bill_burke1

<p>Hi Holly, your website is done well. Its simple and classy. Just a few thoughts - on the home page, I would put a few more images on the slide show. They should be the best of the best of the best to grab visitors and make them want to start looking further. The images are beautiful - they show your distinct style. That said, to ask the question about why no clients and relating it to the website is a little "off". Very few clients are going to find you just by doing a web search. Do you know how well your SEO is getting you to show up on the first page of google? If someone has to type in your exact business name, city and "portrait photography" to see you on google, you need to tweek your SEO. Also, your website is only 10% of your overall marketing strategy. You should be networking with other vendors (hair salons, bridal shops, limo companies, floral shops, etc etc.) Offer them big beautiful images of their work with your logo to post in their stores. Use facebook and the targeted ads they offer. Hook up with existing studios and offer to back them up for dates where they double book themselves (you'd be photographing as part of their studio, but this will help you build up your portfolio if you get them to allow you to use certain images.) Also - work on getting a diverse portfolio (different ethnicities, religions, same sex marriages, etc) - this makes you more marketable and opens up a wider cliental. I know you probably don't want to do weddings, but consider this - newlyweds will need to update their portraits and will probably end up having babies. As these families grow up, you'll be there to do their portraits - as long as you have a good method of staying in touch and on their radar. As a previous poster mentioned - there are WAY too many newbies and hobbyists out there with a D90 and a Go Daddy website offering portraits and weddings for free, just to see if they can do it. That's your competition, not the veteran photographers who have a solid client base.</p>

<p>Its a tool that businesses use to evaluate vendors who are bidding on a project or service - usually to compare their ability, capabilities, resources, etc. It usually includes your business' demographics/background/history; Services provided specific to a job; technical aspects of that service; project deliverables/timelines; obligations of the vendor and the requestor; pricing; any attachments including licenses, insurance, etc.</p>

<p>I am able to recover detail in LR with RAW files - histograms look ok as well. You're last question about LR's settings are what I'm getting at - I can't find anything, but not sure if I'm looking in the right area(s). </p>

<p>I'm finally posting this question because I'm at my wits end. I've had a consistent problem with overexposure using my Nikon D700. Here's the catch: when I'm shooting, the image in the LCD looks beautiful: colors are saturated, deep rich darks, etc. When I bring them into Lightroom, the initial preview looks exactly the same as it did in the LCD, then when Lightroom is finished rendering a preview, the image goes completely blown out - blacks turn grey, highlights are completely hot and blown out and everything is washed out. Once in Develop mode, I bring the exposure slider down almost a full stop and the image is beautiful again - what I saw in the LCD and the initial LR preview before it finished "rendering". OK - so my question is: IS THIS A LIGHTROOM ISSUE? Has anyone experienced this? Is it my camera? My metering on these images suggests spot on. Lately I've been underexposing by a stop and sometimes this is ok, but the image is dreadfully dark in the LCD and hard to assess - although when lightroom gets done rendering, its ok. ADVICE anyone?</p>

<p>I consider myself a fairly new wedding photographer - I've been shooting weddings for three years and I'm up to about 25 weddings per year. I started thinking about the little blunders I've had - walking out from an air conditioned room into sweltering heat and not having a microfiber cloth to wipe the condensation from the lens before I missed any shots; forgetting an extra set of AA's for my SB800, etc etc. Thankfully I haven't experienced any major mishaps that have affected my images, but wanted to pose the question to more experienced photographers - <strong>What were some of the biggest flubs you've had happen to you, how did you recover and what lesson did you learn?</strong> I can't think of anything more helpful to hear about and potentially help to avoid the same mistakes!</p>

<p> I was approached by a marketing rep from Southwest Airlines Spirit magazine via email (through a friend of a friend) about a piece they're doing on a Vermont Lake. This lake is a bit of a hidden gem and although beautiful, not very photographed. I've been going there all my life and many photo's, hence the inquiry. I do weddings and family portraits on a part time basis, but never got into publications. I was so excited about the possibilty I gave her a couple of photo's to use. Now one of my images is in their July issue of Spirit on a double spread headlining the article of "Inspiring Places" (I thought it would be a postage stamp size on the back page.) Now I'm thinking about the circulation numbers and the size and what I've read about pricing calculators. Did I just do something in the record-setting-stupid category? Not that I plan to do anything about it - I'm still jazzed about having an image in a real magazine.<br>

Bill</p>

<p>Hello Valeri,<br>

Unfortunately (and others, please correct me if I'm wrong), there's no way to remove a review from YELP (positive or negative). The only recourse you have is what you've already done in responding. It's an unfortunate scenario that someone can post such a review even if its unsubstantiated and there's nothing that can be done to remove it; but then again, if negative reviews could be removed, there wouldn't be any negative reviews at all. The only other strategy that can be used is to connect with the client and attempt some form of service recovery (apology, discount on future services, etc) if the reviewer posts some form of retraction on the thread. Its hard to eat crow- very hard to do if the negative reviewer is wrong, but from a customer service perspective, we're all forced into the old addage "the customer is always right". I know it's painful, but that's how it goes.</p>

<p>I recently attended a lecture at a local photo meetup where a speaker presented "what judges look for in competition photos". Basically a run through of criteria and examples of what competition judges look for, how they increase/decrease scores based on various factors. The speaker was using images from a recent competition in the area in which he was a judge (he had received a CD of the images). The idea was that the audience would listen to what went through his mind (the actual pro's and con's) as it related to each image. At the end of the lecture, a very distraught and ornary member of the camera club protested his use of the images. My question is - was this copyright infrigement? I believe he was not paid for the talk and the images weren't used comercially.</p>

Umm.... Thanks guys. I always see these threads as both informative and entertaining to read. If we can excel in at

least one of those we can feel we've accomplished something. From what I've picked up here and elsewhere in the

meantime, I have an idea about how to move forward with these types of shoots- trust and comfort of the model,

feedback, and having a list of emotions, feelings in one word directions to evoke a response.

<p>I've been shooting with models for about a year. I've mostly been doing TFCD shoots with fairly inexperienced models given that I'm not doing paid assignments, nor do I have the money to pay experienced models. For the most part, its been great learning lighting techniques and posing, and I enjoy helping new models build their portfolio's. The one thing I'm running into is that I'm getting the same expressions in every shot from every model (you know.... that mad look). I can get a variety of poses, but have no idea what to say to get a different facial expression. I've tried to suggest certain things, but their face doesn't change!!! Any ideas from experience photographers?</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Elena,<br>

Get ready for a ton of opinions on this one. There are lots of choices out there (good and bad) and there's alot to consider based on your budget and we all like to think our own is the best option. So here's my personal 2 cents:<br>

I went with wix.com for the site. Its easy to build, has flash for the portfolio, slideshows and all the options you need. You can get a free version that has their URL and their ads (annoying). There are three tiers, but the $9.00 per month options is perfect - comes with a URL for one year and no ads. For a client page where they can purchase online and the prints are sent to a lab, I use SMUGMUG. I couldn't be happier. Its easy to set up, link my wix site (it looks and feels like its just another page). They use BAY Photo which has been phenomenal. My Smugmug plan is $20.00 per month, so altogether its $30 and it paid for itself 10x over the first two weeks I used it.<br>

I think the other worthwhile question to ask the photographers here - what vendors should you AVOID based on bad experiences?</p>

 

<p>First of all, my apologies if this has already been asked & answered elsewhere (I just couldn't find it). Bear in mind I am not a full time professional photographer. I've worked part time for four years doing weddings, portraits and corporate event photography. I've worked hard to price my work in line with other full time photographers to be consistent with the market and not erode the confidence in our craft.<br>

To date, I've not included images on DVD in any package for free. The client can purchase the DVD with rights for $250.00 or alternatively, for $150 when the client orders at least $150 in prints. It took me a while to even get to that point where a DVD is even an option. The problem is - it seems like EVERY local photographer is offering a free DVD with a paid sitting fee. I'm not sure if they make any additional print sales - my suspicion is that these are part timers/hard core hobbyists not dependent on the income from their work.<br>

Is my strategy noted above crazy? Should I just stick with the old philosophy that quality can and should stand on its own?</p>

 

 

<p>Thank you!</p>

<p>As I understand it, a release isn't required for editorial purposes (i.e. submitting to the local paper or just posting online for viewing), but is required for commercial use ( i.e. selling the photo's or using them for promotion). ?</p>

<p>I'm toying with the idea of providing sport photography of local Pop Warner football and High School Sports. Basically, covering the event and providing players, families and fans with links to my smugmug where they can order whatever they want. My question is - Assuming I'd need some sort of release, how in the world do you get the player's/team member's release? Is there a way to get a broadbrush mass team release from the school or the organization? Or to muddy the waters, I'm guessing parent's signatures given they're minors. I know this is done elsewhere but I can't imagine how the release issue is handled.</p>

<p>What a great article - Thank you Marc. I've read several others since starting this thread. (In light of all the advantages digital brings I'm starting to long for my old FM2 and velvia.) After going digital in 2004, I shot hi-res JPEG's, never re-sized and printed at a local lab. Things started to get confusing after switching to 100% RAW in 2009, resizing and posting images to my website, but now even moreso uploading to Smugmug for clients to print. It seems every photo program speaks a different language when it comes to web/print resolution, let alone the fact that some of these settings are even inconsequential. With this article it seems a little clearer. For my web site portfolio JPEG's I can export at anywhere from 72 - 100 on the quality setting depending on preference for disk space on my own end for storage. For posting to smugmug, my JPEG exports will be made <strong>without</strong> checking off "re-size" and maintaining the max file size given the JPEG compression (4000x3500ish) although the "resolution field in PPI looks like it needs an entry will be left alone at 300. Thank you all.</p>

<p>Correction - the other setting I'm looking at is not DPI - its "Resolution" measured at PPI and I've always had it at 240 - again, does this matter?</p>

<p>I'm keeping the quality setting at 100. For posting to the web, blogs, etc, I'm resizing down to 400-800 ppi and not concerned with those images. However, for the purposes of creating JPEG files specifically to print- should I be exporting from Lightroom and leaving the resizing unchecked (thereby creating a 4000 x 3500 ish file)? Re: DPI for those images to be printed, stay at 240 or does it matter?</p>

<p>I'm using Lightroom 2.0; I've exported hundreds of JPEG's from my RAW files and always ended up with a JPEG file around 4 MB. My last few exports have resulted in files around 300-400kb. Not sure which setting I may have changed, but I'm thinking these smaller files won't print as well? I'm exporting keeping a width of 800 pixels and dpi at 240. Why are these files of late so much smaller?</p>

<p>My 80-200 is the earlier (1992) push-pull (AF). I think I'll end up going with the less expensive 70-300 with the larger max aperture and just stick with the outdoor events for now while I work toward the the 80-400 f/4.</p>

<p>If I go with a TC, I could easily shoot outdoor events (soccer, football, track, etc) at f/4 or 5.6 - possibly higher if I increase the ISO, but its the image quality issue that I wanted to find out about - Shun, how would degrade the image? grain? contrast? resolution?<br>

My budget is definitely in the TC range - yes mostly in the daylight events, staying away from low light indoor sports for now.</p>

<p>I am trying to decide if a teleconverter might be the best option. I have a D700 with a 24-70 2.8 and an 80-200 2.8 (no VR). These lenses do great for my weddings, corporate events and portraits. However, I'm toying around (nothing professional right now) with sports photography - mostly high school and college sports. My problem is "reach". Even with the perfect position and my 200mm zoom, I still need to crop quite a bit afterward to fill the frame and get the image I visualized. I can't afford a 300 or 500 fixed lens, and wouldn't have enough use to justify it even if I had the money. SO - what would the impact be in putting a teleconverter on my 80-200 lens?</p>

<p>I haven't contacted them as of yet - I didn't want to seem like a nut if this was something they absolutely don't do.</p>

<p>Is it possible to receive free album samples from any company? If not, I assume a discount could apply - if that were the case, how much of a discount could I expect?</p>

<p>I'm wondering which body I should invest in as a back up. I've spent a couple of years as a 2nd shooter to local photographers and doing small weddings for friends and family. I'm now setting out to get my own bookings, but I'm lacking a back up body. My primary is a D700 and all my lenses are FX. I thought about a D90, D200 or 300 but don't really want a DX body given my only DX lens is an old 18-70mm f/3.5-4. If I ever have to use it I'd like stick with an FX system - SO - my question is: is it crazy to grab a used film camera like an F5 to keep in reserve?</p>