katherinemichael
-
Posts
304 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by katherinemichael
-
-
<p>Look Sarah, don't let all this get out of proportion. Michael has an excellent point, maybe a trip to the doctor would help. Dizziness is caused by all kinds of things. If this is a new problem, try to think about what might have changed recently. Did you switch to a different brand of chemical or start processing in a different room of the house? Are you eating differently or taking a new medicine/supplement? If something is irritating you, it will be found by a process of methodical elimination. </p>
<p>I should mention that when I worked in the lab, we had large machines with lots of chemistry in a small room. We used Fuji and Agfa color chems. The machines generated lots of heat. Even though that room had its own AC, the room temperature never got below 80-81F. When I was using the B&W darkroom at school, I never had a problem with dizziness, but two of my classmates did. We used all Kodak chems there.</p>
-
<p>I don't think that the photo processing chemicals are toxic or necessarily cancer causing when used correctly, but chemical sensitivity can be a problem for certain people, both with man-made and natural products. </p>
<p>If you are regularly dizzy, I would look for a cause. You could have inadequate ventilation or you could just be more sensitive to strong chemicals than some people. I am a highly allergic person and am very irritated by certain chemicals. By irritated I mean symptoms like stuffiness, runny nose, dizziness, red/itchy eyes, weepy eyes, sore throat, sinus pain and skin dermatitis. I have to use special shampoo without parabens and SLS/ALS and had to rip all the carpet out of my house because of chemical sensitivity, just to name a couple of examples. </p>
<p>Anyway, I worked in a lab for about 1.5 years. We ran a standard C-41 mini-lab and a large printing machine in a small room. That room had its own ac/ventilation. During the time I worked there I had 7 sinus infections and was generally dizzy, stuffed-up and sick the whole time. Since I quit working there all those symptoms have disappeared and I haven't had one sinus infection. That was over 4 years ago. Just something to think about. That doesn't mean that photo processing chemicals are "bad". It just demonstrates that certain people have to take more precautions than others. I hope it works out for you. </p>
<p>Katherine</p>
-
<p>Shun has a good point. It is much easier to get the butterfly in focus from wingtip to wingtip if you can line up the sensor plane parallel to the butterfly. You could also do as Jennifer suggested and shoot from a little further out to make the most of your DOF and then crop in later. I have tried increasing my f-stop beyond f/11 to gain more DOF but in a butterfly house that is really difficult, just not enough light. What I try to do now is set the shutter speed at around 1/250, set the f-stop to the greatest I can get away with and focus on the head. I'll start from a little further out and then move in closer and try a couple different angles if the butterfly is cooperative and holds still. Try moving just a little after taking your first shot or two. You might be surprised at the difference an inch further back or a slightly different angle can make. </p>
-
<p>I agree with Jeremy. I used to run into this at the lab and we were always able to retrieve the photos anyway, both for recovery and just for printing. I seem to remember that the problem was caused by the reader in the lab room. It was new and had trouble with certain SD and XD cards. Our solution was to take the card and stick it into the reader on the "express" photo machine which linked to the lab computer and pull the photos from there for printing. If we were running a recovery then we would just ignore the message and run the recovery software. If I remember correctly, if the card is giving that message in camera, there might be a problem with the card itself. Forgive me for not being more specific, but it has been a few years since I have seen this issue.<br>
Good luck!</p>
-
<p>Good for you! Thanks for sharing this. You were in the right, prepared and the system worked as it should have. </p>
-
<p>Thank you for starting this thread and offering an encouraging call to action instead of the usual complaints. I will also work harder at leaving constructive critiques. You have to give in order to receive I guess. I will also be more specific about what feedback I am looking for when I post a photo. It just makes sense. :) </p>
<p>Katherine</p>
-
<p>I know this is going to sound like a huge PIA, but I would make a list of all the locations and do research on their policies regarding commercial photography. That is the only way to really know for sure. Every place has different rules so I don't think that there is a blanket answer to this. As far as I am aware, most buyers do want the location included in the photo's information. Just my two cents. Better to take the extra time now and do the homework then find out the hard way later. </p>
-
<p>Okay, I didn't mean to drag this post down this road. I'm sorry. I've just seen some really negative effects of approaching wildlife too closely and feeding wildlife recently so I have some pretty strong feelings on the subject. </p>
<p>Craig- I understand what you are saying. I am not really referring to having a feeder in the yard. I have a bird feeder in my yard. Birds and other animals who reside in areas heavily populated by humans often do so because they have already found humans as an excellent provider of food and have adapted themselves to living near us. On the other hand, in areas where there are less humans things are different. For example, Mathew mentioned in his post above about how a rare owl was hit by a car on a back country road and baiting with mice was the suspected cause. In this case the human interface (the road) was in an area with less human presence and the owl had not adapted to human activity (cars on the road). Many people who interact with wildlife by either getting as close as possible or feeding them do so with great knowledge of their subjects and take great care in doing so. Unfortunately when another person sees or hears about this practice they may not fully understand or care about the implications and act without the best interest of the wildlfe in mind. It is kind of a slippery slope. I personally agree completely with Mathew as to the reasons we should not bait wildlife for viewing or photographic purposes. </p>
<p>Please understand that this is merely my personal opinion and is not meant as a personal attack on anyone. I never meant any offense.</p>
<p>I don't necessarily disagree with the OP, I only wanted to point out that we must be very careful about trying to get close in to birds and other wildlife. We must respect them and not stress the animal or affect its natural behaviors. Using bigger glass is one method available to us for doing that.</p>
-
<p>The problem is that not everyone thinks about the birds' natural diet when they feed them. Yes, in places that are frequently visited fed animals can and do become a nuisance. Most places do have signs about feeding the wildlife, but they are often ignored. You wouldn't believe the things I have seen people do. The worse thing has to be feeding wild alligators inedible objects like cans and other trash. Horrible. :(</p>
<p>I never thought about the lens coats for protection only. Makes sense if you are going off trail through rough brush. I suppose that is probably the original purpose anyway and the camo came later?</p>
-
<p>IMO the whole reason for pursuing this type of photography is to showcase the beauty of these animals and document their behaviors and habitats. Getting <em>too</em> close does interfere with natural behaviors. I have never found the need to use any camo coverings for my gear, but I use Nikon so all my stuff is black. I personally feel that the reflections from the front glass are the most startling thing. Birds have very finely tuned senses. They know that we are there more times than not, it is just a matter of how threatened they feel. The amount of traffic a particular area gets can affect this. If I am pretty sure an animal has seen me, I find that I have better results if I just move very quietly, slowly and act like I am not really interested in my subject. If you stalk an animal, chances are it will be intimidated. I do find my 500mm the most useful for bird work.</p>
<p>I don't really see a problem with bird calls if they are used in moderation, but I find the practice of baiting birds with food repulsive and unethical.</p>
-
<p>Hi Lisa,</p>
<p>It depends on the state where you live or want to end up living. (I assume you are in the US) In Florida you have to apply for your fictitious name from the state. It costs $50 and is good for 5 years. They have to check that the name is available first. If you just want to use your name as the business name then you can skip the registration. I ended up having to get my EIN and Fictitious Name beofre anything else because all the county forms and such required that information. It could be different where you are.</p>
<p>The best thing you can do is really plan ahead carefully and figure out what you neeed to do and what order you need to do it in. You will need a business plan. The SCORE website Bill listed abouve is an excellent resource. They also have downloadable startup documents like a business plan template and cash worksheets that I found very helpful. The IRS also has very good tax related information on their website. They also let you apply for an EIN onllne now. The number is provided immediately so that you can use it right away. I would also check your state's official web site and your local county's web site for more information specific to your area. </p>
<p>In reference to Harry's comment above. I actually bought my domain name before I registered the business name so that I had everything the same. I would recommend maybe checking into that if having them match up is important to you. Good luck!</p>
<p>Katherine</p>
-
<p>I found that there are <strong>so</strong> many photos entered in the critique forum, that getting a written critique was really hit or miss. People are seem to be naturally drawn to photos that apeal to them, perhaps commenting more than they would on a photo that they do not like. Writing a good crtique takes time. I suspect that many people just are unable or unwillling to put that much time into it. I still put photos in the critique forum, but like John said above, if I feel like I really need more attention to a photo then I will ask individual people who's insight I respect to look at it and give me their opinion. </p>
-
<p>So I was thinking...What are the possible implications for the copyright holder if he marked the photo as fully copyrighted but forgot to restrict the full size download option, or didn't know about it? Would that make things even more difficult for him if the infringement were pursued legally? Pursuing something like this would be really hard in the first place. I could just see the other side arguing that if the photo owner didn't want it used then they should have restricted the downloads, regardless of the copright statement. </p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>They kind of go hand in hand for me. I saw myself as more of a photographer with an interest in nature some years ago. Now I see myself as a conservationist who uses photography as my tool. My original degree was in photojournalism. I have no formal biology training, but I seek to learn more about the natural world that I photograph because it is important to me and I want to impress it's importance on others through my work. Only by having an intimate knowlege of my subject matter can I make my photos truly come to life and engage my audience. Once I got to a certain point on this life path, the two things became completely intertwined. I am happy with this. </p>
-
<p>Jon is correct about the different licenses, but the flippant tone in that article about the copyright issues really irritated me. (Grrrrrr, I feel my inner pit bull emerging) It is my understanding that if the photo is marked as fully copyrighted, ie. not a Creative Commons license, then the usual copyright law applies.<br>
One thing that some people posting on Flickr may or may not realize is that just marking it as fully copyrighted doesn't mean that it is protected from full size downloads. You have to change that setting seperately. Of course if someone wants the photo bad enough they will take it. That's why I watermark everything now with my name and url. </p>
-
<p>I agree with John. The fact that they would even try to present something so restrictive doesn't speak well for how they regard their employees. I would bolt away from these people. Its a photography job for heavens sake.</p>
-
<p>Michael-</p>
<p>Check out the book "Photo Portfolio Success" by John Kaplan. It is very informative. </p>
<p>Yes, you should typically have separate portfolios for different types of work. </p>
<p>The only thing about most traditional portfolios that I personally disagree with is the idea that you should pick one length for the long side of the photos. Obviously if you stick with a rectangular book and photo ratio then you have no choice but to do that. You should not make people turn your book to view the photos. I just cannot stand having the verticals be a different size then the horizontals so I went with a 12"x12" square format and made all my photos 8"x10".</p>
<p>Katherine</p>
-
<p>Thank you Bill. </p>
<p>I appreciate everyone's input. :)</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>Thank you Georg. :) </p>
-
<p>Thank you Harry, that was very helpful. </p>
<p>They were sitting between 1-2 feet away from the foliage. I tend to get nervous when trying to shoot people and sometimes I think I rush things instead of concentrating and taking my time. I should have remembered about the subject distance to background thing. I was disappointed with the backgrounds being too distinct. I have found that the 18-200mm to be very limiting, but I keep it for hiking because it is a light one lens solution. Assuming a similar situation, would my 90mm 2.8 macro have been a better choice for this? I ask because it has a much wider constant aperture. Is it okay to use a macro lens for a portrait? I have a 50mm 1.8 as well. That might have been a better choice for the wide out shots.</p>
-
<p>Hello-<br>
I am very new to shooting people. Nature is more my thing. I market and sell some of my nature oriented stuff on a part time basis. However, I have been getting a little bored with what I'm doing lately and my friend wanted some photos of her with her older dog so we went over to the park yesterday. I think they turned out alright, but could be much better. I was wondering if some people more experienced in this area could look at the folder and give me some advice on how to improve. I have always just "seen" photos and made them happen. I have almost zero experience setting shots up, but its time to expand my photographic horizons a little.</p>
<p>The images are in my photo.net gallery, <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=917181">Jillian and Max</a> . </p>
<p>A little information:</p>
<ul>
<li>Iso was between 100 and 125 for all shots. </li>
<li>The shutter speed stayed at 1/250 for almost all shots.</li>
<li>I used my D200 w/ 18-200mm lens, no filter, handheld.</li>
<li>I used my SB600 on camera set to TTL BL +1.0 ev aimed at the subjects. </li>
<li>For all but the last two, I used a silver reflector clipped to a tripod set about 3-4 feet away. </li>
<li>My white balance was set to daylight, but they looked really green in post so I bumped the tint +6 towards magenta. </li>
</ul>
<p>I apologize if this is an inappropriate post, but I don't always get the feedback I'm looking for in the critique forum. <br>
Thanks for taking the time to read this and look at my photos. </p>
<p>Katherine</p>
-
<p>"He who tooteth not his own horn, the same shall not be tooted."</p>
<p>That made me laugh, but it is definitely true to a point. Having enough confidence in your work to be able to speak openly to everyone about it and promote yourself in that way is important. Being naturally shy and a perfectionist, I personally have always found this difficult. I've only been able to kind of get over that hump recently. </p>
<p>To promote my site cheaply I have:</p>
<ul>
<li>left business cards at every local business that would let me </li>
<li>handed business cards to the people who stop and talk to me on the trails I hike and shoot on</li>
<li>created a 5x7 mailer with sample images and my url and mailed them to different companies/people who I felt might be interested (through some online research)</li>
<li>put site links on my Flickr and Photo.net pages</li>
<li>created free online yellow page ads</li>
<li>sumitted a site map to Google</li>
<li>created a Facebook page</li>
<li>invested a small amount of money (like $75) into Google AdWords and Facebook advertising</li>
<li>made sure my site language contained the words/search terms that people might use to find me so my site is now popping up in organic searches </li>
<li>last but not least, I always have business cards and sample images with me (on my ipod) and will run my mouth about what I do to anyone who shows an interest</li>
</ul>
<p>I hope that helps. :)</p>
<p>Katherine</p>
-
<p>Hi Tim-</p>
<p>I had Schmap contact me about one of my Flickr photos last year for the online Orlando, FL guide. I think when you are starting out it is good to occasionally let a photo get used for free in order to gain some visibility, so I let them use it. They gave me proper credit and the photo linked back to my Flickr page, but the size of the photo they displayed was tiny and I really didn't gain any recognition from it so I wouldn't let them use any more of my work. In the whole year, that photo got viewed on my Flickr page from that link a total of two times. On the other hand just back in April the EPA had an Earth Day photo project through Flickr, same kind of deal except non-profit. I entered three photos, one in each category, and had two selected for display. One of those they are using regularly on their main website. I get full credit and that has drawn <strong><em>lots</em> </strong> of attention to my work on Flickr and even to my new website so I am happy, even though I didn't get paid. Just in those few months, I have gotten hundreds of hits on my Flickr page from the EPA project. That also opened the door for me to have a nice email exchange with the lady at the EPA who put the photo project together. She ended up joining my mailing list and forwarded my site link to some colleagues. At this stage in the game I am just starting out and would probably not have had the guts to go knock on the "door" of the EPA. Letting them use just two of my photos for free opened up some good potential opportunities.</p>
<p>I guess the point of me boring you with my long story is this... 1. Letting a photo get used for free isn't always a bad thing. 2. It is a good idea to check out the publication that wants to use the photos first. Then decide if letting them be used for free w/ credit is really going to benefit you in the way they say it will. Honestly, if I had looked at the Schmap website beforehand, I probably would not have bothered.</p>
<p>Good Luck!<br>
Katherine</p>
-
<p>I used WHCC double sided press printing for both my business cards and some 5x7 promotional mailers. I was very happy with the quality, but they were perhaps a little pricey. You need to be a business to use them though. I tried printing at home too and it was a huge waste of time and money. </p>
advertising on facebook
in Business of Photography
Posted