to pose for me though. It can't hurt.

 

The target audience for the ad was going to be either college students, who don't have money for professionally done portraits (unless Mom and Dad are paying), and perhaps some of the lower income families. Lawrence is a college town, but also has a large population of folks that simply call it home, and the demographic runs the full range. I'll post the text of the ad I was going to put up, and see what you folks think of that. I figure that by aiming for that group of folks, the responses I will get (if any) are not from folks that would go to one of the local pros for photos.

<p>

A few weeks ago, I sent out some emails to local photographers, looking for a

chance to assist and learn. Some of those even came back as possible maybes,

and a couple even more positive than that. Needless to say, I am very excited

about the oppotunities that could come from that. Meanwhile, I've been trying

to come up with ways to beef up my portfolio. Well... to be honest, more create

a portfolio than beef up an existing one. What I have at the moment is a very

small collection of images that I like quite well, but very few (likely none)

would really be appropriate for a wedding portfolio. (None of them clearly show

someone that looks like a bride.)

</p>

<p>

I figure that in order to learn to photograph people, I should be photographing

people, and not what I've been doing, which is essentially practicing techniques

on inanimate objects. To solve this problem, I am thinking of putting up an ad

in a few places locally, offering free on-location type portraits in exchange

for permission to use the images in my portfolio. I figure this will give me

some valuable experience in working with people, and should hopefully give me a

chance to use the stuff I've been practicing on human subjects. Not to mention,

it should give me some images to show future clients when I actually get to the

point where I am (more) ready to book a first wedding.

</p>

<p>

To more or less give myself a more legitimate-feeling identity, I built a

website, that shows my work to date and provides basic things like contact

information. I figure people might be more comfortable letting someone take

their picture if they can be given a URL, and they can see that sort of thing.

So. After that long-winded introduction...

</p>

<ol>

<li>

Overall, is this the right track to go on for someone starting out? (I know the

assisting is, I am curious about the other stuff)

</li>

<li>

If you wouldn't mind, take a look at <a

href="http://www.khavinphotography.com">Khavin Photography</a> and tell me what

you think of the site. If you can comment on the pictures in the gallery, small

as it is, I would appreciate it all the more. This site is far from specific to

weddings, but that is where I would like to head, so I figure you are the right

folks to ask.

</li>

</ol>

Thanks in advance,<br>

Vlad

One thing you might want to try, if your 18-55 is not sharp off of a tripod, is getting a cable release for your camera. This would allow you to not be in direct contact with the camera when you actually click the shutter, which would avoid any slight shaking. Your camera can still shake slightly if you press the shutter on the camera itself, especially if the shutter speed is on the long side. I guess it depends on lots of factors, but I think that may help.

 

The other thing is... I've noticed that my 17-85, even with IS turned on when hand-held, or with IS turned off on a tripod, is not overwhelmingly sharp either when focusing from further away, but I generally chalk it up to user error.

 

In any case, if I was in your situation, I would use the 24. By the lenses you listed, you have a Canon crop body, so your 24mm x 1.6 conversion factor works like a 38.4mm. In my inexperience, that sounds like a good lens to use for a group shot.

Very nice shot, Greg!

I guess it would be good to know what you already have? Do you already have something that covers the 17-24 range? The 55-70 range?

Pavel, what eyecup do you use? I have the one that came with the camera, and I also have the eyepiece extender, which I don't actually use, since it shrinks the viewfinder. Though... *scratches head* maybe if I try with the extender and the glasses? Hrm.

Wow... thanks, folks!

 

I tried shooting with my glasses on, and it seemed like I had a real hard time seeing the viewfinder, since my eye was not pressed to the rubber cushion. It was rather odd, but I guess I could try it again and see if I can't get used to it. Heh. The other thing I'm a bit nervous about is attempting manual focus if I can't be sure that my viewfinder is sharp. The camera tells me when it thinks the focus is on, but... if I'm manual focusing, there's probably a reason, so I guess I shouldn't trust the camera to tell me when I'm on.

 

I think I'll see about contacts and try that as well. I've never worn them, but... it's worth a shot. And Nadine, thanks for the tip about them popping out. I'll make sure to watch for that!

I am nearsighted... therefore I wear glasses. When I shoot, I take my glasses

off, and use the diopter correction on my 30D. (I just ordered an additional

diopter adjustment lens for the viewfinder, since the built-in one is ALMOST

there... I could use a few more clicks to the - side.) The trouble is, when I

take my glasses off, things are blurry enough that if I want to read a sign from

more than 10-15 yards away... I need to focus on it with my camera, and read it

in the viewfinder. This was rather comical on a trip to the zoo. At least...

my wife thought it was comical. I was rather annoyed.

 

This makes me a bit nervous about doing any sort of event work, which I will do

at some point, once I learn what I'm doing. If I can't see sharply without my

camera, I will likely miss a whole lot of those tiny little details that would

make for great shots. I don't like to miss shots, though I know that it will

happen regardless. But if it's something that can be corrected, I would like to

correct it rather than kick myself for it. So the question is... those with

less-than-perfect natural vision; do you shoot with contact lenses? Are there

any problems associated with long periods of time spent with a contact lens in

your eye, and your eye in the viewfinder? Or do you just take off your glasses,

shoot, and then put the glasses back on?

 

I personally find the whole removing glasses, putting them back on, removing

them process to be a bit annoying since while something is happening, I am

fumbling with my glasses. Again... missed shots. But then, it may be that I

need to better anticipate, which will come with practice.

 

Anyhow. Any insight is much appreciated.

 

Vlad

Shawn, I am far from an authority on this, but my understanding is that it doesn't exactly track as you think it does. You have to manually keep an AF point on the spot you want to track as it moves. So... if you are focusing on the eye of a person that's walking, and you have the center AF point selected, then you have to pan with them, keeping that center AF point on the eye. What the AI Servo mode does for you is, as long as you have the shutter release button half-pressed, it will continuously focus on that point, adjusting for the distance between the eye you are focusing on, and the camera.

 

I hope that helps, and uh... I hope that's correct. In my short bit of experience, that's how it works.

Thanks, Rainer

I took a trip to a local store and played around with the 50mm f/1.8 Mark II.

Results were nice enough, but the build was quite... underwhelming. So I'm

curious about the Mark I version of that lens. I know it comes in a metal

casing with a real focus ring, a metal mount, and other stuff that I would

expect on a lens, but... Does anyone know what else changed from Mark I to Mark II?

 

I've seen plenty of comparisons and discussions of the f/1.8 vs. f/1.4, but I'm

wondering about the old version of the 1.8 against the new one.

 

Vlad

Weiyang, that's a definite thought. The truth of the matter is that I really don't intend to use those pictures from the ballpark for a portfolio or to promote myself, but just as an example of what I was talking about in my original post. But, I think I will, assuming they start coming out better than just shots of action blur, and backs with numbers on them, offer them to coaches in exchange for the right to use them. Just in case. Some folks seem to be lawsuit-happy here, and I really don't need that sort of headache with something so simple as approaching a coach of a local little league team.

*coughs* In the above post, the "80" and "100+" are shutter speeds. Just wanted to clarify.

Wow! Thanks, guys. Bob, that article was great, learned quite a bit there.

 

Yves, to answer your questions, at the game, I was shooting at between 80 and 100+. Only when I was photographing a bale of hay, which was not at all moving, was I down to 1/30. Also, I was using f/10-16 at the game. They are usually played in the evenings. I was there at roughly 8pm, it was still light out, plus the field lights were on, but it was overcast, so I wouldn't say that it was exactly bright.

 

The subjects were in the middle of the frame, and yes, I can certainly try it again, opening the lens up a bit more. These games happen a couple of times a week, and are much more reliable than the birds I was trying to work with. Heh.

 

So yes, I will definitely try it again. From an ethical standpoint... would there be a problem with me posting images? I am not going around and getting model releases from folks since I am not using the photos past trying to learn my gear better. I've avoided posting any pictures that show this, for that reason.

So in another attempt at learning to pan with my setup, I decided to try a

different sort of subject. (Other than voltures. The birds seem to have caught

on and do not come out. Rat bastards they are.) I live a 5 minute walk from

little league baseball fields, so I went over there. Lots of moving targets to

point my lens at. The thing I noticed... even at a high shutter speed, a

subject that is far away comes out rather... soft. As they get closer, I get

good sharp detail, but far away, the camera does not seem to want to focus right

on them.

 

I'm including a picture with this post which is a diagram of what I was doing.

I was standing where the X is, focusing on the batter at home plate, and panning

with them as they ran to 1st. (And sometimes as they ran from 1st to 2nd). At

home plate, even though the camera was focused on the batter, he did not come

out sharp. Mind you, he was rather small in the view finder. (These are kids,

so not exactly large to begin with, and also, even at 85mm, I was standing

rather far away.) I had the f-stop set to 10 at the biggest, sometimes down to

16 or so. Shutter speed was roughly around 80 at least, but usually over 100.

IS was off. All focus points were selected, and the camera was set to AI Servo

mode.

 

Now... I figured that perhaps it was just me and my inexperience, and I was

getting something wrong. (Shooting at Player 1 at home plate.) So I aimed at

Player 2 at 1st base. No problem! Nice and sharp. So I took some shots of an

outfielder (Player 3 in the diagram), and he came out soft. Not blurry so much

(as in, he wasn't moving) but just... soft.

 

I've noticed this same sort of thing happening when I took pictures of hay

bales. They don't move. For those shots, IS was on, but the shutter speed was

around 30ish with ISO 400, 85mm, f/20. They came out soft too.

 

I don't have this problem with subjects that are within 10 or so yards, but it

seems that the further they are, the softer the image is. Now... either this is

normal and some sort of rule that I just don't know; that if the subject is

small in the view finder, AF will render them soft. (I am after all fairly new

to this.) It could be that my particular lens does this. Or it could be user

error.

 

Can someone shed some light on this for me?

 

Thanks in advance,

Vlad<div></div>

David, I am stuck in between the advice given by the previous two posters. The real answer really depends on whether or not you are comfortable with website design, and what kind of a site you want.

 

From looking at lots of photographers' websites of late, I've noticed that there are a great many sites that are implemented in Macromedia Flash (now owned by Adobe). I work with Flash as my day job, for certain projects. It's a great tool that is capable of yielding outstanding results, as evidenced by the many sites out there built with it. That being said, it takes some learning, and a whole lot of work to get to a point where you can get it to do what you want, how you want it. That investment in time is likely worth more than the money you would have to invest in purchasing the product to do it with. If you do not already have the software to build your site with, this tells me that you will have to do quite a bit of learning to get what you want out of a site. If you want to do this, it's very doable, and very rewarding, but if you just want a website sooner than later, I would suggest finding a professional and having a site built for you. Depending on who you go with to build your site, you may be able to provide them some screenshots created in Photoshop of what you want the site to look like, and they can work from there, and help you tweek the design to make the site as effective as it can be.

 

If you are looking to make a simpler HTML-based website, it's somewhat easire to do, and can be achieved with another Macromedia (now Adobe) product called Dreamweaver. Please not that, while the actual development of the site is greatly simplified by going with straight-up HTML, the design principles as far as the layout and navigation of the site, still have to be solid for the site to work well and be appealing to the people who visit it.

 

If you decide to go the DIY route, and need to ask questions and pick someone's brain, feel free to email me, and I will do my best to answer questions.