mcgovernphoto

<p>Keith,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Even if you don't want to pay for an ad in the phone book, at least make sure that your business is listed in the yellow pages under the correct section. This doesn't cost anything.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>'Round here (Atlanta), business listings in the Yellow Pages <strong>do</strong> cost, and they cost more than they're worth. Especially for photographers, who are hired based on previous work as well as personal contact. I ask every customer where they found me, and none of them have ever said "the Yellow Pages." So I cancelled my (basic) listing that was costing almost $500 per year. I don't think I know any photographers who do not do online proofing, so a customer without a computer is one you have to make a special effort for in the first place, and spend extra overhead on, for physical proofs. Most of us nowadays do not use the phone book for <strong>anything</strong>.</p>

 

<p>The AF lenses have no focusing motor in the lens. They rely on the camera's in order to focus automatically.<br>

AF-S lenses have a focusing motor.<br>

The D60 body has NO focusing motor, so if you want the ability to focus automatically, you will need to use AF-S lenses. AF lenses will work just fine, with the exception of Auto Focus.</p>

<p>Jeff,<br>

Thank you for the clarification, as "modeling portfolio" was not actually mentioned by the OP. Looking at the original post with "<em>modeling</em> portfolio" in mind, that makes much more sense. This being a photography forum, I default to "photography portfolio" when a portfolio is mentioned.<br>

No, I do not think that modeling portfolios are self-portraits. That is, of course, absurd. But I also did not assume that we were talking about a model. I understand now.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>While I agreed to allow him to use the images in his print portfolio...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What? Why would you do that? That's the equivalent of putting someone else's work experience and education on your resume/CV! A print portfolio is intended to show the viewer someone's work, not the work of a third party.<br>

If you were truly concerned with others using your images, it seems you would have held on to them a bit better, no?<br>

"Hey, I see that you've earned a PhD. Do you mind if I borrow it for my resume?"</p>

<p>For those of you still following this thread, I have updated the site, including a new splash image.<br>

<a href="http://www.McGovernPhoto.com">www.McGovernPhoto.com</a><br>

I also added a "Maternity & Babies" section.<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>Very good points, ND. thanks!<br>

I think that I will be keeping an eye out for a new splash image anyway. I like the one I've got, but I think that I'll be open to another one if I come across one that I feel does the job.<br>

Mark</p>

<p>When you enable Highlight Tone Priority, the camera's computer switches the minimum ISO to 200 and uses that for the majority of the photo. When it processes the image, it isolates the highlights and applies an ISO 100 effect to those areas. That's why you can't manually switch to 100 when HTP is enabled. There has to be a lower ISO to which to apply the highlight area(s).<br>

I don't think that in most cases most people will be able to tell with the naked eye the difference between ISO 100 and 200 in the final image. ISO 200 on the XSi does not introduce a noticable amount of noise.</p>

<p>Thanks a ton everyone! Both of my monitors are calibrated, and my photo blacks look black to me. Perhaps my eyes need calibration ;)<br>

Michael, I like the increased amount idea on the gift certificates. I'll try that in the near future. Yes, I certainly do need the work.<br>

Charles: Yes, there should be...is there? I'd love that.<br>

Nathan, I unfortunately do not have a lot of diverse examples on the other types of photography (yet). I fear that if I put a gallery of corporate shots, many people may think that they all look alike (my style of corporate portraits is not very varied). That is something I am certainly working on, but until then, I have to showcase what I have.<br>

Tony: No harm done! Your feedback is exactly the type of thing I am looking for here! I've got to get this dry spell over-with.<br>

Thanks for the comments so far! I'll update you if and when I change my splash image.</p>

 

<p>That's certainly a different take on that image. Usually I hear about how that photo took the viewer's breath away at the emotion captured between the bride and groom during a passionate dance!<br>

Thanks for the input, Tony. I can't wait to see what others say.</p>

<p>Hey everybody,<br>

I wanted to see if I could get some input on my redesigned Web site at <a href="http://www.McGovernPhoto.com">www.McGovernPhoto.com</a>.<br>

I have opted to keep the wedding pricing vague so that I can convey to the brides that each of their needs are different, so the packages are very customized.<br>

Let me know if there are any questions, concerns, etc.<br>

Thanks everyone!<br>

Mark McGovern</p>

<p>I have been using Album Epoca (<a href="http://www.albumepoca.com">www.albumepoca.com</a>) lately. They have no center gap because the whole spread is one photographic sheet and expertly mounted. You can get them only through Albums, Inc. (<a href="http://www.albumsinc.com">www.albumsinc.com</a>) here in the U.S.</p>

<p>Sterlingtek is the only place from which I buy batteries. I have only two Canon brand batteries. The one that came with my 10D and the one that came with my 40D.<br>

The SterlingTek batteries are just fine and cost way less.</p>

<p>Someone mentioned that to get the equivalent photo on a FF, you have to keep in mind that you're cropping out 60% of the image. This is not so. The math does not work that way. 1.6 IS 60% larger than 1, but 1 is NOT 60% smaller than 1.6. It is 37.5% smaller (1 / 1.6). This means that an equivalently-cropped FF image from a 21.1 mp 5D II will be just over 13 mp, not 7 or 8 as someone stated....still bigger than the 40D's 10.1 and almost as big as the 50D's 15. Factor in the fact that the actual pixels are larger on a FF sensor than on an APS sensor, and there you have it... FF sensors have the upper hand ... on this one.</p>

<p>This is from one of my more recent weddings. I have been shooting weddings for just over two-and-a-half years now, and have shot around 30 weddings so far.<br>

The bride was walking past the stained-glass windows at the church and I stopped her to get this shot. I am proud of it since I saw it in my head prior to taking it.<br /><br />Taken with my Canon 40D, Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 lens, ISO 400, 1/10 sec @ f/3.2<br /><br />Natural light from the adjacent stained glass window only. NO photoshopping.<br>

<img src="http://www.mcgovernphoto.com/images/port_wedding/12.jpg" alt="" /></p>

Philip,

 

That is true in SOME cases, but not all. I have checked into it, and found that the contract would override the "work-for-hire" status. It is not automatically work for hire simply because they are hiring me to take the photos. If that were the case, then almost all professional commercial and portrait photography would fall into that category, and it most certainly does not.

 

As I said, the agreement that I would be okay with would include me retaining the copyrights of the images. That agreement, when signed by both parties, would "free" me from the work-for-hire phenomenon.

Thanks, Alan.

 

It's a company called Unique Garage. And the guy called using a North Carolina land line number, so that was a little strange, since he said he was in Montreal.

 

I told him that he would be hard-pressed to find a photographer willing to give up exclusive copyright, and if they did it would most likely cost well into the thousands - possibly per image.

 

I quoted him a day rate of only $500, and a one-time use of the images for $200. I made sure to say that the day rate would change if any additional equipment or assistance were needed. Also, the $200 use fee is contingent upon the owner signing a release. A release needs to have "consideration", so the consideration could be the receipt of the discounted $200 usage fee, rather than something much higher.

 

I finished by summarizing the estimate and saying that a more detailed quote would be available after possibly meeting with the owner, seeing the venue, etc. He said simply: "Thank you, We'll be in touch."

 

I get the feeling that usually he normally takes the photos himself and then just hands over a disc of the images to the client, hence his thoughts that the client would own the copyrights.

 

Anyway, I kind of doubt he'll be in touch. Thanks for all the great info!

It is ridiculous to hear of these "business owners" not charging sales and/or use tax as if it is a personal choice whether or not to charge your clients the tax. Tacky or not, sales tax is to be paid by the end user. Charging your client sales tax is not a matter of looking professional, nor is it a matter of "I've never charged it, so I'm not going to start now." It is a matter of obeying the laws in your state or not, and risking the consequences. Perhaps the laws in your state have changed, perhaps they have not. Doing things one way or another just because that's how you've always done it is a very bad choice in a dynamic business like ours, with dynamic laws and clients.

 

Look at the Web site for your state's department of revenue and learn what types of transactions are required to have sales tax added on to them.

Erie, Thanks, but that's actually what I am asking.

There is a company that acquires photographs of clients' vehicles, motorcycles,

etc. and makes garage cabinets with the photographs as the graphics on the

laminate for the cabinets. I hope that made sense.

 

A sales rep from the company contacted me today and asked for a quote for

taking some photographs for their client's graphics. The client is here in the city

where I live, and has approximately 20 vehicles that would be photographed. I

asked if they would need full exclusive rights or if they just want a one-time

release (for use on the cabinets), and the rep told me that the "owner" would own

the copyright, "since they are his vehicles." Obviously, this is not automatically

the case, as the photographer has the copyright until expressly given up. The rep

is in Canada, so maybe that's the case there, but his client is here in GA.

 

My question is this: since they obviously want the full exclusive rights to the

photos, and it will most likely take me a full day (possibly two) to take the photos,

what should I quote for this job?

 

Let me know if you need more info. Thanks!

Your wedding photography prices are quite low, and that may very well alienate and repel some high-dollar clientele. Especially since your individual portrait prices are relatively high. That makes it appear that you do not specialize in weddings, which is one thing that wedding clients look for.

 

I agree with Aubrey's comment about the "cannon" equipment. Run a quick spell check (with your eyes, not computer) just to make sure everything is looking how you want it to look.

 

A good friend told me recently that consumers "love giving money to successful people, so the more successful you appear, the more likely they are to give you money for your service." Obviously, they won't be "giving" you anything if you earn it, but you get the idea.

 

Have a graphic artist or Web designer take a quick look at your site and offer any suggestions. You may have to pay for their time or barter with them, but it will be well worth it.

I use Candid Color Systems. They have reps who can work with you one-on-one to help you offer the very best of this service to your clients. I have found, however, that it helps if you have very specific questions to ask them. Sometimes they assume that you know just as much as they do. Of course, if you do, then great!

 

They have an entire marketing plan available in regards to sports teams. It is one of their specialties.

 

Candid's quality cannot be beat, as far as I've seen. And they don't charge you a monthly fee like others might. If you do business in a given week, then you pay them their printing (and some other) fees. If you don't, then you don't pay them.

 

I don't know anything about Marco PhotoService, so I cannot provide a fair comparison of the two, but there is my thoughts on Candid at least.

Generally, you need to have a written & signed model/likeness release form on file for each human face that is recognizable in the photos. I would ask a copyright attorney just to be sure though. Better safe than sorry.

I would suggest publishing one to ten copies privately, then using that to pitch to the big publishing houses, if that is the route that you'd like to eventually go. Believe it or not, "Self-Publishing for dummies" seems to be a great resource for self-publishing. As Mr. Denton says though, there is financial risk if you bank on it.

If you are going to print them yourself, why would you charge higher for that? Is it going to cost you more than if you went through a professional print lab? I would guess not. Usually prints made by the photographer or at a location like a school facility are a little lower quality than if you went with a pro lab, so I would probably charge less, not more for that. A place like kodakgallery.com would suffice until you turn the hobby into a full-fledged business, when you can start using the pro labs like Candid Color Systems.

 

I would recommend printing up some business cards using the inkjet business card sheets you can find at any office-supply store, to keep costs down. Also, there are some places online like VistaPrint who print really inexpensive business cards.

 

Take a look at some of the packages offered at the local portrait places, as was suggested. Keep in mind the difference in quality between places like an actual photographer's studio, and the "innovative" places who print your photos in-house. (there're reasons they're so inexpensive.) If you price just below them, you can still make a profit while offering a better deal while starting out.

 

Mark

I use Candid Color Systems and it has worked extremely well for several events that I did that sound almost identical to the one you outlined. There is no fee to sign up and there is no monthly or annual fees. Any of them that charge a fee had better do a lot for you above and beyond the norm, otherwise they are a scam. You should not have to pay just for the privelege of being a customer. The prints from Candid are the highest quality you will find. there are no limits of any kind on space, time, anything.

It is an actual professional print lab.