david_glick1

"It's the other guy's name too, and he was there first, like it or not." - yeah, I thought about this for a while. I didn't want to infringe or take away from this other well established photographer. But, the same argument could be used in reverse. Even though he was shooting before I was, and has made a good reputation, it's still my name too. Since I'm planning on doing this more as a hobby then a huge stock or events business, I really wanted the name I choose to be personal - I don't even really like the idea of a "business name" for something like this. You don't see artists from other mediums going around and using trade names very often - why should I, especially if my focus is on selling my nature and other artistic photography (and not, say, on photography-for-hire services). But given that I feel I need a website and something to put on cards and brochures that identifies me as a photographer, I figure I'll try and be polite and chose something at least a little different.

Thanks a lot for the suggestions everyone. I'm not very fond of "DG Photography," but "D. Glick Photography" has a certain ring to it. I was having a problem deciding between Dave and David, so with the initial I don't have to think about that either. And as a bonus, dglick.com was available. So - thanks again!

Personally, I love it. I wouldn't change anything about the base design. If you want an option for larger viewing, I might make the images clickable. Lightbox2 (http://www.huddletogether.com/projects/lightbox2/) is a really good script for setting up a clickable lightbox style gallery (just change the css style to match your site).

I've been practicing photography as a hobby for quite a while and have recently

decided to take it to the next step and attempt to earn some money from my

hobby. Initially, I plan to sell prints online and attend some local low-key

craft shows. I don't plan on trying to make enough to quit my job or anything,

really just to finance more gear :). In any case, I've been thinking I'll keep

it simple and go with "Dave Glick Photography" or "David Glick Photography" for

a trade name, website, business cards, etc. The problem is that there is

already an established local photographer named Dave Glick who uses "Dave Glick

Photography" has his business name (I discovered this while hunting down web

domains). I like the idea of using my name (I've only got the one), but I worry

that I might be confused with the other photographer, both by people looking

for him, and by customers I meet at shows looking for me. Any suggestions as to

what I should/could do (short of changing my name - I rather like it)?

Given that I do currently shoot RAW, I'm curious what the other RAW shooters do about storage. I've got years worth of RAW files (thousands, perhaps in the five digits, of files) and I'm running out of archiving ideas. One can only purchase so many hard drives...and as pixel counts of new cameras increase, the problem will just get worse (although you could argure that along with the increase in file sizes comes a decrease in storage costs over time). Do you guys just throw out the RAW once the image has been processed or do you archive it on hard drives or some kind of optical media? How often do you actually go back to the RAW file once you've processed it?

Just saw this site in another photo.net post earlier today, r.e. lens rental.

 

http://www.alphalensrental.com/

Given that Basketball is a high speed and potentially low-light situation (indoor arenas, gyms, and the like), it's going to be challenging. Those are your two main factors. You've got fast action which requires high shutter speeds, and you've got low light which requires a bigger aperture (lower f-numbers) to let more light in. The good news is that using a bigger aperture often suggests a faster shutter speed for an equivalent exposure. The bad news is that you'll need all you can get in both respects. Setting a higher ISO will help compensate (and let more light "in" by upping the sensitivity of the sensor), but the noise tradeoff on a 7D or 5D might be unacceptable. My suggestion (if you're very serious) is to buy or rent a long fast prime like a 200mm, 300mm, or 400mm at something like f/2.8.

 

In summary, fast shutter speeds, bigger aperture (lower f-number), and higher ISO (within your tolerance for noise) to get the best shots. It'll be challenging :)

I've been shooting RAW for all the obvious reasons for a while, and I'm starting to rethink that position. In my specific case, it's an issue of time. I feel like I spend a lot of time "rescuing" poor shots, primarily because I can. I've started to wonder if I shoot in a format that didn't let me do that if I would a) spend more time in the field attempting to get the exposure right (which would be a good thing from a practice and mastery of the craft perspective) and b) spend more time in the field because I wasn't spending so much time in front of a monitor (which would be a great thing).

 

The downside, of course, is that you can't recover blown highlights in a JPEG file. And if you're in a position where rescuing a poorly exposed capture means the difference between a happy client and a not so happy client, then the extra time and storage implications are probably worth it. If you ask me, there are very valid reasons for going with either approach.