justin_stott

<div></div>

<p>There is a fine line between a hobbyist and a professional, and each classification has its advantages.</p>

<p>If you are making an income greater than your expenses from your work, you are required to pay taxes on it, and you are a business. If you have not set up any sort of company, you are doing business as yourself for yourself; this is a sole proprietorship. There are other business types that may be better suited to your situation, <strong>you need to talk to an attorney and/or CPA</strong>. In any case you can easily get liability insurance from an agent fairly inexpensively, as well as coverage for the equipment you use.</p>

<p>As a hobbyist, the insurance advantage (at least with my company) is that you can put your equipment on your homeowners/renters policy as a rider, and if anything happens to it you are reimbursed what you actually paid for the equipment (less your deductible of course). On most business policies, you can often get liability and equipment coverage together, however if anything happens to your equipment you are paid the current replacement cost, not what it cost new.</p>

<p>Get the liability insurance, someone could trip over a light stand and sue you, and talk to a professional about your situation, if you're not good with the "business" side of things, there are people who deal with that stuff for a living.</p>

<p>Good Luck!</p>

<p>Gear aside, let me see if I have this straight:</p>

<p>You will pay for airfare for the two of you to and from the cruise.<br>

Your fiancee's cruise will cost approximately $700.<br>

You plan to spend $500 on equipment.<br>

You are not experienced in this area of photography.</p>

<p>This seems like a huge risk that only saves you $200 on the entire trip (and I wouldn't count on that by the time you actually pack your gear to leave). </p>

<p>If I were in your shoes I'd go as a guest and save the stress. Go as a guest, shoot for free with the gear you have, and politely decline their "generous" offer. </p>

<p>If you wind up doing it anyway, be absolutely certain that your CONTRACT states that you are not a professional wedding photographer and that everybody involved understands that. Be aware that there are lots of emotions involved and that you could potentially be playing with fire with people that will be in your family for the foreseeable future. </p>

<p>Good luck and have fun whatever you decide!</p>

<p>Expecting digital cameras to correctly gauge color in each scene is just like expecting them to nail exposure on each shot while in [P] mode; while it may do a good job many times, it would be unreasonable to expect it to know what your intention was in the shot.</p>

<p>It is nothing new that just like exposure, color temperature has to be measured in each scene. You can either let your camera make its best assumption with it's built in metering, take an external meter reading and find out what is present more accurately, or use one of the devices that allows the camera to function more like an incident meter. Color, like exposure is in the end a decision left for the photographer to make based on their vision and interpretation of the scene, whether accurate to the original scene or otherwise.</p>

<p>Whatever you post as an example of your work will have an impact on what market you attract (or don't). Having said that, I am glad you find yourself in a position to hang on to your ideas about the type of work you want to do, both personally and professionally. That is a luxury not every photographer can afford. I firmly believe that there are enough clients out there for everyone, and it may take you a little longer, but displaying the work YOU like (and like to do) will insure that you attract clients with whom you'll "click", setting up a situation where you'll be your most creative and your clients will be the most satisfied.</p>

<p>Good Luck!</p>

 

<p>I definitely understand your reservations about doing the interview, however your work (both with your film and insightful commentary) is funny, sentimental, nostalgic, and has the potential to touch any number of people in many different ways. I for one would love to see it shared. And if it makes someone pull their film camera out of the closet (or buy their first one) all the better.</p>

 

 

<p>My concern would be that from a "business" perspective (that is where you asked this), is that if you are new and trying to build your business you need to be presenting your absolute best work. Not to mention that if you are aspiring to become a professional, there is no time like the present to start working on your workflow, it is easier to start good habits than break old bad ones!</p>

<p>I would recommend you use a light hand in your editing though, I look at early images when I was working on developing my photoshop skills and wished that I had quit editing long before I did.</p>

<p>If you are planning on having the clients print their own images, I would recommend sending them somewhere online that would do a better job than wal-mart, maybe a frequent advertiser that starts with an M?</p>

<p>You want to produce work that not only looks professional, but that will attract future business.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>Remember your plane of focus is not necessarily really a plane, but often somewhat of a curve made of points that are equally distant from the camera. At f2.8 it would not be unusual for there to be lack of focus at the edges of a flat plane this size 1.5m away.</p>

<p>As to why your out of focus areas are on opposite sides at each end of your zoom range, does a lens element rotate during your zoom? (Sorry, I don't have experience with this lens.) </p>

<p>After a little search it seems that this is a pretty high end lens, it may not hurt to have it checked out while it's still under warranty. In the mean time, stop down a couple of stops for extra depth of field, and hope someone more knowledgable replies!</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>Someone needs to get those old undeveloped rolls to Gene M. asap, I bet they would keep him busy for a while!</p>

<p>Even as a primarily digital shooter myself, it would be really gratifying to see true darkroom prints come from those negatives, something about that mac just seems out of place! (I know scanning them is essential anyway)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I currently own a first generation EOS 1-Ds 11.1 mega pix...I think it is a great <a href="00XvJT" target="_blank">camera</a> for what I do.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sounds like you answered your own question in your opening statement to me...</p>

<p>It is a little like trying to describe that fifth taste, umami, you know it's there, but not totally sure why!</p>

<p>For me, it's a gut thing, if the image has an immediate impact on some level or another, that makes it a keeper or not. After deciding if I like it, then I look towards why, composition, color placement, etc. sometimes they work because they follow rules, sometimes they work because they break them, and sometimes they just work!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>or perhaps the printer is sleeping or off-line when you launch photoshop.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You may have it David, I just tried closing photoshop, connecting the printer, re opening photoshop, then printing, and everything went straight through!</p>

<p>I have an (apparently bad) habit of just plugging in a printer when I'm ready to use it (since there are 3 in my office). Strange that the same thing does not happen on the desktop!</p>

<p>Thanks for the advice Andrew!</p>

<p>Thanks for the solution!</p>

<p>I'm running both an iMac and a Macbook Pro, same os, both Photoshop CS5, same drivers for my Canon Pro 9000 MkII printer.</p>

<p>My desktop will always print directly to the printer when I send an image from photoshop, regardless of file format. My laptop occasionally will print directly, but most often produces a PDF preview, which I can then print, regardless of file format.</p>

<p>My question is: Why do they behave differently, and will the print quality from printing the PDF preview be the same as if the file were printed directly from photoshop?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for your help!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Not to over simplify, but definitely take the mask out, and only shoot 12 square frames per roll. Make sure you have a number, not a circle, arrow or other mark showing in the little red window when you take a shot. Be consistant about when you wind the film, before or after each shot, just do it the same way each time!</p>

<p>If your lens cap was off and you made an exposure, and the film does not show an image, either there was not enough light to make one, or your shutter did not open. You can test the shutter by taking the back off, looking at the lens pointed towards a light, and pressing the shutter repeatedly and making sure you see light through it each time. If you don't buy another $20 Holga. If you are not shooting in totally bright sun every time, use iso 400 film, that is my standard for the holga anyway.</p>

<p>The developed film is a NEGATIVE meaning that dark areas show up light on the film and dark areas show up light, blank film means a totally black image.</p>

<p>Good luck! </p>

<p>When you hear the sound of hoofbeats don't think of zebras!</p>

<p>This is direct hotshoe flash, possibly a diffuser on the second shot, but the shadows show slightly off lens axis direct lighting, just a hotshoe flash held in portrait orientation. If it were a ring flash the short sharp shadow would be around the entire perimeter, not just one side.</p>

<p>I am completely comfortable with my 5dII at iso 1600, I don't usually go much past that, but with a fast (faster than f 1.8) lens I rarely need to! I agree that proper exposure is less noisy than doing it in post.</p>

<p>I personally like the idea of setting up a separate company for your photography and using it's name in your metadata and copyright info if you don't want yours attached. In the US an LLC is easy peasy, one registration, and an annual report to say you're still in business is all it takes, not sure about the Canadian equivalent though.</p>

<p>If you are in a computer intensive profession already this idea may not have occurred to you, but for years people operated (and some still do) successful photography businesses that do not have an internet presence. (I know this is blasphemy on an internet forum!) Unless not having your images online will interfere with your ability to sell them, or if this remains a hobby instead of a business, this could be your safest bet. A well produced and presented portfolio of large prints is still more impressive than the snazziest website IMHO.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I opened the NEF in CS5, did adjustments. Now when I want to save a copy of NEF. But, Adobe is not allowing me to save in NEF. Its providing DNG, PSD, JPG, TIF. Why is that so. How would I preserve the original and keep (the adjusted one as) copy?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In this case you would want to save the adjusted file as a PSD if you plan on working on it later, this will leave your original raw image intact, and give you a copy of the edited version you could go back to. Once you have made changes with Photoshop your file isn't in NEF format anymore.</p>

<p>I would avoid the really inexpensive kits available online, they may work, but not for long, and won't provide enough light for serious studio work. That doesn't touch the issue of build quality.</p>

<p>The hot shoe flashes are not a bad idea and have the advantage of being portable.</p>

<p>Personally I think the best thing to do would be to buy one real studio strobe and learn to use it. (I have and like AlienBees, White Lightning is made by the same company and also has a great reputation.) You will have a piece of equipment that will last a long time without becoming obsolete, and if you decide studio work is not for you, will have some resale value.</p>

<p>Maybe get an umbrella and a soft box, and definitely a reflector, and work on learning the deferent qualities of light using one strobe, when you are comfortable with that, add another light.</p>

<p>You will be amazed at what is possible with just a strobe and a softbox, or the combination of a softbox and a large white reflector. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ok, I drove back for the big guns. This is somewhere in between personal and professional, for family members, so I'm not charging the session fee, but they are paying for the images they like; this is the only reason I was considering using what I had on hand. I'm sure the 40d with the 50 1.8 would have been fine.</p>

<blockquote>Why a CP for Portraits? However it will give you patchy skys with a 20mm lens.</blockquote>

<p>To saturate fall color behind my subjects and lose that stop and a half of light, it's bright here at 3 pm. </p>

<p>I have never gotten patchy skies with polarizers on other lenses, why would the 20mm be different, if it's on a 4/3 sensor?</p>

<p>So I have a family portrait shoot this weekend. I commute about an hour into a larger city than where I live, and stay there while I work there at my day job.</p>

<p>I knew that I'd be staying in the larger city and promised to shoot some family portraits at one of our local lakes this Sunday afternoon. However I left in a rush and left my camera bag on the table an hour away, containing the 5dmkII, 24-70 2.8 70-200 2.8 50 1.4, flashes, POLARIZING FILTERS, etc.</p>

<p>Now since I stay with my partner who is developing a photography interest, he has some of my "backup gear" here. I have access to a 40d w/ kit lens and a 50 1.8, 430 ex speedlight.</p>

<p>I also always carry my little m4/3 kit and shoot mostly 20 1.4 (40mm equiv) (do have flash and diffuser for fill)</p>

<p>My first response would be to drive the two hours to get the good stuff, but in reality, I almost think I'd be just as well off to stop by the camera store and see if they had some polarizers to fit the 20 on the m4/3, and the 50 on the 40d, one slightly wide, one slightly telephoto (portraity?)</p>

<p>I doubt the client will have any idea what equipment I'm showing up with, much less what it means, and I think even the m4/3 will do prints as large as they will want at low iso with good light.</p>

<p>So my question is, Would you drive the 2 hours or make what you already have work?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>I hate to answer a question with a question, but do you have your film scanned and edit it digitally, or do you get prints from a lab? Are the prints traditional optical prints, or prints from scans?</p>

<p>I can definitely understand your perspective, mine is a little different. At 29, (and 7 years is a lifetime in a digital world, technology changes so fast) I started my interest in photography in a film only world. It was years before I got my first digital camera, and that was just a p/s.</p>

<p>Now I an environment where the speed and convenience of a digital workflow, versus film and processing, not to mention scanning and editing, is necessary for me to get one job finished before I am engaged in another.</p>

<p>I feel like this is a totally different animal than shooting, developing, and printing my own B/W images in the darkroom, which I still do. Traditional silver prints are things of beauty that I love for my own pleasure and the organic feeling of the process. I like the fact that the only electronic in the process is the light bulb in the enlarger, and I feel that I have truly created an image from scratch, manipulating the light and silver myself; and even with my bare hands when dodging and burning. I feel a much more personal connection to my film work.</p>

<p>Occasionally I will have a client request film work and traditional B/W printing, which I will provide, they ask because they like the look of the work I do that way.</p>

<p>But to answer the question "Why?" I'm sure it's because of just that organic feeling you talk about. It will be interesting to see, however, of recreational film users who become professionals, just how many keep film as their sole medium. Many professionals who shoot film utilize digital editing at some point in the process.</p>

<p>And it may be simply because film is beautiful, the ritual, loading, winding, developing, printing, it's an art even before the print is made.</p>

<p>Allan: A wonderful statement, and perfectly true. This is why when I photograph an event I proof all of the photos I capture, unless they are extremely blurred, even if there is no chance of them ever winding up in a portfolio. You never know if what may look like a terrible shot to you may contain some significant meaning to a client.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>For me, one of my regrets in life, is being perhaps too focused on landscape and non-personal projects. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is something that I try to keep in the front of my mind, I love creating wall-hangers without people, but try to remember to capture the people I am traveling with and not just objects.</p>

<p>I also wish I had been bitten by the photography bug earlier in life, there are trips I went on without cameras to places I'll never be again, with people I'll never see again. I had access to an old EM with some pretty good glass that I had no idea what I was doing with back in high school, I have 2 rolls of t-max negatives of friends, I wish I had 20! If I had realized my passion, there is no telling what I would have photos of.</p>

<p>I have spent countless hours restoring folded, torn, water damaged, dog eared, cracked family photos, some the only images that exist of people who no longer do.</p>

<p>FWIW: I never leave home without a P/S that goes everywhere I do, a m4/3 with a fast prime in my bag, and enough lenses, flash, memory, and batteries to shoot an impromptu wedding if I needed to in the trunk of my car! The pro kit comes out if I plan to go photographing for fun, have an assignment, or know I'll be at a get together where f 1.4 and iso 3200 might be needed for candid fireside shots.</p>

<p>I thought that this would be an easy google search to find out, but when I try to batch process large numbers of files in photoshop, usually to convert from tiff to jpg for printing or web use, I get the error message that I have tried to process too many images, and the process stops. This seems to happen after about 200 images.</p>

<p>I am running CS5 on a new iMac with plenty of horsepower, fast processor, 8 gigs of ram, images from a 5d Mk II or an Olympus E-P1.</p>

<p>Is there a standard limit to the number of files that can be processed, or is it related to file size?</p>

<p>Thanks for your input!</p>

<p> </p>