mariosforsos

<p>Well, I will concur with the "thrasing" of the Canon AF system, admittedly not from personal experience, but mainly drawing from the results I saw from the few Canon shooters we had during last year's Athens Golden Marathon and the problems they all faced (no exception) with their moving subjects.</p>

<p>But, I'm not here to diss Canon. When we were preparing for the Marathon shoot, Nikon provided us with a special PDF file detailing special instructions for sports shooters regarding making the best of their AF functions (and NO, it was no the same that was contained in the camera manual - it was something different). While I already knew most of the things in there, it has since become an invaluable assistant to many a budding photographer and has resulted in some pretty impressive work. Maybe if you contact Canon, they have something similar...;-)</p>

<p>The third image is one of the pro-level Canon's, but since they are, externally, all the same, it's impossible to discern - especially since all distinguising marks are covered or edited out...</p>

<p>If I didn't have the 70-200/2.8 VRII already, I would definitely buy that lens... when I'm travelling, I do use the f/2.8 sometimes, but almost at all other times, it's f/4 and above, so...;-) And if the new lens comes out at anything around 1,000 euros, then it would be a steal...;-)</p>

<p>The most critical reason why you should not place your catalogue onto a CF card is that LR reads and writes data on the catalogue dozens of times every time you do ANYTHING within LR, so it would seriously diminish the card's long term viability - chances are you'd end up changing cards every few months...let alone the fact that IF you're using full-sized previews, even a 32GB card won't be enough...</p>

<p>Setting aside the fact that I personally cannot see how much weight you lost by switching to CF from aluminum (what was it, really? 300-400 gms? How critical was that?), you have to realise that it's not only the material of the tripod that makes the difference, it's the structure. I've had proper steel tripods being less steady than my current aluminum one, simply because of the way they were designed and constructed. A CF tripod with sturdy, thick legs, can be very stable indeed...much like one with thin legs will be a feather in the proverbial wind most of the time...</p>

<p>If you're finding your tripod is not stable enough (easy matter to check), then simply find a way of hanging something really heavy from underneath it (some tripods have a special hook underneath the central column just for this purpose) and that should take care of most of your problems. Of course, another issue people usually come up against is "head creep", whereby their chosen tripod head simply cannot support their camera and lens and, during long exposures, slowly creeps up or down...</p>

<p>I so completely disagree with Ezio that I don't know where to begin!</p>

<p>First of all, I don't know about Italy (even though I've travelled through it extensively back in my film days), but in any other country, any attempts by "officials" to "restrict" photography in return for "fees" is nothing more than a fleecing attempt without any legal backing whatsoever. That is why, 90% of the time, there are no written rules, why one policeman will tell you something completely different from another, etc, etc. NOBODY cares about protecting the local photographer "who produce pictures to be sold to magazines, books, travel agencies etc. etc", simply because 95% of international publications DO NOT use images from local photographers, but rather from their own photographers on assignment or image banks. I AM one of those assignment photographer, so I know...</p>

<p>Second, travel agencies which come up with non-existent problems should not be trusted. They are most likely trying to grab some more money from the traveller, exploiting their lack of knowledge of local deals. Unfortunately for them, they are mostly not aware of how powerful the internet is these days, so fail to see that any crap they come up with (and I HAVE been forced to change travel agencies because of their attempts to fleece me) can easily be verified.</p>

<p>You do not need to be Steve McCurry to sell images of India. You do not even need to be a professional with 20,000 euros worth of gear! All you need is a bit of luck in terms of timing (so you can grab an interesting frame), good knowledge of your equipment, patience and perseverance. I've had images I shot with my ancient D50 and the kit lens outsell images I've shot with my D3s and my 70-200 VRII and I've had images from Rajasthan sell for more than enough money to justify my trip there...;-)</p>

<p>Saying that the bribes crooked officials require are not important simply because they mean nothing to us due to the exchange rates is the reason these people can still try to pull this off. Yes, it IS worth it standing up to them and it IS worth spending some time setting them right because you're helping, not only yourself but also everyone who comes after you. Standing up to them and insisting they, for example, take you to their superior or to the office or even to the police station, to resolve the situation will clip their wings on 99.5% of the cases...so NO Ezio, it is NOT nothing...it is everything!</p>

<p>Finally, I have yet to find a place that restricts photography, even with a massive 8x10 camera. It might require an advance permit, but that's all. True, if you want to shoot the Taj with a massive camera on a huge wooden tripod, you cannot just show up at the door, but if you contact the offices in advance (WELL in advance), you can obtain the required permissions.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Having done the same trip as Jos did in 2007, I have this to say:</p>

<p>1. I think our group were the only ones that did not see gorillas. We went through 3 days of constant driving and hiking and climbing in the rain and ended up with nothing to show for our trouble, save for a few shots of gorillas looking at us from around 50-70m away. So, lesson no 1, gorillas are not guaranteed.</p>

<p>2. You need rain gear! Absolutely! This is near-rainforest area and, in those occassions when it wont be raining, it will be drizzling and you'll need to be able to shoot quickly. So, apart from taking care of yourself, ensure you have adequate protection for your camera gear as well.</p>

<p>3. From what I heard from our guides, a 70-200 lens is MORE than enough for 90% of the time.</p>

<p>4. There have been, in the last 5 years, 6-7 instances of bandits attacking tourist safaris. Nobody is ever hurt, but they do take everything! From cameras to new shoes! So, make sure you insure your stuff and, whenever possible, secure your filled cards before you set out on a drive.</p>

<p>I would not even bother with additional lights and I would certainly not raise the ISO - both solutions are kinda unnecessary, at least in my mind.</p>

<p>I'd set up my camera on a tripod, set f/16 and expose until everything is perfectly lit. It might take exposures ranging between 2-5 secs, or it might require me to add touches of light here and there using a portable strobe at very low power (while moving around the sculpture) but it will come out well in the end. Just make sure you also shoot a reference white object afterwards so you can set the white balance correctly. And of course, you'd shoot RAW...</p>

<p>The old saying "you get what you pay for" certainly holds true for softboxes as well. HOWEVER, sometimes, you don't get, say, 4 times the quality when you pay 4 times the price, but as a rule, a more expensive softbox usually holds together much better than a lower-priced one...</p>

<p>While horses do indeed get upset by sudden changes in lighting and "unnatural" noises, that is usually the case when caught unprepared, i.e. when someone they do not know approaches them and blasts them with their strobes again and again...</p>

<p>When handled by their owners/riders/handlers and when the photographer takes time to be around them so they can get used to him/her, then things are much, much easier. Place your strobes at some distance, expose for the background and then simply add that little bit of light. I would recommend avoiding large modifiers (i.e. softboxes, umbrellas, etc) as they give yet another point of focus for the animal to have to observe.</p>

<p>Oh, and I would not shoot in the middle of the day...either early in the morning or a couple of hours before sunset (before the "golden hour")...better light, easier to balance with flash without looking weird, less need to add light...;-)</p>

<p>It's non-sensical to still believe things are what they used to be 10, 15 or even 5 years ago. People these days care significantly less about prints than they do about online presence, and financial situations mean that they are 10 times more likely to be willing to put up with a print that is "fine" rather than pay 5-10 times more for a print that is "excellent" - not because of the difference in prints, but because of their own priorities. After all, in most customers' minds, the scale distance from "fine" to "excellent" is nowhere near the distance between a $5 print or a $50 print.</p>

<p>So, if wedding photographers WANT to keep on working, they need to adapt their model. Personally, I price myself (in the few times I shoot weddings) in such a way so as to be able to give away the high-res files on a DVD and simply walk away from the project. Customers are happy, I am happy, they get value for money, I get paid quickly and easily and everyone's happy. Do I offer them the option of specialist prints? Sure, but only as an option and with nowhere near the markup some other photographers do (practically, I'm only charging for the administration required to order the prints in a specialist lab I work with, where they are printed as per my specifications).</p>

<p>I know tons of photographers who charge, say X amount of euros for a wedding (X being 1/3 of what I usually charge), but then load the customer with tons of "options", like a hand-prepared album, special prints, etc, etc, bringing the total to much more than what I charge. Do they make more money? Maybe. Possibly. But I deliver in 1/3 of the time it takes them to deliver, my customers can share special website access with their friends and guests and Facebook connections, they can print what and how they like and above all, they're happy.</p>

<p>Change, adapt, survive. Or stick to your guns and possibly perish</p>

<p>Well, I'm greek and let me tell you, you will NEVER find a single greek person who knows what a "greek composite" is, simply because it has nothing to do with Greece. It's a completely american invention to create fraternity group photos and because american college fraternities are named after greek letters...well, you get the point...</p>

<p>I would advise you to create a template within your compositing program of choice (I would use Adobe InDesign, but that's just me). Create the containers and add pictures named ####001.tiff (or something, with increasing numbers) and make your composite. THEN, everytime you want to create a new one, simply export the portraits in a similar naming sequence (from, say, the next fraternity you shoot) and InDesign will pull them in automatically...;-)</p>

<p>I was in India (throughout Rajasthan) last year and I faced no problems carrying a couple of D3s with me with 4-5 lenses. Nobody batted an eyelid. Admittedly, there were some places (I think the Taj was one of them, but I distinctly remember at least one other place for sure, maybe two) where professional photographers need to get a "camera" licence, which is basically a way they get to charge more to foreigners who obviously have more money!</p>

<p>True, tripods are a no-no in some monuments (and in fact, they are more of a hassle than anything) but carrying a camera with you should not be a problem.</p>

<p>HOWEVER, having said that, carrying everything in a massive backpack (a HUGE mistake in India!) then you're simply inviting "problems" - you will be immediately "branded" as a "rich tourist/money source who obviously does not know better than to display his 20,000 USD worth of gear in a country with average annual income of about 1/10th of that" and let me tell you, you might be charged even in places which normally do not. I have seen that happen! Me and this other British professional photographer, me with my Domke and he with his Billingham, simply walked through the entrance of a temple without any payment or hassle while a Japanese tourist with a massive Lowepro backpack was stopped THREE times for payment... we were even carrying our cameras out in the open...!</p>

<p>So, you will be called upon to pay sometimes, but NOT making yourself too obvious is the way to avoid massive problems...;-) As for the charges, they are relatively low...</p>

<p>You're kidding me right? The D700 is an amazing camera - I'd take that over the D7000 ANY day of the week and twice on the weekend! Having shot with the D7000, the experience, response, handling and image quality are nothing alike - true, the D7000 is not as far removed as, say, the D90 was, but it's still on a whole different level...;-)</p>

<p>I used my D700 with the grip (I have massive hands and big lenses) for almost two years before I moved on to a D3 (not because it was better - they're essentially the same camera - but because I found an amazing trade-in deal) and a D3s - if those deals had not come my way, I would still be shooting with the D700 and would have been amazingly happy...;-))))</p>

<p>Since you're not going to go full-frame anytime soon (even though I'd rething that - with the new Nikon announcements just around the corner about the D700 and D3 upgrades, there will be a slew of used D700s and D3s in the market, so I'd hunt arount for those!), I would seriously look into getting a used 12-24 (wide lens, specifically made for DX) or a used 70-200 f/2.8 VR I (there are quite a few around for 1/2 the price of the new version, and for a DX camera like yours, it'll be amazing...!</p>

<p>The 12-24 will cover pretty much ANY landscape need you may have, while the 70-200 will give you amazing bokeh...;-) Not the cheapest of solutions, true, but relatively future-proof and solid, good and proven Nikon glass...;-)</p>

<p>I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "cycling" to adjust your flash output... simply press the button under the indication "+" on the screen and turn the wheel to the left or right to add or remove power output... at least that's what I'm doing with my 4 SB900s and it's always worked great. I prefer it over the SB800 and SB600 - no questions asked. There's no need to keep on pressing a button again and again 4-5 times to go down 1 3/4 stops - i simply turn the wheel a bit faster and I'm there...;-)</p>

<p>Unfortunately personally i use the SU800 commander whenever I'm using CLS (which is about 95% of the time when I'm inside closed spaces or on any outside conditions as long as it's not very sunny or very dark), so adjusting from there means hitting the buttons all the time (I'm still hoping Nikon will come out with a commander with greater capabilities and an adjustment wheel like the SB900, but I think I'll be waiting for a loooooooooooooooooooooooooong time)...</p>

<p>Still, it's better than the totally non-intuitive PW solution (and yes, I know you can use the SU800 with the PW - I'm just making an argument...;-))</p>

<p>The problem Michael is not asking someone to make an investment in better glass...it's trying to shift the purchase investment to someone else. It's trying to get someone who, even in your argument, was NOT a professional to start off with and asking them to spend, say, 4-5,000 USD on lenses through which they have no guarantee will get their money back!</p>

<p>If someone's happy enough shooting for him/herself with his D90 and his kit lens and, more importantly, the OP WANTED to hire him/her because of their portfolio (I imagine), then turning around and telling them "oh, by the way, IF you want the job, then you better have 4-5,000 USD to spare, 'cause that's the only way you'll get it", is neither fair nor correct business practice.</p>

<p>You see, the problem is not getting someone better gear - it's the pretence under which you do that. You "promise" someone that IF they invest that amount of money, then you WILL compensate them enough. Otherwise, why would they do that? And what guarantees them that, in a couple of months time, the OP wont turn around and demand a D3x "because the MP count is not enough"? What choice do they have then? To leave? And whast happens to their investment then? To buy the D3x? With what amount of money?</p>

<p>I cannot think of a single professional who would want to willingly enter into such a professional relationship, whatever the potential future benefits may be... not without proper compensation anyway.</p>

<p>Oh, and I agree about the D200 - superb piece of equipment as long as you stayed under 640 ISO...;-)))</p>

<p>When discussing travel, I always come down on the side of portability. As someone who travels with over 40lbs of photography gear (two or three bodies, 4-6 lenses, flashes, connectors, filters, adapters, etc, etc!), a 3 or 4lbs laptop makes a HUGE difference as it would preclude me from carrying, for example, my 200 f/2 or my 120-400 VR or any other combination of lenses which are MORE important. </p>

<p>PLUS, there's literally no way I would carry the laptop with my on a daily basis and leaving it at the hotel is always risky (I tend to stay at cheap hotels to contain costs on long trips and sometimes, cool remote destinations have NO other hotels anyway...;-)...</p>

<p>Still, if it comes to that, I would recommend a MacBook Air (the smallest size you can get your hands on) and an external additional battery (there are some around).</p>

<p>While I would agree with the ease and convenience of taking a laptop with you, it all comes down to what "on the road" means to you. If it means travelling between large(ish) western cities with ample access to electricity and a place to work on, then sure, a laptop/netbook would be the way to go....</p>

<p>BUT, if you're travelling across Africa or Asia, with power available only once every 2-3 days (and even then, intermittedly), then the ease of a portable backup device cannot be denied. With much longer battery life, easier (and usually faster) to charge, takes VERY little space and can - usually - handle a bit of roughness, it's much, much more convenient than a computer...</p>

<p>As a frelancer, you have full copyright of any and all images you take, ASSUMING you have not agreed to something different with the owner(s) of the building. It is them who have some control of how an image can be used (i.e. to promote a specific product - "commercial use" - you'd have to get their permission via a property release and so on and so forth), not the architect. S/he's their employee after all with no say as to how the building will be used later on.</p>

<p>As for post, it is down to your agreement with the customer. Licencing however is still yours to handle - even if someone else is doing the post (in recent cases, the courts have found that post processing an images does not consitute transformative work and thus the copyright remains with the original photographer - best to confirm that with your lawyer however to see how it applies to your case and country).</p>

<p>Again, for someone who's "only now starting", who's "turning sort-of pro" and who's only done a few shoots, you're really going - apparently in most people's opinion - a bit overboard. I'm with Patrick every step of the way - photography is mostly about shooting (mind you, I did not say "the business of photography" - that's another level altogether), not about having an background IT infrastructure capable of handling Getty's workloads!</p>

<p>Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if, next week or so, we find a post from you asking what business software you need and suggesting that we only look at SAP-level solutions. Yes, NG and Getty and AP DO have SAP, but we're talking about multi-hundred-million dollar organisations who can, possibly, afford the 50-80 million USD it takes for a SAP installation. And your "super system" would be incomplete without it...;-P</p>

<p>I'm going to go back to the "you have to pay to play" argument. So, okay, say I'm a Nikon shooter. I have 2 D3s, ALL the top range Nikkor lenses, strobes, PWs etc, etc... PLUS, I have been shooting at VERY high level for almost 20 years! Will you "make" me buy a D3x just because of the MP count (since you said you're shooting on a 5DII)? Following your logic, that would be what you'd "force" me to do so I can "come out and play"...<br>

And how will you compensate me financially for the 6,000 euro (12,000 since we're talking two bodies) outlay? Will my salary/payments be enough? 'Cause, let me tell you, if you're paying me 10,000 euro a month (net) or 3,000 euro per shoot (with 3-4 guaranteed per month), then sure, I'll get whatever you want tomorrow. Something tells me however that you wont... Hell, for 20,000 a month I'll get the top-of-the-range Hasselblad with all the cool lenses! And chances are within a couple of months or so (which means you'll be forking out 40-60k!) I could possibly produce amazing results with the new gear...So, I'll ask what I asked in the beginning: CAN YOU AFFORD THAT?</p>

<p>If you want true professionals (and let me tell you, just in case you haven't realised it, a professional is more than just the sum of his/her lenses and cameras!) you will be hard-pressed to get them to change their gear. But if the photographers you're talking about have a D90 with a kit lens, then my assumption would be that they are not really professionals you can rely on to bring back commercially-oriented images, not because that's what you or I think, but because physics and optics preclude an 18-55 lens from taking an Annie Liebowitz image, no matter how gifted the photographer is...</p>

<p>My impression is - and I'm being, as usual, brutally honest here - you're trying to offload some of the financial business risk to potential employees...not right, not fair and not something any professional (or even serious amateur) would accept. If you want YOUR kind of gear, rent or buy it yourself and then you can REASONABLY expect any employee to use that! Hell, you could even put that in the job ad!</p>

<p>And I'll even expand my challenge: find out more than 10 images from my site are taken with a kit lens...! Please, try...</p>

<p>Dan is absolutely right - whatever you end up providing, should come with an appropriate licence and that should be communicated clearly and without any ambiguity whatsoever to the recipient(s). That is why we usually agree those things in advance and in writing because AFTER the event, well, it's unprofessional and can lead both parties to arguments, disagreements and, depending on the scope of the project/shoot, even to legal troubles.</p>

<p>As for the size, remember, since models' time was TFS, then you should give them something they can use to print from - 1000px is simply not enough for an A4 print. Same with the other recipients - what will they be using the images for? If the hair-dresser wants the images to print as banners or large ads for his salon, then again, 1000 or even 2000px won't be enough.</p>

<p>And finally, I would definitely send different CDs to different recipients...</p>

<p>WE're all pretty much the same - some more and some less - and what I do to keep me sane is compare my work to that of photographers all around me (fortunately only locally - within the country - 'cause if I was looking internationally, I'd be damn-near suicidal!) As it stands, most of the time (always depending on the wedding conditions - unfortunately in Greece 99.5% of weddings take place indoors, in the dark, with artificial lighting, in really crammed quarters, so the degree of creativity allowed approaches 0%) I do pretty well... the times that I don't, well, I chalk it up to experience and move ahead.</p>

<p>But no, fear of the final outcome does not go away with experience - it's just that your confidence levels go up and that somehow counterbalances the anxiety and somehow enables you to be more relaxed while you work and that usually leads to better performance.</p>

<p>It's been a while since I travelled to some of these places (and that was around a decade ago!), but my experiences were, mostly that, while film was available (not widely, but available), there was mostly 100 ASA, colour Kodak stock, around 50% well past its expiry date. These days, I would not be surprised if you didn't find it at all.</p>

<p>Of course, having said that, I recently travelled to Spain and within the Alhambra, the small store had a few last faded rolls of 36 and 24 exposure Kodak and Fuji film for sale! Of course, they also had dozens of different memory card types, but there you go...</p>