mariosforsos

<p>(this is me being nice by the way...)</p>

<p>First let me start by saying that from your questions I do not get the "experienced children's portrait photographer" vibe...working with portable flashes is no different - photographically speaking - from working with massive Profotos or whatever, so your questions are a bit baffling to me...</p>

<p>As to your questions per se:</p>

<p>1. "Flattering light"? What do you mean? In itself that means absolutely nothing...what is flattering for me would be disastrous to someone else and so on. IF by flattering you mean flat and homogenous, then your best bet is a shoot-thru umbrella.<br>

2. the choice between TTL or M settings on your flashes should be dictated by your shooting style, the environment and the results you expect to get. The combinations are literally infinite and nobody would presume to tell you what to use. Personally I use M (same for the camera) whenever I use small strobes at events like a wedding or something...<br>

3. How can you ask "why" someone uses A or M in their camera? You know the difference, right? It's all about control...you should know the answer to that! Really...<br>

4. about shutter speeds...it's the same as above..! If you want to introduce blur in your image or not, if you're looking to make the most of rear-curtain sync or whatever your shooting style is, you set your camera accordingly...this is photography 000, not even 101...<br>

5. Yes, I have owned both (and multiples of them) and I have used them through Nikon's CLS...easy to set, easier to control, perfect results almost every time (depending on environment etc)<br>

6. I would use as many lights as I could control! End of story...I usually carry 5-6 with me and, depending on the space, the people, the approach I have decided to adopt for that specific shoot, the character of the people etc, I may install all or none of them... and as for shooting a group, you should know how to do this be it with 1 or 2 flashes...otherwise you have no reason being there as a wedding photographer...<br>

7. stands? HOW else were you expecting to support your flashes? How do you support your strobes in your studio?<br>

8. The GF LS is a simple (some say simplistic) solution for diffusing on-camera flash. It will give you some good results when moving around and trying to capture moments here and there, but it's not a sure-fire solution for everything... Did you order it without ever trying it out? Tsk, tsk, tsk...<br>

9. There is NOTHING sure-fire about a wedding... it all depends on where you are, who the people are and a billion other factors. Nobody can teach you how to be a wedding photographer in a forum - especially not when you obviously don't know (or haven't bothered to find out or experiment) the basics... (and please, don't go to the "I've been shooting available light" spiel again - photography is photography no matter what...</p>

<p>I'm sorry to sound harsh, but if she's you're best mate, then the honest thing to do is tell her you simply cannot do it... the way I sense this, you're more likely to ruin her wedding that not...</p>

<p>If we were talking corporate shoots or even fashion etc, then online interaction can work, assuming you remain perfectly professional (sometimes to the point of being a bit too strict and removed from the situations) . But wedding photography is completely different... you need personal interaction, you need to know whether you can communicate to the other person, you need to show the couple who you are, how you intend to approach things, what's your overall views etc... while it may SEEM that this can be done through Skype, it cannot... relying on electronic communication, in these cases, is a recipe for disaster...</p>

<p>Normally, when we shoot any kind of celebrity commercially (for whatever reason), we usually charge either (a) based on the final use of the images or (b) a fixed price for the shoot itself. Personally, I think that if she simply wants to have the images removed from your site and NOT intending to use them in some other way (i.e album covers, promotional material, etc), then the price is reasonable. If, on the other hand, she's intending to use them in any way, then it would truly depend on EXACTLY what she wants to do with them (and therefore, their intended circulation).</p>

<p>Well, within a day's drive there are many interesting sights, but the problem is that, in my opinion at least, they are diametrically opposed. On the south-east side you have the very impressive Blue Lagoon and the surrounding lava fields as well as the impressive coastline.</p>

<p>On the north (well, in any way, along Highway 1 which effectively circles the island) you have (if I recall correctly): Skogafoss, Svartifoss and many smaller ones (see more here: <a href="http://www.world-of-waterfalls.com/iceland.html#sudvesturland-og-sudurland-waterfall-list">http://www.world-of-waterfalls.com/iceland.html#sudvesturland-og-sudurland-waterfall-list</a>) and, of course, you have the amazing Jokulsarlon inland "lake" with its icebergs (personally, NOT a sight to miss - it's magnificent).</p>

<p>If you're asking of a recommendation, I'd say rent a car and drive along the road towards Jokulsarlon and simply stop on the two waterfalls mentioned above. That in itself should fill more than a day and a half. THEN, on the way back the second day, you can make a quick detour and visit Blue Lagoon for a couple of hours...;-)))</p>

<p>To be perfectly honest, I've never heard a photographer charging a percentage for product photography based on anything related to sales. Personally, we charge by the item and adjust that based on the complexity of the items in question - for example, highly reflective items tend to be more complex to photograph and hence demand a higher price, while boxed products tend to be simpler and thus demand lower prices and so on and so forth.</p>

<p>Personally, I have found jewelery photography to be relatively straightforward - at least in terms of creating images for a website or a simple catalogue (NOT generating full-page ads or whatever - THOSE are complex and highly demanding, but then again, they also demand respectively high budgets). We usually just place the items in a light box (either with a while, silver or black velvet background, and shoot them with simple strobes. Works every time like a charm! And for those rare cases when we want sparkles etc, we simply shine a high-powered focused led light directly onto the items and watch those sparkles dance...</p>

<p>Personally, I rarely offer more than a handful of images from any such session (say anything between 5-10), all in the final states, with any appropriate (light) post-processing applied (pretty much the stuff you mentioned). Then, I inform my clients that IF they want additional post-processing (anything from Liquify to hair alterations etc), there is a specific post-processing fee which is per image (regardless of how much work they want done there). </p>

<p>I will not comment on your pricing scheme - this is entirely up to you. But to my mind, there is no way to even break-even (sorry for the pun) if you post-process ALL images shot during a session and then have the client select 2-3 )(or however many) of them.</p>

<p>Well, with the exception of the G12 (which is a superb piece of equipment) I am not familiar with the other cameras (save what anyone can read in any of the review sites) but even if I was, without ANY information whatsoever about what kind of photography you'll be looking to do, it's impossible to offer any kind of serious or constructive advice. If you're going to be shooting street images, then all of these cameras will leave you wanting at one time or another and if you're going to be shooting the interiors of temples, then again, sometimes you'll find them lacking...but this is all about what YOU want to get out of india. If it's simple holiday snapshots you want, ANY camera will be fine.</p>

<p>Now, Holi is an entirely new proposition. You need a FAST camera for Holi. 70% of events (producing good images) happen indoors and that is where you NEED a fast low light camera (it's amazing how the dust obscures light even in the best lit places) AND, more importantly, you need a sort of housing for it. True, I have seen people go with plastic bags over their precious DSLRs but literally every single time they end up with cameras and lenses NEEDING a thorough service and cleaning. If you go with any of the above compacts, seriously, buy a housing. If you opt of a slightly bigger SLR, then fork out the money and get a special housing (something like the EWA Marine cases) - you will NOT regret it. Small compact cameras are not designed for rough usage (certainly not the ones you mentioned) and if they become covered with coloured dust (which WILL combine with your sweat and the water that will be freely sprinkled there!) chances are SOME of it WILL get into the mechanism (be it via the buttons, via the lens movements - it WILL get in there!) and sooner or later you'll end up with a useless camera.</p>

<p>Having used both (and frequently still being forced to when giving workshops etc) I can definitely tell you this:</p>

<p>(a) LR is indeed "lighter" as a program than Aperture. HOWEVER, what matters most in BOTH programs is the amount of images in your library. An Aperture library with 20,000 images will move faster than a LR library with 75,000 images and so on and so on. LR also depends greatly on the type and size of previews you create for your referenced images, meaning that if you choose the maximum possible option, you could bring your computer down even with 15,000 images.</p>

<p>(b) John is wrong in saying that LR does not move your images. LR can very easily move or copy your images to whatever location you want and can even (and this is where LR is "better" than Aperture) allow you direct control of your Finder and folder structure from within the application, enabling you to maintain a more coherent folder vis-a-vis collection structure. Furthermore, LR can convert your RAW files into DNG which take up less space.</p>

<p>© while I will agree RAM is important in ensuring a fast enough workflow, whether it be in Aperture or LR, something EQUALLY important is, in my opinion, the speed and connection of the hard drive on which your catalogues and images rest. Having your images on a 5400rpm external drive with a USB connection is a recipe for a disaster, even if you have an i7 with 48GB RAM. I have my images and catalogues on external 10,000rpm drives with a Firewire 800 connection and even then, sometimes, I wish for Fibre Optics. So, keep that in mind as well!</p>

<p>(d) Soemthing which would help you immensly is to somehow develop a system to segregate those images you'd want to reference frequently as opposed to those you'd like to reference rarely. This would mean you could have a "main" library with all your "main" shots and a "secondary" one (or more) where you would have, for example, closed client work, or past projects, etc. Smaller libraries mean faster responce times.</p>

<p>(e) You need RAM. With LR it's easy to calculate how much RAM you need - you only need to measure the size of your previews file and multiply that by 4. On the other hand, Aperture has, from my estimates, a slightly faster renderer and therefore may prove faster for some cases.</p>

<p>(f) Pretty much all the advice I've given so far has to do with RAW images. Both tools were made to handle RAW images adn that is where they excel. Working on, for example, JPEGs is simply robing them - and yourself - of their true potential. For example, both tools will render the file they have referenced as a JPEG and show that rendition to the screen. That happens even if your main image is a JPEG, sometimes resulting in loss of quality which would not correspond to reality. So, keep that in mind as well.</p>

<p>All in all, I too would advise you to stick with Aperture but start being smarter about how you handle your libraries. To compensate for any drawbacks your computer may have, figure out a way to work smarter by, perhaps, segregating your images or fine-tuning the preferences of Aperture to make the most of your potential.</p>

<p>Take care</p>

<p>Done...however I would have liked it to be a bit more extensive and go into more details...well, maybe next time, right?</p>

<p>Just like you would import every other file into LR, just make sure you check/select the "Add" option from the import menu rather than the "Copy" or "Move" options. The only problem with your approach is that the newly imported files will have no connection with the original RAW files. If you're happy with that and can live with it, then by all means, go ahead.</p>

<p>Personally I wouldn't. I'd do the conversion from within LR (right-click the RAW image from within LR and choose "Edit in..." and select PS. You can then do all the post processing from within PS, as you would normally do AND LR will maintain the connection and reference between the two (or more) files.</p>

<p>What you're looking for is, as it has been said, an art director. This is usually provided by the client (IF the client has a pretty solid idea of what they want) but MAY be provided by the photographer once s/he and the client have agreed on a general imagery approach for the project/shoot.</p>

<p>I too concurr that chances are no human ever came into any kind of contact with your photos - that tends to be the case with consumer-level labs which offer web-enabled print services (professional labs are an entirely different story).</p>

<p>And yes, anyone and everyone in the world can download and print your images at will, ESPECIALLY from Facebook - hell, even Facebook can use them, even after you downloaded them, for their own purposes. And chances are no lab will ever think twice about printing them - and even if one does, the client can just as easily go to the one next door and get them printed.</p>

<p>I think what the OP did was what more and more amateur photographers do when they shoot a wedding or two - they see just the immediate cash in hand without counting anything else and reactively calculate them as profit. Of course, as everyone has said already, reality is so completely different it can be actually scary.</p>

<p>Rob, you need to go back to the drawing board and take into account all the valuable information given here, talk to an accountant and a lawyer, procure their services for those aspects of your proposed business and then start "hunting down" clients...the possibility of biting off more than you can chew are increasing multifold with every new shoot you arrange.</p>

<p>I too am using Smugmug and have been very happy with them (<a href="http://www.mariosforsos.com">www.mariosforsos.com</a>). True, I had to go through some pains to make it look like I wanted it to (I have no idea about HTML or CSS, but the Smugmug customisation forum solved ALL my problems), but now it works flawlessly. I tried Zenfolio too, but their default gallery and menu structures simply did not fit with what I had in mind, so that's why I ended up with Smugmug.</p>

<p>I've been to Africa three times (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana) but it was all done through land travel and therefore weight/size was never a problem. Neither was air regulations about gear (and let me tell you, air travel within Africa is a massive pain in the neck most of the times and that is, I'm truly sorry to report, due to the people at the airports - largerly untrained, slow, mostly bored and uninterested...generally, not a good experience).</p>

<p>My main concerns would be protection and security, BUT let me clarify this: I'm not talking about protection from the people there (even though I have heard personal reports from travellers who had their gear stolen in Uganda by bandits stalking the gorilla trails), but about gear protection. Africa is dusty! VERY dusty. ALL the time, even during the rainy season. Dust gets everywhere, even if you never, ever change a lens! 3-4 days down the line and you'll discover your sensor looks like it's been bombarded. And there the trouble begins: do you clean it? How? Is the environment clean enough to ensure that when you open your camera more dust will NOT go in? Should you go for the wet cleaning method for those truly persistent specks which show up on EVERY image from f/8 and above?</p>

<p>I have spent a total of three months in Africa and I've destroyed one sensor in my attempts to keep my camera clean. And of course, this goes for lenses (I had to have all my lenses professionally cleaned after my return). Can you prevent this? No, not really. Can you live with it? Weeeell, it depends. If you don't mind spending tens of hours cleaning your images using PS or LR AFTER your return, then sure, you can live with it. But if you don't, then you need to think about that and sort some solution out. In my last trip I had a small makeshift tabletop tent (just big enough to cover my upper torso and hands) and would put that up whenever I could (and situations permitted) to clean my camera in. Did it work? It was about 70% effective. Dust WILL get everywhere. Was it better than nothing? Oh, absolutely.</p>

<p>I travel extensively and I always carry tons of stuff with me, so I had the same problem and must have gone through 3-4 tripods BEFORE I ended up with my current solution which is, to me at least, almost perfect.</p>

<p>There is a british company called "3 Legged Thing". They make pretty amazing tripods, light, compact and very, very good and at reasonable prices. I went for one of their bundles (<a href="http://www.3leggedthing.com/travel/adrianblue.html">http://www.3leggedthing.com/travel/adrianblue.html</a> or something like that - my head is gold in colour) and I have not looked back since. It's light (very important), it compacts down to around 40cm and expands to over 1,9m (me thinks!) and can easily support my D3s with 14-24 or 24-70 (have only tried the 70-200 once and it worked fine, but not under particularly strenous conditions, so...)</p>

<p>I strap it to the side of my Tamrac backpack and I hardly feel it....</p>

<p>my 2c</p>

<p>Allen is right: I was there some time ago and out of 3 days there, I did not manage to get a single shot worth my time or the expenditure there. The fog was thick enough to cut with a knife and it rained almost for a whole day in the middle of their dry season... so, be prepared for a disappointment.</p>

<p>The best way to do what you want is to arrange for your own boat. Grouping with 3-4 more people might be better as it would afford you a better boat and the chance of spending some nights on the boat and thereby saving on transfer times. My advice would be to contact local travel agencies and see what they can offer.</p>

<p>As for climbing on tip of an island, that may prove VERY difficult (and dangerous), even if you're an experienced climber. Be very careful IF you decide to attempt it.</p>

<p>Personal preferences should not come into play whenever a professional is offering his/her services. This is true of accountants, auditors, lawyers and many other professions. It should be true of photographers as well. The day when a photographer refuses to shoot a model he personally finds ugly is the day something about professionalism in general will have died.</p>

<p>At the same time, ethics should come into play - at least ideally. Should you refuse to shoot the portrait of a known murderer because you hate what s/he did? Maybe, if you have the luxury or if you place your ethical values over and above those of, say, your employer or your client(s). Personally I wouldn't. Same as I would produce the same excellent results if I was asked to shoot the portrait of an extremist politician, a terrorist or anything for that matter. It's not about money - it's about the art, it's about the photography. For me anyway...</p>

<p>Having said that however, I should not hide the fact that I have noticed that sometimes when the models I'm working with are not to my liking (and I'm talking about appearance and overall demeanour here), my work can be more clinical, more detached than with someone I develop a personal rapport more easily...but I think that might be the same with everyone...</p>

<p>What has been said so far is absolutely correct! But methinks that the problem started with your friend giving the images to the interior designer without any kind of agreement or release and without agreeing on any kind of pricing.</p>

<p>A sourcebook, for your info, is pretty much like a catalogue of ideas and businesses providing/supporting them, much like a telephone directory, so the usage they're suggesting (letting aside the fact they should not have used the images in the first place without your agreement - by the way, how did they handle the embedded watermark? Did they remove it somehow? If so, this should be brought up as a problem...) seems pretty fair to me...</p>

<p>First, setting aside the fact that this is a public forum and your name, along with the comments, are now fully searchable, I do not think you should pre-empt the client's reactions. From what you've written she does not sound unlike approximately 50% of my wedding clients (give or take something) - especially those who are going through the process for the second or third time. They tend to be ALOT more specific with respect to what they want, how they want it and, give the fact you pretty much knew that from the beginning, you should have either anticipated it or simply bear it and keep moving forward.</p>

<p>Without knowing what your contract says about what is included and what not, I cannot offer any more specific advice, but my one would be to remain completely calm, ALWAYS be reasonable and professional in ALL aspects of your contacts with her and deliver what you would anyway and then simply work with her on any changes she might want. Remember, while this for you is a job, for her is something about a billion times more special and, frankly, you should try to be more understanding and accommodating.</p>

<p>But hey, that's just me. I have been faced with explosions far grander and more embarassing than the one you describe, but I know this has nothing to do with me - most brides (and their mothers) place themselved under enormous stress when preparing their dream wedding, so I have come to expect an explosion or two as part of the normal proceedings. Smile and always speak in a calm and collected voice and everything will always be fine. </p>

<p>As for the album, accommodate her as much as you can. You gain nothing (save a few hours) by making her an "enemy" but you may gain alot by making her a satisfied customer (even if she doesn't realise it, when people see your work in her album and photos will naturally inquire about you).</p>

<p>Personally, from what you're saying, I would tend to think "images shot in a public space and NOT used for commercial (i.e. product promotion) use" and come down on the side of "you should be okay".</p>

<p>HOWEVER, this is very litigious times we live in and talking to a lawyer is a must. As is, in my opinion, securing printed releases from both the bands AND the venues. Why? Well, chances are your book will sell (if you're lucky) a few hundred copies. So far so good (for you) and chances still are nobody will mind. But what if the book catches the attention of a publishing house and they want to reprint. Then you should have ALL the above and then some...</p>

<p>Talk to a lawyer. It's expensive, I know, but NOT doing that can be even more expensive.</p>

<p>I think the point has been missed here. The OP wants to "finish" the photos, not develop them. For those who do not know, in India (unless I am sorely mistaken and my last visit there was not really representative), 90% of photos are post processed to make colours more vibrant, skin ALOT smoother, etc etc. I assume this is what the OP wanted....</p>

<p>But, this is SUCH a huge theme to go into, containing so many variables that it's almost impossible to answer. Even setting aside the issue of equipment (being next to impossible to advise on equipment available in India), it's a no-win situation attempting to describe the skill-sets necessary for this. Yes, photoshop (or something close to) knowledge is a must, as is of the MANY techniques required to produce the desired output. This takes time and training BEFORE it becomes practical (let alone profitable) to actually offer this as a service. If it takes someone 2hrs to retouch an image to Indian standards, the maybe 5 Rs is simply not enough. That would be impossible for non-Indians to answer.</p>

<p>Also, profitability is a factor of about 1000 variables, none of which we, and apparently the OP, is aware of.</p>

<p>I think I must have shot over 100,000 images on, pretty much, the same set of cards these past 4-5 years and they have yet to fail. However, having said that, I too shoot on dual cards whenever I shoot for a client and when I travel (meaning I do not have the luxury of "wasting" cards for backup purposes - travelling for a month across Africa means you have no access to additional storage anyway!) I never go with cards over 16GB, so any potential loss is as small as possible.</p>

<p>I will agree that you should buy from a reputable dealer and you should stick with cards that offer a lifetime guarantee.</p>

<p>Also, tilted images tend to convey - sometimes - dynamism and direction, which can be useful at times.</p>

<p>Deleting LR preferences should work.</p>