bluphoto

So I got offered redundancy last year (Nov 2007) along with 50 other guys at my work. I accpeted, but then the

company decided they wanted to keep me and two other guys around for another year to help wind things up. Fair

enough espeically as we got 25% bonus for that (this) year as a retainer.

 

So the redundancy is still on for Nov 2008 and I'm damned if I'm going to give up that fat cheque. Another branch of

my company wants to take me on for an unrelated job, but a simple transfer would mean no redundancy cheque. So

they offer me this contract thing, which apparently gets around me losing out on my redundancy payment.

 

The contract is for a minimum of two years with the option to return to "staff" at any point after 6 months.

 

They have added the monetary value of all my benefits to my invoice, with the value of my annual performance bonus

being considered as 100% met.

 

Hard to see where I can go wrong!

 

I know the company I work for at the moment already buys computers and marketing supplies such as software,

cameras, lenses, memory cards etc so surely it doesn't need to be a "photographic" company to purchase

photographic items. They have even had call to hire promotional and photographic models for exhibitions and

advertising. I think all I'd be doing is the same thing.

 

I've heard of companies before where one profitable department of the company supports the less profitable (or loss

making) departments - I think that's the nature of a company structure. ie personnel departments don't make money,

but they pay wages, so they make a loss. Sales departments make lots of money but have few outlays, so they

subsidise the other departments, like Marketing etc.

 

If I can offer photographic services - even if it's only a couple of shoots per year - then so much the better - assuming

I am or get good enough.

 

I was asking because a friend of mine at the camera club said that he did the Isle of Man thing instead of the Limited

Company thing, and he is netting around 81%. Obviously going limited would net less, but maybe not so bad that it

wold make it worth the overseas setup hassle.

 

Thanks for the pointers... and the Alaskan Alcoholics site!

Was that some attempt to get me to go to a particular website that has nothing to do with forming a business (or nothing to do with the UK for that matter)?

 

Apologies if it IS relevant, I can't quite see the connection.

 

Perhaps, xsswgd, (how do you pronounce that?), you might explain exactly how it's "easy".

I work in the offshore oil & gas industry but am a keen photographic enthusiast, and have been asked my my

employer, with whom I am currently staff, to form my own "one-man-limited-company" and then they will contract me

instead of employing me directly.

 

So I'm playing with the idea of including commercial photography as part of my business model, and as such should

be able to make a lot of my photographic purchases of equipment and consumables tax-deductable. I would invoice

the sole client every month and there would be no indication of what sort of services I was charging for (oil & gas

consultancy or commercial photography) - even the name of the company is specific to neither O&G or Photography,

although gives connotations to both. This would also allow me to take on other private photographic assignments as

well and put them through the books in the same way.

 

Someone has told me that instead of going limited, that I should incorporate in an offshore location (specifically the

isle of man) for tax purposes. Does anyone know if this would be beneficial, or perhaps know where I can get more

information on the benefits and disadvantages of going down this road?

 

many thanks

Guy Carnegie

Apologies everyone. I should know by now to search before I post! There seems to be quite a bit of information here on PN about this already.

Guys,

I have a night out tomorrow night shooting star trails and I'm a little worried about battery life on my 5D. Okay so I

guess I only need two or three 45-60 minute exposures (okay so maybe I only really need one, but a couple more

would be nice). I can take a load of batteries to switch between frames if need be.

 

I was wondering if I should dig out my 1V or 33 and use film (probably Velvia or Astia Slide), so that I don't have

problems with battery life. I don't think there's any way to apply external power to any of these cameras while

shooting, is there? Does anyone know if the 5D electronic cable release will fit these bodies?

 

Note that I DO have the vertical grips on all the cameras, giving me double(?) the battery life of the standalone

bodies.

 

Any additional tips I could use are, of course, more than welcome.

 

best regards,

Guy

Thanks for bringing the Olympii up as an option, Vicky, but it's the classic style RF's that I'm after in particular.

I do like the look of that Bessa, for sure (does it come in chrome by any chance?). Checked it out on Amazon and

apparently the main items buyers of this item also purchase are... wait for it... SD memory cards.

 

I do worry about some people!

 

Lovely looking machine though.

 

I'll check out the classifieds. I could maybe stretch to GBP£200 WITH a 50mm lens.

 

PS I just got a "congratulations" email from ebay telling me I'd just won my first RF camera - a Canonet 28, for all of

GBP£4.99. (I think a roll of film will cost more than the body!)

 

Still liking the look of that Bessa though.

Wow, I have this same problem, but I thought I just had to live with it - never really saw it as a problem. JPGs colour

is more saturated than the RAW's. Anyone know how to shoot RAW in sRGB on the 5D?

If the 5D is too expensive then sure, go for the 40D. EF (L) lenses are pretty much "universal" and will fit any camera

that can accept EF-S lenses as well, so the L lenses will fit your 40D.

 

Remember, because the 40D has a smaller sensor (called APS-C sized) than the 5D you'll only get a portion of the

picture you would have got using a full-sized sensor (often called "full-frame"). This "cropped" image on Canon

cameras is actually 1.6x smaller than the "equivalent 35mm" image. This means the field of view for a 50mm lens

when used on a "crop camera" ie a Camera with the APS-C sized sensor, would be the similar to the field of view of

an 80mm lens (50mm x 1.6) on a full frame camera.

 

So although one particular lens is doing exactly the same job on the 40D AND on the 5D, the 40D APPEARS to give

the lens more "reach". This can cause problems if you were trying to get a wide angle view, but can be an advantage

if you're shooting distant subjects.

 

Both cameras really are excellent. The 40D is just about due for an update in the coming months, and the 5D is long

overdue an update - expected next month, although we've been saying that for at least a year!

 

PS yes, it has been aswered before, many times. Search for 5D vs 40D (or vise versa) for more information.

 

Happy shooting.

 

Guy

Thanks Ronald,

I take it Stephen is our man in Moscow, right? I'll check out the RFF and post back.

Sorry to keep butting in, but it seems that the cheap end Canonets etc come in at around GBP10-20, with the Leica's coming in a GBP£400 upwards. Surely there's something in between, that is genuinely worth the money, in the same way that the Leica's are worth their asking price.

Okay, so I just visited http://www.cameraquest.com/fakerusk.htm and discovered that the fake Leica's are of questionable quality. So what else is there out there for me?

Hi guys,<br />

I'm an DSLR guy, I'm afraid, but I hanker back to the old days (before I was born), indeed I drive around in a car

built in 1967. I'm a child of the 60's born a decade too late.

<p>

So I'm looking for something a bit "retro", with classic lines and a nice solid feel. Somthing that you can smell the

assembly engineers sweat and tears in, but something that the engineers sweat and tears won't short circuit!

<p>

Something without the camel hump in the middle reminiscent of an SLR prism housing. I guess rangefinders are

therefore probably what I'm looking for

<p>

I don't want to spend a fortune, maybe a hundred pounds sterling or so. Leica's are nice but way too expensive for

me. Canonet is cheap, but doesn't seem to have the "engineered" feel about it. Are there any cheaper Leica copies?

Are they any good? I saw an unusual Russian Leica copy on ebay with German markings on it. Anyone know if they

would be any good?<p>

<p>

I want to stick with 35mm so I can process the film myself.

<p>

That said, I have no idea of what's out there, what it costs, what it feels like and what sort of pictures I can get from

it. I'm just looking for the kind of gritty B&W 10x8's from my parents wedding, back in the mid 60's.

<p>

Any tips would be greatly appreciated.

<p>

thanks<br />

Guy Carnegie

I guess indeed it was more lucrative, but of course on the other hand it must have been a huge risk, as those photographers looking to buy a new body were no longer tied into the Canon system because of the necessity to buy new lenses anyway - this being before the time of proprietary flash systems.

Oh, okay, thanks...

So how do new Nikon bodies know what aperture is set on the lens? Do you simply tell it using the aperture control on the body?

 

Are older Nikon lenses stopped down during exposure or metering using some mechanical linkage between the body and lens - so the new bodies have both this lever/linkage as well as electrical connections for the newer lenses?

 

Similarly, can newer lenses be used with a 1970's body, for example? Do the old bodies have an aperture setting? Do the new lenses have an aperture ring? How does that work?

 

thanks

Guy

Hi guys. Please don't throw me out - I already feel a bit of an outsider even posting here.

 

As you've probably guessed, I'm a Canon guy, but please don't blame me - they were mostly hand-me-downs.

 

So a few colleagues of mine keep digging at Canon because they apparently "keep changing lens mounts". I

mentioned that last time they did it WAS 21 years ago, and 17 years before that. So I thought I'd check my facts

and it appears that (apart from the laughable T80) I'm pretty much right.

 

I started wondering just WHY Canon changed their lens mount when switching from Manual focus lenses to

Autofocus Lenses (from T or A-Series cameras to EOS cameras) and most of the answers were based around the

inability to create a lens with BOTH mechanical actuation (to work with the older bodies) and electronic actuation (to

work with the EOS bodies.

 

I can see why they did that, as a lens with both mechanical and electronic actuation would mean either one or the

other would always be redundant (ie a T90 couldn't use the electronic aperture control, and an EOS650 couldn't use

the mechanical control, so the lens would be overly complex, heavy, bulky and expensive.

 

Fair enough, I thought, but how did Nikon do it? I figure Nikon lenses were always mechanical, and now they're pretty

much all electronic (aren't they?). I've heard that you can use any old Nikon lens on your new D3 / D300 / D700 - can

you use the lens you got in your D300kit on an old 60's or 70's bodies? Does it physically fit? does it actually work?

 

thanks,

Guy

Thanks Ellis,

I'll try to jury-rig something together - next stop... umbrella shop.

I figured oil was a big part of it, so I asked the model befaore the shoot for some advice when it comes to oils etc.

She suggested a product I had not head of before called baby oil <b>GEL</b> Apparently it doesn't sink in quite so

quickly as the normal baby oil.<p>

 

Perhaps vegetable oil would have been more approprate, although even with that gel, the model had a mild reaction

with some areas of her arms and legs turning red and blotchy - I'm guessing other oils would have a greater reaction.

How about permanently hanging the diffuser (or another one the same) with a half a dozen 100W household tungsten lights behind it, controlled by a series of dimmer switches, or even standard switches so I can dim the whole thing simply by switching some bulbs on or off? For B&W I guess I don't have to worry too much about colour temperature. I wonder how much light I'd need to keep the shutter speed above, say, 1/60th @ f8 or so at a light - subject distance of, say, 8ft.

Thanks guys, Yeah, my studio space is about 15-20ft square (my garage), but it does have a high ceiling, which is a bonus (probably not as high as his though!).

 

I did build a softbox out of 1x2", foamcore wrapped in foil and white lining material, which looks the part and does work (albeit vertically only), but it's pretty much relegated to the floor, and can't be physically attached to my Elinchrom head unit, which has to be mounted on a separate light stand and positioned behind it, poking through a hole in the back. It IS about 6ft x 3ft though, but I'm not sure my D-Lite 4's are up to filling it. Hoisting the whole kit and kaboodle into a horizontal position overhead wouldn't be much fun, and I sure wouldn't like to be a model lying underneath it! Maybe I could hang the front diffuser only, and one or two head units above it, pointing downwards (although exactly how I'd control them remains a mystery at this stage).

I've been trying to get the sort of lighting found in the picture linked below - to get the high contrast, yet long streaks

of light on the models arms and legs.

<p>

<a href="http://mayhem-photos.s3.amazonaws.com/070502/06/46386b8430990.jpg">Photo by Thorsten

Jankowski</a>

<p>

Instead, I'm struggling to achieve the contrast needed. I'm also struggling to get the "length" of reflection shown on

that photo. My highlights tend to me more localized (see my own example) <p><a

href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?

photo_id=7171172&size=lg">Photo by me</a>

<p>

There's just something about this photographers pictures that I just can't quite get. Any advice or tips would be very

much appreciated.

<p>

Should I be using a larger light source - if so, long and narrow or big and round/square? Should I be using a darker

skinned model? Should I be lighting the background more? Is it simply about the angle of incidence of the light? etc.

<p>

thanks guys and girls.<br />

Guy

Okay, I'm not going to push my point any further - I know when I'm fighting a losing battle ;). Perhaps my view of

humanity is a little rose tinted. Perhaps living in my isolated town in the Scottish highlands gives me a different view

of the attitudes of people than if I lived, for example, in downtown Houston - no offence meant to Houstonites -

random selection of Texan cities.

 

It appears from the above comments that you guys see the majority of "city folks" are not only untrusting of others ,

but to some degree untrustworthy as well.

 

I guess this is something which is hard to generalise about. Not all people have the same attitudes or values.

Personally I'm glad I live where I do and have the values that I do.

 

Kerry: I had to look up fascism to see what you meant. One definition is stated as

"attacks weakness of democracy, corruption of capitalism; promised vigorous foreign and military programs;

undertook state control of economy to reduce social friction." - rings a few bells to me at least.

Of course, if it still didn't work when you got it home, then it's unlikely to be the socket or adapter, unless you have a broken wire in the cable.

I've travelled extensively and one thing I've noted about continental sockets is that many of them are horribly loose

and make poor connections.

 

In some cases, I've had to try four or five sockets before I found one that made a decent connections.