neil_colton

<p>I would return to Haiti to continue the work I began there in 2006, working with The Lazarus Project<br>

( www.lazarusprojecthaiti.org). The children and the people of Haiti are remarkable... filled with hope and tremendous strength, even in the face of abject poverty and desperation.<br>

I would follow the lives of the subjects I photographed then and add to their stories, as uplifting or disturbing as those stories might be. I would work to get the images exhibited and published, as I did in 2007 and 2008. The world's attention will soon be diverted from Haiti and the rock star news anchors will fly home or on the next assignment. Then, the people of Haiti will need our attention and our help more than ever.<br>

Neil Colton<br><div></div>

<p>Hi Mark-<br>

Try John S. Craig at www.craigcamera.com or john@craigcamera.com. He claims to have 12,000 manuals in stock. I've purchsed some pretty obscure lens and camera manuals from him over the years.<br>

Hope this helps. Great lens BTW. I have a newer version and love it.<br>

Neil</p>

<p>I just used the 80-200 f/2.8 ED D version for a shoot last weekend. I'm usually delighted with the performance of this lens. I've had it for 4 years and I love it. But for some reason, I had serious AF issues in this last shoot. I used a D200, which I've used for 2 years w/no problems. The skies were overcast and there was low contrast between subject + environment (not the best conditions for the D200).<br>

The lens 'hunted' more than it ever has. I had the subjects move into higher contrast areas, but still no luck. I reviewed the images today and I must say I have never had this high a percentage of OOF images from any shoot I've done.<br>

So, I'm looking for help and answers: Is it the D200 in low/falt light? Is it the D200 for any reason? Is it some adjustment I missed in the lens or set up menu in the camera? (I'm shooting at long distance often, so the SF assist light is useless). ..or is my lens moving into the 'bad sample' category and done?<br>

Any words of wisdom are appreciated! I love this lens and don't want to replace it unless I must.<br>

Neil</p>

Mary-

This is very good information. Thank you for the thorough reply. I get it now.

Very few wedding shooters are using hard proofs, today, though-as I'm sure you know. You clearly have a strong

wedding business and a proven system that works for you. I like your business model. It's similar to the approach

our wedding photographer used, 15+ years ago.

A question, then: 'Do you think a new wedding shooter can establish + grow a business without online

proofing/ordering + without providing the B+G w/images on a CD/DVD?'

Neil

Mary-

This helps me understand a bit more about the use of a la carte pricing and marketing, in general. I didn't understand your package specifics, though.

Would you mind sharing that structure in more detail, without hard numbers.

Neil

William-

Good points, all. With all the new tools out there-blogs, websites, et al- rebranding is not as intimidating, or

as expensive, as it once was.

We've straddled the worlds of PJ, editorial + retail photography for long enough. At a minimum, another 'brand'

with content targeted at a narrow market is an overdue move. Your insight is welcomed and appreciated.

All the best and thanks, again,

Neil

Eric-

I know this is Nikon country , but the Canon 1DSMKII + MKIII would solve your problem. I use Nikon's for photojournalism, but Canon + MF for architecture + commercial work. The Canon glass is not as good as Nikon's, but I get 16x20 prints that are tack sharp.

Hope I'm not convicted of heresy...

Best,

Neil

David + William-

Excellent points. I considered posting this question on the DWF, but I decided to ask this forum first, for a different perspective. I am glad that I did.

Best,

Neil

Ron-

A makeup artist I know well, recently told me that today's brides want the process of choosing a photographer made easier by sorting for quality of work + pricing. My current pricing (Time +Talent plus anything you want) means brides who want to hire me have to do some number crunching. Seems easy enough to me, but am I missing something by not having 'Package A', 'Package B', etc?

There's also the question of the CD/DVD of wedding day images. Where and how does that factor into the pricing structure? As a commercial shooter, I'm reluctant to give anything away without compensation, but I often see that included as part of the basic wedding photog service...but I digress.

Thanks for your thoughts, Ron.

Neil

Hello All-

I am a commercial shooter, freelance photojournalist and newbie wedding photographer. I am adding a retail

component to my work to include weddings + portraits.

I have shot a few weddings and more seem to be on the way. I am struggling with a wedding pricing structure that

is simple and effective. Right now, I simply use a Creative Fee for Time + Talent (comes from my commercial

background), but I spend a lot of time explaining this to clients, who ask me for all sorts of things-CDs, DVDs,

Slide Shows, Albums, Proofs, et al.

There seem to be 2 models in the wedding photography world: 1) a la carte pricing w/everything else an add on 2)

the package plan w/more variations than I can name.

My question is: What is the most effective and least painful approach (for both parties) for wedding pricing and

why?

A follow up question: If the answer is 'Packages' what is a good mix of services and products?

Many thanks,

Neil

+{Moderator note: Last name and business name/location deleted as per photo.net policy. Please read the sticky regarding "signatures" on the Photo.net Help Forum]

Jenna-

The 50 1.4 is soft (IMHO) at 1.4, but by f/2, it's razor sharp. DOF at f/2 is still very shallow, so practice

taking photos of your children at various distances, fstops + focus points. With the DX format, your effective

focal lenght is 75-80mm. Still great for closeups and for some wide work. Remember the DOF rule of 1/3 in front +

1/3 behind the subject and that should improve your results with shallow DOF-in other words, focus on the eye and

you'll get the chin + ears in focus on a head shot. I have used f/22 (for max DOF) for some tight head shots

(with big hair) and the results were very good.

Best regards,

Neil Colton

Washington, DC Metro Area

Hi Josh,

The current issue of Professional Photographer (the magazine of the PPA) has an article on affordable, simple, portable lighting rigs. It's worth a look.

I mainly shoot outdoors (freelance photojournalist), but when I shoot indoors w/ DX format, I like the 50mm f/1.4 + the 85mm f/1.4 for portraits-the 50mm for full length shots, the 85mm for 3/4 + head shots. The f/1.8 versions of these are also very good lenses, but the f/1.4s are a cut above

IMHO, the 18-200 is a great walkin-around town w/the family type of lens-good for everyday use-but the primes are the best for razor sharp, professional quality images. Except for the newest 50 f/1.4, top primes can be purchased used at a reasonable cost. I buy used gear through KEH or Ebay. So far, I have had good experiences.

There's a trend toward longer focal length portraits (200mm, 300mm +) in the fashion world. If you have the room, you could use the 18-200 for those shots, though I'm told the high end of that lens is very soft.

Happy shooting,

Neil Colton

Washington, DC Metro Area

In low light, and especially very low light, you will simply need to focus manually.

Good luck!

Neil

Bill,

I got comfortable using high end Nikon zooms for photojournalism assignments (before I

began shooting architecture). Some of my zooms are better than primes at certain focal

lengths. I'm relatively new to Mamiya and to Phase backs, so I turned here.

The net is a bit stingy on Mamiya lens reviews and the price tag on the 75-150 is hefty, so

I thank you for the response!

Best regards,

Neil

Hello all,

I am an architectural shooter, adding portrait photography to my work. I may also add fashion-style

shooting-some in-studio, some on location. I now use an AFD II with a Phase P25+ back. As all of my

current gear is for arch shooting, I want to add some portrait gear, slowly. I'm considering the Sekor 75-

150 4.5 D and the 105-210 4.5 ULD as the first portrait lens purchase.

The cost difference is significant as are the angles of view. The 75-150 is $1,300 + - more than the 105-

210 and I like the upper range of the 105-210.

I would appreciate feedback from those who have used these lenses and any recommendations or

suggestions from experienced portrait shooters.

Regards,

Neil Colton

Washington, DC Metro Area

Hello all-

I was just doing a Google search for MF forums and I stumbled on to this thread. I am a

newbie arch and portrait shooter.

The gear I have-Mamiya AFD II w/Phase P25+ back- can do more than I know, at this

point, so I'd welcome this forum as a valuable resource. Phase has a forum, but it's a much

different animal than this would be, methinks.

Hope it takes off,

Neil Colton

Washington, DC Metro Area