brittany_r._dunks

<p>Maybe someone can figure this out for me!<br>

I recently posted about card errors here: <a href="../beginner-photography-questions-forum/00YWfb">http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00YWfb</a><br>

I did tests and all seemed "fine" with these new cards. I just recently shot a wedding using these same cards and had a few files that had problems (maybe many more, but these are out of my selected images to edit!)<br>

Unlike the last set of problem images, which were totally damaged and I couldn't compare what was on my computer vs. what was on the card, these I still have on the CF card itself.<br>

What happens afterwards is what's strange.<br>

Here is an example of what happens when opened in Camera RAW, directly from the card: <br>

<img src="http://dunksphoto.smugmug.com/Other/test-shots2/16905627_9BMHZL#1277431546_j4MbcT3-A-LB" alt="" /><br>

<a href="http://dunksphoto.smugmug.com/Other/test-shots2/16905627_9BMHZL#1277431546_j4MbcT3-A-LB">http://dunksphoto.smugmug.com/Other/test-shots2/16905627_9BMHZL#1277431546_j4MbcT3-A-LB</a><br>

(and also what it looked like in LR, on the hard drive I was working from)<br>

but then a couple seconds later, it flashes to this:<br>

<a href="http://dunksphoto.smugmug.com/Other/test-shots2/16905627_9BMHZL#1277431555_LFsKS2N-A-LB">http://dunksphoto.smugmug.com/Other/test-shots2/16905627_9BMHZL#1277431555_LFsKS2N-A-LB</a><br>

and opens in PS as the correct image, it would NOT do this in LR.<br>

Again, another damaged file in LR: <br>

<a href="http://dunksphoto.smugmug.com/Other/test-shots2/16905627_9BMHZL#1277435337_pCZFnhf-A-LB">http://dunksphoto.smugmug.com/Other/test-shots2/16905627_9BMHZL#1277435337_pCZFnhf-A-LB</a><br>

(ignore the "folder not found" I moved the files later)<br>

yet, when opened off the card in Camera RAW it is fully there?<br>

Any ideas as to what is going on? In the previous post/images, they were damaged in both RAW, PS and LR, and I didn't have the card to compare it to. I am still under the impression this is a faulty card and/or the card cannot keep up with the size of the raw files being written to it, but WHY then, would it appear as damaged, then sometimes not?</p>

<p>thank you</p>

<p>For anyone in the future who is still interested, after all this searching and wondering if this was my camera, PC, software, failing hard drive etc. it seems it IS the card(s).<br>

I just had a few more errors, at a wedding and it was verified straight from the card. <br>

the image is from a screen shot being directly read from the card, itself</p>

<p>I am in the middle of doing test prints comparing my printers, through smugmug (Bay Photo) and CVS, Walmart and maybe Walgreens (local chain of drug stores).<br>

Already, there is a huge comparison and I have been a previous client of snapfish, shutterfly and kodak and the results weren't horrible, just not as high quality as I'd like to recommend. <br>

I have used Mpix and had no problems, so that was one I was saying I would like to include, that isn't a "pro" only site. <br>

I wasn't even thinking about Adorama, so that's a good one! <br>

Personally, MY clients should just print through their online album I provide for them but many times they just want to take the CD to Walmart to save a little money. <br>

I'm trying to educate them as well as give them options. If they have the disc, it's their choice. <br>

Here is a link that sparked this even more in my head, but I already have my own prints that prove the same point!: <a href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=148397841894776&set=a.140785702655990.28678.140751272659433&type=1&theater">http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=148397841894776&set=a.140785702655990.28678.140751272659433&type=1&theater</a></p>

<p>Hello All,<br>

I have tried going through old posts, but all my searches come up w/outdated info.<br>

Who are truly the BEST online photo labs for NON-Pros?<br>

I personally use Smugmug/Bay Photo, but I pay for the service. This is for my clients who, for whatever reasons, do not print through my smugmug account and take their photos to Walmart, Costco, CVS etc.<br>

I'm trying to educate them as to why they shouldn't and would like high quality online sites, that they can sign up for, and don't have to be a pro or a business. <br>

Please do NOT respond with snapfish, shutterfly or kodak.... sorry. I have used all those and that's not good enough!<br>

I know MPix is one that's "sorta" pro and decent, but looking for more. thanks!</p>

<p>I know it's been a week, but I just did my first true retest. I have updated all firmware and reformatted the cards.<br>

I just did a rapid shooting test at home: <br>

1) The camera did allow me to shoot rapidly until it hit about 12-14 frames (what Canon says will fill up the RAW buffer) so that is working correctly now. I am not sure if it was working correctly when I had the problems before.<br>

2) I shot about 50 frames on both cards a few times, absolutely NO errors on any photos. <br>

3) When the buffer was full, it didn't let me take a pic and said "Busy" on the screen, but as even a few pics were cleared out of the buffer, onto the card, it would let me take a few more. I kept shooting as much as I could to try to copy my behavior from the "problem" shoot, but nothing happened.<br>

4) So it's still undetermined in my mind if this was a camera or card error, but it appears that it's working! <br>

5) lesson learned= slow down and let the buffer clear. There wasn't any real reason for me to shoot so rapidly, other than I felt like it. I hope this isn't a problem I have to write about again.<br>

6)for higher speed shooting I will get higher speed cards. <br>

thanks for the advice.</p>

<p>Okay, so I get the concept of "buffer" and just found this on here: <br>

Canon quotes a buffer size of 78 frames for a non-UDMA card (though they don’t seem to specify a card speed). The 30MB/s Sandisk extreme IIIcards are not marked as being UDMA compliant, however it’s my understanding that they are, and the unlimited buffer capacity would seem to confirm this. For all practical purposes this means that you’re not going to fill the buffer under these conditions. In RAW mode, the frame rate was the same 3.8 fps, but the buffer did fill after 16 frames after which the frame to frame spacing increased to 0.76 seconds (1.32 frames/sec).<br>

Like I said, I don't recall never NOT being able to take a shot, and I am sure there were little breaks of time in between some poses, so perhaps it is a faulty/non-functioning buffer.<br>

I just updated my firmware and did format all my cards (something I have done off and on). I plan on doing a test shoot today to see if it happens again. I didn't see anything in the firmware updates that specifically addressed the buffer limit but it could be the way the camera interacts with the card at such a high speed of writing/shooting. If the camera is not telling "me" to STOP, I can see why the slower card simply cannot keep up.<br>

I will test shoot and hopefully not have to comment back! thanks :) </p>

 

<p>I never knew or noticed NOT being able to take a shot, even during the fast shooting time frame. So if the camera never limited my write speed, it's a firmware update? I still need to update the camera and will do that now. I need to find a "approved" card list, but like I said I have used another one of these cards almost every time I shoot for well over a year and never had a problem, so I think it should be "approved"<br>

It is 200x 30gb/sec, which I thought was fast enough... the sucky part is Adorama doesn't accept returns on memory cards, although possibly if I can prove it's faulty they will? <br>

Is it likely that this is an isolated incident due to the high volume and not enough speed? or really is it the card? If I can't return them I am worried that it will happen again, I can understand a few pics having errors, but 82 in a row!?!? that's a little scary, since I shoot weddings and cannot risk losing any photos. </p>

<p>I shot 600 raw photos on this same card. hundreds before and after this set of 82 that were all similar in the way the one above looks. some were half there, then streaks of color and/or blank white space.<br>

after I stopped shooting fast, the photos are all fine again so, it leads me to believe it IS connected? if it was just a faulty card, wouldn't all the images be screwed up?<br>

I've never had a problem w/cards so this is new to me, but it just seems weird that no other images were damaged, just those which I shot fast. thank you</p>

<p>sorry, here is an image</p>

<p>Hello all,<br>

I used various types of CF Cards w/my Canon 5D Mark II, some higher quality than others. I have the Lexar Platinum II 16gb 200x card: <a href="http://www.lexar.com/products/lexar-platinum-ii-compactflash-cf-card?category=77">http://www.lexar.com/products/lexar-platinum-ii-compactflash-cf-card?category=77</a><br>

that I have used almost exclusively for weddings, portraits, sports etc and NEVER had one issue shooting in both jpeg and raw formats. Because these cards are reasonable and I never had a problem, I just bought 2 more from Adorama and while shooting RAW, rapidly, this afternoon, I had 82 photos in a row damaged, it's very apparent that the card just simply could not write the data fast enough, and I do know I was rapidly shooting because part of this shoot was two fast children who were running.<br>

I've never had to alter my behavior in shooting, due to a CF cards' ability to keep up w/me, although I will admit it was fast, and because it was probably writing previous files, new ones were also messed up.<br>

My question is: is this a sign of a faulty card or my shooting rapid RAWs w/o giving much time to catch up? Is this considered fast enough for the 5d mark ii's raw files, for typical fast paced events and shooting? I always thought it was, hence the reason for buying three, but if it's bad cards, I will return the two...<br>

also, awesomely enough, in camera all images looked fine, so I didn't find this out until I got home :)<br>

any advice? I know there are faster cards on the market, but I didn't see it necessary for my typical use.<br>

thanks</p>

<p>I think all the answers clearly show how UNCLEAR the definition is to most people. I wasn't saying I knew the answer either! I just wanted to see what people thought, and it appears it's all over the place.<br>

Maybe I just posted this to get people to think and/or reconsider whether they should be calling themselves pros or not.<br>

just a debate w/o any real conclusive answer! cheers</p>

<p>yes, I wasn't specific when I asked, but in my response my thinking was more focused on portrait (wide range of subjects) and wedding photographers.</p>

<p>So, maybe it is just that simple, one who makes the majority or all of his money from photography. So why then, do so many people call themselves professionals, when there is no way they are working enough to have it be their sole income? for lack of understanding what it takes to techincally be called a professional?<br>

I'm certainly nowhere near as great as I'd like to be but certainly a lot better than I was when I started, both as an amateur hobbyist and a part-timer but I legitamitely didn't feel professional, or call myself a company, until I felt confident to run a business...<br>

some other answers I just found online:<br>

<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/what-is-a-pro.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/what-is-a-pro.htm</a><br>

<a href="http://tinastephensphotographyanddesign.blogspot.com/2010/09/professional-photographer-by-definition.html">http://tinastephensphotographyanddesign.blogspot.com/2010/09/professional-photographer-by-definition.html</a></p>

<p>I am in agreement with much of the above. IMO, I would say professional to me is<br>

1)someone who can produce consistent, quality images *of course, "quality" is subjective, but one who understands composition, lighting, editing, posing etc.<br>

2)has a legitimate tax id's, registered business, bank account etc.<br>

3)understands and/or uses various professional equipment, although that can be argued for or against too. *a great camera doesn't make a great photographer and a great photographer can use a crappy camera and still produce amazing photographs*</p>

<p>I think there are a lot of full time pros (myself, <strong>NOT</strong> included) who have a lot of angst against "weekend warriors" "newbies" etc. that come in and "steal" their business, for whatever reasons... they have become disgruntled with the wave of new photographers and have a lot of bitterness towards it and the industry itself. I think a lot of them forget that they were once "newbs" at some point and just because they've "made" it and can charge a decent amount, they are somehow entitled to judge beginners. I do think these new "pros" do need to take the appropriate steps in becoming a legitimate and legal business though, whether they are charging $50/session or $5000.</p>

<p>I do sometimes *laugh* at John Doe Photography "company" that pops up on facebook and has their business site linked to say, a Flickr or snapfish account, who probably has no business calling themselves professional and/or a company, based on their skill level. BUT if people are willing to pay (even small amounts) for their services, I guess there is a need and niche for all levels of "professionals".</p>

<p>I am sorta like you, Dave, in which I started as a hobbyist, then part-time, then consistent part-time and have been operating as full time for a couple years. I would argue that "professional" does not mean your sole income comes from photography though, I would say that just means you are a full-time photographer. There are plenty of talented, registered, tax-paying photographers that only shoot part-time, for whatever reasons. </p>

<p>Plain and simple: What do you think it means? At what point do amateurs/hobbyists turn into pros?<br>

I am just curious to hear opinions. This comes up a lot in various groups I am involved with.<br>

thanks</p>

<p>Okay, I have not used either company just curious about either/or. I was not aware that they outsource their labor, so if that is the case, it does change my opinion. I have considered hiring a freelance editor, but still not sure about the logistics of it. With hiring a company I liked the ability to have a consistent, established business with multiple employees, guaranteeing turnaround times and results vs. someone I would have to train (possibly) to edit in my style. I previously was an "intern" of sorts and did just that and it just seems like more hassle than hiring a well-oiled machine. I also do not have a situation where I can easily have someone working closely with me (in my apartment, since I don't have a studio or even a house) so they'd have to do it in their own environment, which makes me worry about monitor calibration etc. <br>

I do use LR3 for the front end of my editing then finish them in CS5. I have a lot of actions that I use, and tweak, so I want the ability to end up in PS. I don't know if it's even possible to have a soley US based company, but if one exists, let me know. I specifically liked the idea that these companies were US based...</p>

<p>ShootDotEdit is based in California, PWD is in Georgia. I would not consider a non-US company for many reasons. It's my belief that these companies are hiring professionals who edit for me, which in turn creates jobs in their market and frees up time for me to market, advertise, improve my business which will lead to booking more jobs. The more jobs I get, the more I hire 2nd shooters and/or associate photographers all of which creates jobs. No jobs are getting lost here... just choosing to have another do my part of my job so I can have a life.</p>

 

<p>Hello All,<br>

I had my heart set on using ShootDotEdit for my basic PP needs. It is worth it to me to outsource my basic editing and then hand select some photos for more extensive editing. They recently changed their policies to only do weddings, which is okay but I was wondering if there are any other companies that people use/like that do all portrait sessions? I have also heard of PWD Labs but they use LR3 and state that they recommend that I only use that for my end of the editing, which isn't going to happen.<br>

Any opinions on these companies or others?<br>

thanks</p>

<p>I agree with all statements here. I have toyed around with the idea of having separate websites for weddings and family/kids/baby/maternity, which all sorta group into one type or style. I just feel that I want to put more energy into weddings, which I do naturally, but also that I am just BETTER at them than say, baby portraits. Yet a good deal of my work (not income, of course) comes from just that, so I guess I am doing them well enough. I guess I could advertise myself mostly as a wedding photographer but still take other types of jobs. I would like to eventually have someone working for me, that shoots the family/kids stuff on the side, so I don't have to do them all and can focus on my brand, business and marketing and becoming the "best" in what I love the most, weddings.</p>

<p>I feel sorta stuck. I have been operating as a wedding/engagements/events AND baby AND family/kids AND maternity photographer for a few years. I realize that it may look bad to be so spread out, but I generally love all those subjects as much as the other.... well, I love weddings/events (and engagements that come along with them) the most. <br>

The problem is, I've developed this pattern that I can't really get out of easily, nor do I particularly want to completely. but I feel that most of the successful photographers are known for one type of photography, with the occasional other subjects here and there.<br>

thinks Jasmine Star, Jessica Clair, Anne Geddes etc. everyone who cares, knows what style they're known for.<br>

I don't necessarily want to stop doing babies/kids/family/maternity but how do I separate it? Or grow into just being a specialist at one field (weddings) I live in the Mid-Atlantic, so wedding season is generally April-October, so it's not a year round income generator.<br>

Has anyone made a transition like this? Or maintained a "general" photo studio and found it to be a success in the long term?</p>

 

<p>Yes, I have looked into both and also PPA on the local, state level. My goal in joining would not be to "bolster my legitimacy or qualifications to charge people money to take photos" it is for the benefits which I do not need to mention here.<br>

I am just curious if people think it's a wise move to advertise these groups. I personally think it shows that you take photography serious enough to know about them and pay the money to join. It obviously doesn't mean you are a better photographer because you paid the membership, but that you care about it, at least. I have seen some sites that show every link to every site that they are associated, which I think looks like they're trying too hard.<br>

I have a wedding wire link, because it has reviews, and I'd like more reviews on there instead of google where older reviews are. I think PPA and/or WPPI (for me personally) would look fine next to that one!</p>

<p>Hello All,<br>

I am not a member of either organization, but considering one or both. My question is not as much about the benefits or which one you prefer (but you are more than welcome to try to convince me!)<br>

I am wondering if these sites allow you to display your membership on your website, in the form of a banner/code/logo etc? I have seen some other organizations logos on photogs websites, but when I just searched I couldn't find many for these two.<br>

Is it tacky to list every "thing" you are a member of? I feel like it would help to make you and your site look more legit, unless it's overdone. Opinions?<br>

thanks</p>

<p>Hello All,<br>

I am trying to find the best option for printing a flush mount e-session guest book. I have used Leather Craftsmen (more expensive) and Miller's Lay Flat (right price) but the Miller's seems to be too shiny to be used as a guest book, but I don't have a sample with me to test it out.<br>

I have only ordered Lustre finish from them, though.<br>

any suggestions on album companies/finishes that are not too expensive?<br>

thanks</p>

<p>one more thing! I have also read the debates back and forth between a shoot through umbrella or a reflective/silver umbrella. Which would be more effective for this?<br>

I am thinking reflective? thanks</p>

<p>Thanks for the input. Formals are my least favorite photos, both technically and aesthetically, but I want them to be better! I was thinking I could get away with buying one item, for both weddings and portraits, either a softbox or umbrella, but that doesn't seem to be the case. <br>

I may try the on-camera flash and one speedlight/umbrella set up. I didn't have pocket wizards last year so I am excited to at least have the ability to shoot OCF.</p>

<p>thanks1</p>

<p>In my further searching, I have seen this subject has been beaten to death. I wish I could delete this. I don't if that's possible, but I can't figure out how.</p>