laughmiller

<p>thanks guys.</p>

<p>Well, seems like I have lit some fires although that was NOT the intent. My intent was to express concerns about a profession I care deeply about. I do not pretend to be able to solve these concerns by this "rant" but by making people aware of the problems. I wish I had a business where I could do as I please, please who I want, and ignore all the other problems in that profession since I am making a living. And your contribution is what? You can be the best photographer in the world, make lots of money, go your own way but the profession is being diluted by the ignorant (not stupid!) to the point that eventually no one will recognize or care you are a "professional" photographer or what a proper photograph should look like. This is not a recent occurance; I have observed it for many years (starting about when K-Mart had photo promotions for .99 cents). That type of photography has its place but the cost was older studios going out of business cause they could not match the price AND people settling for mediocre work due to price. Now the wedding business is pretty much gone. You can get a wedding to shoot if you are ultra cheap and the high end wedding still seems to be there for a while but the middle ground is gone. People don't recognize the need for quality on either side of the camera, only the price. I do realize these are generalizations and there are exceptions. If you are doing lots of great medium income weddings I applaud you. Same with seniors; instead of individual portraits portraying some spirit (or whatever you want to call it) of the senior, they get cookie cutter portraits like most of their classmates. At one time I was doing 70 seniors a day on an assembly line basis with six different camera setups, a photographer on each rig. All because of price and time I guess. But compare this senior setup to an actual studio where wardrobe, settings, looks, etc are discussed on an individual basis. Which studio do you think makes the most money if that is a criteria; it isn't the smaller studio. The public is buying quick and cheap over great photography and service. <br>

I will go to work tomorrow and encourage those willing to learn, ignore the blissfully ignorant and wish for solutions to continue the long tradition of photography magic. The good news is there is hope looking at all the wonderful portfolios on PhotoNet. The bad news is I won't see this level of photography where I work. LOL! But I have rambled on enough... thanks for listening anyway. </p>

<p>Tim, back in the film days, I worked for a major professional lab as a custom printer and quality control person emphasis on color correction. Alas the custom color printer with an enlarger has gone the way of film in a lot of labs. The one I work in is very automated. A complaint I have is if you send us crap, we will print it and that is what you get. Your fault. Good photoshop skills will result in great prints. I personally would like to make everyones prints look the best they can... Unfortunately, that is not a shared viewpoint. Don't get me wrong, if you do your job, we crank out a great product. <br>

Daniel I am inclined to agree with you to an extent. However, the lack of quality below the waterline is disturbing and relatively easy to fix. It is one thing to have an eye to see a photo still another to have the technical knowledge to produce it. One is a talent, one is education. Yes the education needs support like the opera good or bad but if one is unwilling to learn the line becomes a little less distinct.</p>

<p>What is used on canvas mounted prints to simulate oil painting brush strokes? Appears to be a transparent gel applied with a brush. Thanks<br>

Steve</p>

<p>Jeff, if it were a rare occurence, I wouldn't care much. It is not. It degrades the entire image of professionalism so many photographers have strived to attain. </p>

<p>I work at a color lab that caters to all types of photographers. Beginners to professionals and also "professionals". I have 42 years in photography, still learning, still listening to ideas and am far from knowing it all. The folowing is a critique of the photography industry. A lot of very good photographers are out of the business due to the economy or some reason. There are still some very good photographers even at the lab I work at. However, I have never seen such lack of craft in a profession as I have seen in photography. People calling themselves pros that could not produce a technically competent photograph if their life depended on it; in focus, proper exposure, cropping, etc. What bothers me is some of these rubes are making money doing it. Seems like there are two classes: amateurs who bother to learn the basics and produce nice stuff and professionals who bother to learn the craft. That is about 5 percent of what I see; 95 percent is a complete waste of pixels. And they think they are artists... give me a break! All that has happened is a dumbing down of the general public about what professional photography should look like. Example, glamour photography with crossed up lighting resulting in magenta red faces, yellow to green tinted hair, out of focus with way too little depth of field, etc. Landscape photography where a tripod should have been used. Weddings with too little depth of field, wrong person in focus, and you can forget fill flash! I get a blank look for that suggestion. Heaven forbid a two light setup. What is wrong with these "artists"?<br>

Photography was my first love. I have watched it change for many years. I have tried to educate people and photographers from my experience. Some of that is appreciated, most is ignored. I just hate how low photography has gone. My ONLY hope is when I see most of the work on PhotoNet; generally outstanding! A photograph may not grab me when I look at it but I can sure appreciate the technical excellence that went into the making of it. With all the technical manuals, courses one can take, you would think photography would be easy to learn. It is... I am not talking about having an eye for photography, just technically competent. <br>

I apologize for rambling on like this and for this rant. Bad day at work I guess.... people could care less about monitor calibration and bitch about the color they get. A photographer who could not save a jpg image correctly. Another person who wasn't sure her order was correct but never checked it when it came back to her or even knew what she had ordered. What is sad is that these people continue to take income from those who bothered to learn....<br>

Again apologies for the rant. <br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>I am going to be creating some slide shows using Windows 7 slide show maker software. This is experimental; I will be purchasing ProShow Gold before much longer. Anyway, these will be hd slide shows which will be written to DVD to play on HD tv's. How much resolution do you need for the individual images? I want them to look good but don't want them any bigger than necessary. Any thoughts?<br>

thanks<br>

Steve</p>

<p>Bill.... you have read my mind! I have been wrestling with this problem for a few years. I have decided (almost!) to charge the clients the amount of money to stay in business and let them have the hi-res files. If they want me to do prints, specialty items, etc. GREAT! But I am not going to make my money from that. Seems like selling out to me but that seems to be what the majority of people want. I do not intend to give them complete rights but if they want to print their own, go for it. Do I like this decision? Not really. I have found most wedding customers for example, who get a CD, never get an album made. There loss I guess... That said, I am considering offering quality DVD slideshows of their wedding/event so they can show something more than a Walmart 4x6. Thinking of offering this to seniors and other things as well. My research indicates this would be popular. I would be very interested in other pros thoughts on the wedding/portrait DVD idea. I would still offer prints but not necessarily as an end product. Ah... progress! Gotta love it! Steve</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses... I am very supportive of the contract method of controling reproduction; that said, real world is, people WILL scan/copy etc my work to their own ends. I would rather have my work out there looking good rather than the client showing off poor copies or scans. Seems like most of my clients are not very computer literate and don't know how to enhance the images they get on CD. I just wanted something to make it a little more difficult to reproduce the images to a larger size. Both points you guys brought up are good and I agree with them. Not sure what the solution is to prevent people from making copies other than not giving them the CD to start with. And that is problematic as well. Again, thanks for your considerations.</p>

<p>I am wanting to limit the reproduction size to 5x7 or 8x10 on some images I am putting on CD for a customer. I am not wanting to give him full resolution so he can do just anything with the photos. They are to be used for producing his holiday cards for example. What parameters do I set for jpg size with that in mind? Is there a general rule of thumb for this problem? Thanks. Steve</p>

<p>Check out GotPrint.com Great service and pricing. 200 card pricing and up. I paid $18.00 for 1000 full color on one side, text on other side and HEAVY stock. one week delivery. Where I will reorder.</p>