austinboothphoto

Hi, i already have a website but have been looking at starting to sell prints online. I have an epson r2400 printer so i would be doing up to

13x19 prints myself so i don't need a print and ship service like imagekind, just a service to process orders for me. I don't know if i will

even sell any prints so i cannot afford to do anything with any monthly fees or upfront costs. A service that collects a commission would

be ok though as long as it is reasonable. Also i planned on just using paypal so i don't have to process credit cards and i'd like to avoid the

yearly cost for an ssl certificate.

 

My wife uses etsy for her craft items and they charge a small insertion fee and 3.5% commission on sales similar to ebay. However, etsy

seems more geared toward handicrafts than photos. Is there anything like that for photography? Another thing i was looking at was

integrating osCommerce into my website as a cart because it is free and having it use pay pal to check out. Has anyone used that or any

other free open source cart programs? How difficult is it for someone with intermediate html/css skills but no php/java programming

skills to set up? Any other ideas? Thanks.

<p>I guess you are right I should probably just wait at least until the camera is announced and if I decide I want it then I try and sell it and cut my losses. I guess worst case scenario I have to somehow come up with another $100-150, it will be difficult as I am coming up to a point in my life where I will only be working part time and going to school full time so I will be cutting it close just to pay bills but I will figure something out and maybe try and offer cheap photography services on craigslist or something and see if I get any takers. Maybe take pictures of peoples pets just to make a few extra bucks.</p>

<p>As for the person who said they don't think the 60D will exist, I highly doubt that. They may rename it something else but there will be a camera between the rebel series and 7D. The XXD range has been an extremely popular seller for canon and I don't see them doing away with it. The 7D is above the budget of many 40D and 50D users like myself looking to upgrade and the rebel series is not a suitable upgrade from a 40D or 50D due to the cheaper body, they would be leaving a lot of customers without any options and quite frustrated if they did away with that series and I think Canon knows this. The 7D was meant as a competitor to to the Nikon D300 which was stealing away some of their customers, not as a replacement to the XXD series which still has a loyal following.</p>

<p>So it is very likely that the 60D will be upon us very soon as the XXD series is generally an 18 month product cycle which it is already past. I am very excited about it because the HD video is something I have been wanting to experiment with for a long time, mostly for wildlife. The T1i would be a downgrade from my 40D so that is out of the question and the 7D and 5D MK II are out of my budget because I am getting ready to go back to college and finish the last 2 years of my degree. So the 60D sounds like it will be the camera for me. I'm thinking it will be a worth while upgrade from the 40D, while the 50D really wasn't. The problem is getting the money for it.</p>

<p>I am thinking of selling my 40D now because I am thinking the 60D will likely be out within the next couple months. It will be hard without a camera for a couple months but I'm worried that if I wait until the 60D is announced the price of the 40D will immediately plummet because everyone will want the 60D and the market will be flooded with 40Ds and 50Ds on craigslist. Right now the 40D is going for about $700 but I think the 60D is a big enough upgrade that it just might drop that price a good $100 or $150 at least. Considering I will have to save up some money to upgrade no matter what that will make things trickier. The weather is really rainy here in Portland, Oregon right now which makes things difficult as a nature photographer and I may be too busy in the coming weekends to shoot photos anyway so should I just sell it? Do you guys think the 60D will be here by March? I suppose I could always use the money I get from selling the camera as a deposit so I can rent a camera if I need one during that time right? I doubt I will need it more than once or twice.</p>

<p>The other thing is I need to decide which lens to sell to get me closer to the price of the 60D. I have both the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and the Canon 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS. I am leaning toward selling the Tamron 17-50mm because I have the 10-22 mm so I would only be missing 22-27mm where as if I sold the 28-135mm I would be missing between 51-99mm. I would also be able to get about $100 more for the Tamron. There have only been a few situations where the I needed the f2.8 aperture and a lot more situations before I got the 28-135mm when I needed something in the range of 51-99mm.</p>

<p>What do you all think?</p>

<p>Looks like a neat tool but you just have to decide whether it is worth it for you. If you do a lot of HDR photography you will always get better results with less noise when you use more images and the promote will make it easier to take more bracketed images. I prefer to blend exposures in photoshop over HDR because I find it has more natural looking results and I'm usually just fine bracketing 3 shots +/- 2ev so it wouldn't be worth the cost for me but if it was closer to the cost of the canon remote I would probably get it over the canon.</p>

<p>If you are just doing photography as a hobby chances are Getty will not accept you, they have very strict guidelines and generally only accept work from professional photographers. You may however be able to get in with a micro stock agency like shutterstock or dreamstime. While you won't sell the images for as much as a full on stock agency you may be able to make some "extra spending cash" if your images are good enough and sell. Many people will tell you that you are selling yourself short by doing micro stock and good images are worth more which may be true but micro stock is where the market is shifting and they are only telling you that because they hate that micro stock is devaluing their own stock images.</p>

<p>Hi. I have been looking into a way to be able to sell prints online from my website. At this point with my limited exposure and audience I do not feel it is worthwhile to go through the effort to set up my own online shopping cart on my website because I would need to first off design and code the shopping cart. Then I would need to pay for an SSL certificate to encrypt credit card info and sign up with a credit card merchant service such as authorize.net. It just seems like too much of a headache to bother with right now when I may only be selling a print once every couple months at the most. <br /> <br /> I'm afraid that if I require that people email me if they are interested in buying a print so I can take their payment and ship the print to them it will deter potential customers. It isn't as convenient as them just being able to order online not to mention a hassle for me to have to properly pack the print for shipping. <br /> <br /> I've decided that using an online print selling service that gives me a storefront and sets a base price for the print and lets me mark it up and keep the difference is the best way for me to go at the moment until my selling volume increases. I know some people use redbubble but I'm really put off by the base price of their prints which are so high that when I mark it up to what I feel is a reasonable price for the print they will be making the majority of the profit from the sale. It should be the other way around, the photographer should make the majority of the sale price and the print service should make a fair and decent commission off of it. I've also noticed that redbubble print sizes are not ordinary sizes which would make it more difficult for the buyer to find a frame for it if they decided to buy the print only. <br /> <br /> While doing some research on some other services I came across Imagekind which is owned by CafePress, a company which does a similar thing with customized storefronts for t-shirts, mugs and other miscellaneous items. They claim that they print museum quality prints so that does sound promising if it is not just them trying to sound more professional. Their base prices are far more reasonable and about a third of what redbubble's base prices. In fact the base price of their larger prints are similar to what I would expect to pay a local print shop to do the job if I were to do it myself. This means that instead of redbubble where I would be making about 40% of the sale price I would be making closer to 85% of the sale price through Imagekind. From the gallery on my website I would link to the image on my imagekind store and I think this would be direct enough not to deter most customers. <br /> <br /> I was just wondering if anyone else uses Imagekind and has any experience with the quality of their prints and how satisfied they are with the service? Are there any other similar services that any of you would recommend? Thank you. </p>

<p>As everyone else said the bigger the sensor the shallower the depth of field. The sensor in the LX3 is about 7 times smaller than an APS-C sized sensor that you would find in an entry level DSLR. If you would really want that shallow depth of field you are going to need a DSLR. I could be wrong but I'm going to assume the reason you didn't get a DSLR is because of the cost. You can actually get some older DSLRs which are still great cameras for really cheap, I would recommend either Canon or Sony if you are looking for shallow depth of field and Canon will probably be the cheaper of the two. If you can find it used you can get a Canon Rebel XT for about $250-$350 and then the 50mm f1.8 lens would be great for shallow depth of field because of its f1.8 aperture and fortunately its canons cheapest lens and you should be able to pick it up for $75-$90 used.<br>

I'm not being biased and there is a reason I recommended Canon and Sony over the other brands for your purposes since you are looking for shallow depth of field. Although Nikon makes great cameras and lenses a cheap Nikon DSLR like the D40 may not be the best option for you. The reason for this is the D40 is limited to AF-S Nikon lenses and there isn't an good relatively cheap AF-S lens for shallow depth of field, their 50mm f1.8 is not an AF-S lens and you would not be able to autofocus with it. I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make but the reason I didn't suggest Olympus or Panasonic DSLRs because they use the 4/3rds system sensor which is about 25% smaller than an APS-C sized sensor therefore increasing depth of field rather than decreasing it like you are after. So that leaves you with Sony, Canon and Pentax. The only reason I didn't recommend Pentax is their lenses albeit very high quality are a little pricier than Canon and Sony for what you are looking for which is a lens with a wide aperture for shallow depth of field.</p>

<p>Hi guys. I've been looking into getting a point and shoot camera since all I have at the moment is my 40D which isn't really a take everywhere camera. I was wondering if I could get some suggestions for a cheap camera which supports raw files (i assume any camera that does also has manual settings). I don't mind an older camera which only has 6 or 7 megapixels. I am on a budget and I would prefer to only spend $75-150 on the camera if possible so I will probably need to get an old used camera off of ebay or if I'm lucky off of craigslist. I was looking at the Fuji Finepix E900, Canon Powershot s70, Canon G6(why did they take raw out of the G7?), Panasonic Lumix LX1 or Kodak p712. Any others I may be missing? Which camera would you recommend out of these or do you have another suggestion? Thanks.</p>

<p>So this is the Itinerary I've made so far. I'm open to suggestions so please let me know what you think.<br>

<br /><strong> 1st stop</strong> - West Fork Trail. Hopefully it won't be too crowded as its past labor day now so there won't be quite as many tourists because kids are back in school and we will be there on a weekday morning.</p>

<p><strong>2nd stop</strong> - Slide Rock State Park. Time to cool off after that 3 mile hike we just did. Maybe there are some worthwhile photo ops here too?</p>

<p><strong>3rd stop</strong> - The town of Sedona. My girlfriend likes to look at little shops so this is for her so the whole day isn't just about me taking photos.</p>

<p><strong>4th stop</strong> - undecided and whether or not this stop happens depends on how much time we have until sunset.</p>

<p><strong>5th stop</strong> - Red Rock Crossing. Time to get that iconic shot of Cathedral Rock. I know, I know a million people have done this shot before but I want my chance at it too, maybe I'll find a way to be more creative with it and make it unique in one way or another.</p>

<p>Well thats my plan for Friday. Depending on how much time all of this takes I do still need some suggestions for other areas to explore that are accessible by car or a short hike so that I can kill some time before sunset. I may also attempt to get some star trails in the evening. I have one more stop to make in the morning...</p>

<p><strong>6th stop</strong> - I am planning on getting up for sunrise before we leave Saturday morning but haven't decided where to go yet. I'd like a sweeping panoramic vista if there are any good ones which are easily accessible by passenger car and won't require me to hike too far in the dark before the sun rises. I was thinking of heading north to the Oak Creek Canyon Viewpoint which I originally planned on doing friday morning to start things off but that would have meant I would have had to leave for Sedona around 4:00am to get the full sunrise show. It looks like a great view of Oak Creek Canyon but doesn't have views of the red rock buttes which I would like to shoot if possible. So if anyone has any suggestions for an easily accessible panoramic view of the red rocks around sedona please share your knowledge with me otherwise I'll probably just do the Oak Creek Canyon Viewpoint. Thank you.</p>

<p>Frank...I realize there is no way I can fully appreciate the beauty of Sedona in one day but thats what I am stuck with. I would never plan a trip which was strictly for photography to an area like this for just one day. Photography isn't the reason I am going to Arizona, its a visiting trip. However, as a photographer being in Arizona for 4 days so close to Sedona I would feel cheated out of an opportunity to take photos of a beautiful place. One day was all I was able to convince my traveling companion and I am very grateful for it because the reason we are going in the first place was to visit with her grandma. I'm sure I will go back with a different agenda some day and a lot more time to fully appreciate the area but for now all I have is 24 hours to make the best of it so I plan on trying to experience the very best of it that I can in the limited time I have there. Leaving my camera behind would be a stupid idea, I don't exactly have a photographic memory so I would curse myself for months if I got to witness an incredible sunset over Cathedral Rock with no camera to record it and help me remember how beautiful it was.</p>

<p>I will be visiting Arizona for 4 days a week from now. I am going with my girlfriend and the trip is mainly a visiting trip to see her grandma who is not doing well. However, on Friday(9/18) we will spend one day in Sedona which is about an hour from where her grandma lives. I hear the back country jeep trails are the most scenic areas but unfortunately we will only be traveling by passenger car and we can't really afford one of the Jeep tours this trip. We are willing to do a short 30 minute to an hour hike to get to any viewpoints(we would do a longer one if it weren't for the heat). I am going to attempt to be there for both sunrise and sunset to maximize my potential for the right light during both magic hours as I mostly shoot landscapes. So if you only had one day in Sedona and were traveling by passenger car where would be the places you would go? Is there anything worth shooting during the day or should I just take a break and try and stay out of the heat at that time? What about wildlife? I do have the Canon 100-400mm lens so I may be interested in shooting some wildlife during the day if there are any good recommendations on places near Sedona for that. Thank you, I really appreciate any suggestions you guys can offer me.</p>

<p>I have the 40D and I was interested in trying some old manual focus lenses via adapters on my camera and was wondering if anyone could share their advice and experience on doing this with me. I mostly shoot still landscapes and manual focus using live view so having to slow down to operate the lens doesn't bother me. I was noticing that there are adapters for Olympus OM mount, Nikon F mount and Pentax M42 and K mount that allow focus to infinity. I'm especially interested in the Olympus because a 50mm f1.4 can be had for about $60-80 where as the canon autofocus version is $400. I'm also interested in the Nikon F mount because I have a 105mm f2 and a 300mm f5.6 from my dad as well as extention tubes and a 2x teleconverter. What are everyones thoughts on this, is it worth it? Are some of these lenses near the IQ of modern lenses?</p>

<p>How much do you use that 75-300? I had that lens before I upgraded to the 100-400. I thought that the 75-300 had pretty lousy optics and chromatic abberation was very apparent at the longer zoom ranges. Being that your 70-200 is f2.8 and is a very high quality optic you would be able to use either a 1.4x or 2x converter on it in the situations where you need more zoom and still retain autofocus. I wouldn't be surprised if the optical quality of the 70-200mm lens with a good teleconverter would be at least equal to the 75-300. and a teleconverter will take up a lot less room in the bag. I would hate to see you get rid of the 70-200mm because it is such a great lens and a good portrait lens as well. You may want to keep the 75-300 just to have as a lightweight travel lens but personally I would take the 70-200 anyway because its such a great lens and higher optical quality. You may want to look into trading the 75-300 in and getting the 70-300mm IS lens, It has a better build quality and I beleive better optics as well as image stabilization. Its also lighter and would be easier to travel with.<br>

I would ditch the 18-55 lens and consider what someone else has said already the tamron 17-50 f2.8. If you are willing to spend a little more money the canon 17-55 f2.8 IS is a very sharp lens and the image stabilization and f2.8 will allow you to hand hold in very low light situations.<br>

You already have two good walk around lenses the tamron 28-75 and the 28-135 I would just decide which one you want more. The image stabilization is nice on the 28-135 to steady your hands but it will do nothing to stop motion blur from your subjects in low light conditions. However, the 28-135 covers more range and while you have that range covered with other lenses you may not want to do as much lens swaping. One solution to that would be to carry both bodys, one with the 70-200 and one with the 28-75 but if you are trying to cut down on the weight as well as reduce lens swaping the 28-135 would be a better choice. There are some lenses that cover from wide angle to super telephoto but I wouldn't recommend them because you compromise image quality when covering this amount of range. You will have to decide for yourself which walk around lens to keep based on your own personal shooting style.<br>

You already to two great portrait lenses. The 85mm f1.8 and the 70-200mm f2.8 are both very popular as portrait lenses. The decreased depth of field from the telephoto focal lentgh and wide f-stops will create a great background blur to keep other objects in the scene from distracting from the main subject.<br>

Do you ever use the rebel? its nice to have a backup or have two bodys to eliminate lens swaping but if you don't use it do you really need it? It might be better to sell it and put that money toward optics unless you do critical work such as weddings where you have to have a backup.</p>

<p>Someone else already said it but keep the 85mm f1.8 and if you need something in the 50mm range and funds are limited then get the 50mm f1.8. It is canons cheapest lens but it is super sharp and fast, you may be able to find a deal on it on craigslist or ebay. Plus it holds its value and if you buy it used you can probably sell it for what you got it for if you eventually want to upgrade to the 50mm 1.4 when you have some more to spend.</p>

<p>I sent tamron an e-mail several days ago to see if they could give a rough estimate but I have not heard back from them. Not even an e-mail saying "sorry we cannot give estimates without seeing the lens". It might be better to go with them I'm just worried I'll get stuck with a bill that is much higher than I want to pay. There is a camera repair shop a couple miles from my house that i've heard good things about so I may just bring it in to see what they think. Oh and the symptoms bob described are exactly what i am experiencing, I discovered it when shooting into the sun creating this shot, as you can see the flare is horrible. After seeing the spots I looked at the lens and I saw some little white spots on the lens element just inside the front element.<br>

<img src="http://www.austinbooth.com/moldspot.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Hi everyone. I recently discovered mold in my Tamron 17-50mm lens. Which is a bummer because this lens is really sharp for a third party lens. Anyway I'm trying to find out how much this is going to cost to get cleaned and if it is worth it to even get cleaned. The mold doesn't look very bad on my lens, it looks like it is limited to the element just inside the front lens element but it is enough that it shows up in my images. Has anyone else sent a lens back to Tamron for fungus cleaning? How much did it cost? I'd say it would be worth it to spend up to $250 to get it cleaned so I don't want to send it in if it is going to be any more than that. If I do send it in though I may try and sell it to get another lens, I think it is worth about $300 used. Thanks.</p>