ed_farmer

I've been contacted by a few DJ's who sell photography as part of their packages. I've done this in the past and it's pretty easy money. I want to put together sample albums for two of them to use in their sales. When I sell my own work, I have several sample albums of complete weddings (just copies of my bride's album). but I'm only sending ONE album to each. Should this be a complete wedding? Or best shots from different brides?

What film? Where were they developed? How does the film itself look? Does the discoloration continue into the film edges and between frames?

Off the top of my head . . . Many online services have a check box to indicate if you want them to correct color/density or print as you sent the image. You may have checked this on one order and not the other. But, I would suspect that the lab would have noticed this when you complained.

Why would a direct positive paper be designed for printing color negatives?

The simple truth is that it only means what the creator decides that it means. An "Edition of 100", may mean that that capture will only be used to produce 100 prints for sale. But, it may also mean that only 100 16x20 prints will be produced but it may show up in other sizes or posters. Or, that more may be made with other manipulation. Or that more identical images may be produced at a different time . . . And on and on . . .

Yep . . . I left all of that in because I though is looked more sciencefictiony . . .

Found this little guy on the roof of the car after pulling into a Sonic to eat. Grabbed a camera out of the bag, used the 50f1.4 that was already mounted, snapped this shot and he left before I could get another . . .

Iphone photo taken on vacation . . .

This was taken with available light, on her wedding day, on her mother's front porch . . . There was a cage full of parakeets to her right . . . Just enough room to squeeze her in . . .

Taken near Ocean City, Maryland, a few years ago. I'm not a nature photographer, in fact, almost all of my photography involves people but this image struck me . . .

Yep . . . It's likely that the frames are not "blank" but grossly under exposed . . . Well . . . You said "blank". I guess that could mean they are claar or black. Black would indicate gross over exposure. In the end, the lens and body are not working together properly. The aperture interface on the lens could be damaged or the lens could be improperly mounted. Knowing the model of both would help greatly.

I'm a wedding photographer but I don't think that I'm interested in a drone for that purpose. I'm looking for something to play around with though. Better than a toy but cheaper then a used D200 . . . Both video and still images. Does anyone have any suggestions of what I should be looking for?

There are plenty of carriers around for this model. Both new and used. New are ungodly expensive. When I was teaching in a high school darkroom, students made their own carriers out of two pieces of mat board but dust was a real problem. If I needed something that I don't have today, I would cut it out of steel or aluminum plate material or file out a smaller carrier that I could pick up cheap.

Here's a link to a T6i review . . . with pictures . . . Canon T6i (EOS 750D) Review

Portraits . . . To some extent, it depends on purpose, the amount of time that I have to work and the amount of room that I have . . . It starts with the 80-200f2.8. I've had several incarnations over the last 30 years and all were "go to" lenses. After this 85f1.4. I've also had a few of these and they are flawless. Now, I've never owned a 105 or 135mm lens so . . .

I'm looking at reviews of the T6, 7 and 8i bodies and ALL appear to have a traditional looking center pin shoe? What I would tell you is that students taking a studio lighting class should understand that they are going to need a camera that will support studio lighting.

I like that . . . But, if your going to pan, don't focus at infinity. Estimate the distance to where the riders will be. Experiment with longer shutter speeds. Even 1/15 and 1/8 can work with a little practice!

The only things that give away the time frame are the full-face helmets and the three-line writing on the shirt in the front line. The stands look great. I think from another post, you had someone else process the film and you scan for prints. This means that you have the full range of digital tools available to you: I would do two things. First, fix the sky in the upper right. You may be able to burn it and get more detail but it may require a scan with a different exposure and layering that in. The second thing that would do is burn the foreground and lower left to match the dirt on the lower right. I almost always burn the bottom of an image (in a bit of an arch) to give some "weight" to the bottom. Great shot . . . Did you do any action?

OK . . . Sometimes, problems get stuck in my head . . . What enlarger are you using? Can the bulb be replaced or adapted to an off the shelf LED bulb? Even if you have to keep the condenser (you wouldn't have a diffuse source) you would eliminate the heat issue.

Yeah . . . They're not looking for your best, they are looking for the same images across jobs and across photographers . . . It's a job . . .

What's the location like? I don't see a big problem with the set up unless the groups get large, then I would like to see the lights higher and the fill closer. Of course, if you run into that you can adjust on the fly. Shoot through umbrellas are a very different animal that softboxes or reflective umbrellas. Remember, only about half of the light (maybe less) goes through and the rest will be bouncing around the room to act as additional fill. If they have been doing this for 15 years, they have an idea of what they want and what they will get. Many years ago, I shot weddings for a studio that had 25 photographers. They used to complain that my pictures were "too good" because I did more than just put a Vivitar 285 on top of my medium format camera. Their concern was that brides who knew each other would compare my pictures to Joe's pictures and Joe's bride would come in and complain. I understood their concern but didn't want to dumb down what I was doing. But, I gained a ton of experience quickly because they had me working every Saturday and many Fridays and Sundays for over a year before I left.

"I used Sigma 105mm 1.4f @ at 1.4f in a bedroom with just a regular light for a test on a tripod." Which is it? Were you shooting at f9.9 or f1.4. I'm going to assume it was f1.4. As noted above, the primary problem with the image is noise which you can alleviate. The tripod isn't helping you because the head that you are shooting can also move in and out changing where the plane of focus falls on the face. You're using a long, fast, lens and focusing very close as well. All of that adds up to a very difficult capture.

I used to stock up on reasonably priced 8x10 and 11x14 frames when Michael's or A.C. Moore had sales. I used these for photos given as gifts or, the past, to hang in the kids rooms. Mostly narrow, black wood or metal frames. Now, I'm seeing everything at two or three times the prices that I used to pay on sale. What source are you using for inexpensive frames?