roman_thorn1

<p>Hi folks! I have four seperate questions...hope you can shed some light on?<br>

1. I just did a photo restoration for a client. First time I have done that, turned out well though. So how do I charge for this? I guess I spent about 5 hours total...how do I bill and what rate?<br>

2. New client wants me to copy an existing idea for her web-site. So, She already has the image in mind but what she wants is for me to re-produce it with her in it instead. She is planning to use it on her web page. What r the legal concerns. I'm not sure cr laws apply here?<br>

3. Do you typicaly upsell on prints or do you just charge a creative/time fee. Example: Typicaly when I shoot for a client I just charge for my time. Whenever prints are invloved I just send them to a lab and pass on the cost. Should I be taking a percentage of this?<br>

4. At what point do you give up on a client when there is a no show. Example: I was asked by a independant company to shoot product for their catalog. Everything was agreed on verbaly over the phone, no contract was signed yet. A few days before I was to meet I called to confirm the time and day but was not able to get in touch. One follow up phone call and two emails later...nothing, no reply. Is it time to move on? </p>

<p>Hi folks! Just had a past client of mine approach me about reproducing an old family photograph. She wanted to know where best to take it and have it copied. I tolled her that I would be happy to do it and re-assured her that if it wasn't up to standard she would not have to pay. So I'm curious what would be the best way to do this. I suppose it could just be scanned but I thought it migt be better if I shoot it with my 60mm micro...any thought on technique?</p>

<p>How tight do you want the Portraits? What kind of a working distance would you like. Anything from 50 - 85mm work well. Not sure about the D5000 but my likes are:<br>

nikon 50 1.8 Ai<br>

Voightlander 58 1.4<br>

Nikon 60 micro<br>

Nikon 85 1.8</p>

 

<p>This is great folks. I love reading these discussions...I'm learning so much along the way. "Scott", thanks a bunch for all those links. Miy interest in the 17 TSE was geared toward Interiors. Question is do I need a 17 and a 24 or skip the 24 and get a 45, maybe vice versa. Anyway, hope you won't mind if I drop you an email from time to time if I have any further questions? Thanks again everyone...cheers!</p>

<p>Wow! Thanks every one, thats some serious food for thought. It appears I have a lot to learn.</p>

<p>Hi Scott! Could you be more specific. I'm pretty sure tilt shift lenses pre-date live view. I'm not trying to start a debate, just want to know what limitations I would have...thanks</p>

<p>Hi folks! Please forgive me if this question comes across a little silly. Anyway, I'm really interested in shooting Architecture. I want to get the best quality without having to step up to a larger format. The two lenses I am most interested in is the TSE 17 and TSE 24mm. Since my budget is restricted and I don't have a FF camera, I was considering getting a used canon Eos 3 or something similar. I'm actually a Nikon shooter but for this type of work I feel canon is better equiped. So, I'm curios what restrictions or limitations am I placing on my self shooting slides and having them scanned. And, will the two TSE lenses work with older Eos film bodies. Any thoughts would be appreciated...cheers!</p>

<p>Just want to thanks everyone for their input...it all helps. I kind of figured that switching to manual raising the ISO and increasing the DOF was my best bet, but was hoping for a "magic" in camera setting...wishful thinking. Thanks again: RK</p>

<p>Hi folks! My D300 struggles to aquire focus with subject moving towards me. Well to be more specific, I often come across this problem when out hiking with my dogs in poor light. For example, on a dull grey day in the woods trying to capture my 3 black coon hounds on the move is near impossible. I would say my hit rate is 5% at best. I actually get better results switching to manual focus. On days like this, it's not uncommon for me to shoot at F2 and ISO 1600 to achieve at least a 1/160 shutter speed. Mind you I'm not trying to capture them in full sprint, usually just in a light stroll so 160-200 should suffice? What I find is happening is that I can't get focus at all/hunts, (they are low contrast), or becouse there is such a thin plane of focus @ F2, between them moving towards me and the minute shutter delay, focus is off. I guess, what I'm asking is if there is a better way to set up focus priority for this situation or if it's just a camera limitation? By the way, I get worse results in continuos focus tracking then single shot. Any advice would greatly be appreciated...cheers!</p>

<p>I will keep that in mind, but from what I can tell, the 50 - 150 is dicontinued,. My bet is an os version is not to far away. Sigma did just put out a 150 macro OS, so I will wait...cheers!</p>

<p>Thanks! I shoot two 300's but thinking of replacing one with a D7000. I do use external flash...two SB800's and one 600. As far us ultra wides go, I would really like one thats good at F4. Now I'm considering the Tokina 11- 16 or Sigma 10 - 20 3.5. From what I read it's only soft in the far corners @ 10mm wide open? Best way to know is to test them both out. On that note, the new sigma 17 - 50 OS is looking mighty appealing.</p>

<p>Thanks again, much to consider.</p>

<p>Hi! Thanks everyone. last night I was looking through all the photo"s I took from an event I just shot the other day. That said, what I noticied was that a good standard zoom, like the 17 - 55 would have been all I neeed for 90% of the images. So I guess, a standard zoom and a few specific primes would do the job nicely. I'm still on the fence about a long zoom or tele. I found the 85 to be plenty long, maybe a 105 would have been a touch better though? K, enough said, a standard it is and I will go from there as needed.</p>

<p>1.8 smaller/lighter/cheaper and is some cases better IQ...zoom snob :-)</p>

<p>Thanks! As far as I know, tilt shifts don't work so well on DX format...don't get wide enough and don't get full tilt shift. What's confusing...this is my subject matter and all that it includes. It can be "editorial/reportage" The 50-150 has more range than I need and is not subject specific. In my humble opinion I would be trading speed and quality for convenience...no thanks.</p>

<p>Hi folks! Just want to know what your lens choices would be for this type of work. Lets assume you will be shooting two DX camera's. I'm asking because I want to re-align my current set up. I asked a related question a couple of day's ago and members on this forum thought I should really include a good wide angle zoom...I tend to agree. So now I think for this type of work my choices are:<br /> 12 - 24 Nikon/Tokina ?<br /> 35 1.8G<br /> 50 1.8D<br /> 60 micro<br /> 85 1.8D<br /> By the way, when I say Editorial/reportage my subject matter would would be Environmental Portrait/Fashion/Product/Food/Architectural/Industrial/stock <br /> I'm sure it's a matter of preference, but I would love to here other peoples thoughts.</p>

<p>Hi Pete! Thanks, I was considering the tokina but thought maybe a 12 - 24 nikon might be better for reportage style work. I guess that would make it a 12-24/24 1.4/50 1.8/105 For me this just makes sense, it's how I view the world around me. I just wanted some feed back. Glad to hear I'm not the only one who feels this way...not that it should matter.</p>

<p>Hi! I have a couple of D300's. No I don't have the 17 - 55, I have the cheap street sweeper 18 105. the IQ on it is quite good and when I shoot events, I mostly use it between 18 - 30mm wich makes it a good constant 4.5...with flash it's fine. If I need longer or faster out come the 35/60/85. To be honest though, I kind of shy away from zooms. Nothing wrong with them just that they don't inspire or bring out my creativity in me the way good primes do. I o love VR on my 18 - 105 for creative reasons though.</p>

<p>Hi folks...just want your thoughts on something that has been eating away at me. Currently I shoot Dx format and rely heavily on certain primes that in my opinion, r kind of an odd fit. I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer here, I'm sure it's just a matter of preference. My main primes are: 35 1.8/60 2.8 micro/and 85 1.8 Af-D. I shoot mostly events, public speeches and do portrait work. So here is my thought process: When light gets bad or I want to get creative I most often reach for my 35 1.8, but find it just a too tight. I know the cost for a 24 1.4 Af-s is ridiculous but I know for me...this would be my go to, with out a doubt. The 60 is a great lens, but since I don't have a good tele, I have been thinking of swapping it over for the 105 Vr micro. You have no idea how many times I have been at an event and wished for a 105 when all I've had in my bag was an 85. Not to mention, it would do double duty is a micro. On that note, as much as I love my 85, on DX I find that focal length a bit off/odd. Too long indoors, say in someone's home and too short in the field, outdoors or when shooting speeches from a distance. So what I thought was to replace it with a fast 50. So essentially I now would have a 24/50/105. Interesting that the focal lengths most usful to me are doubling. Keep in mind, I do have a standard zoom for general use. Is this just a case of the grass is always greener thing or is my thought process valid. Please don't tell me to get the 70-200, just not interested nor am I interested in the Sigma 30. for me, it's still not enough breathing room. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>As far as I'm concerned, the D7000 just trumped the 700. Dollar for dollar it is a bargain, especially when you consider all the great features...lighter/smaller/dual card slots/1080 video/high iso performance/extra pixels for cropping/half the cost of a D700...shall I go on, make the trade, it's a no brainer. Don't worry about what the Full frame DX nay sayers tell you.</p>

<p>Honestly...thats the saddest thing you folks have ever seen? How about starving children in impoverished parts of the world, or animal cruelty? God, it's just a tool, no diff then a f***ing hammer. Hardest thing to swallow is the cost to replace it, otherwise...who gives a shit!</p>

<p>Hello all! Simple question...I think? What is the largest print I can make from a 12 meg D300 with out loosing too much quality? I just finished a photo shoot and the client wants the largest possible print size for his living room. It is a 9.5 meg tif. Very little cropping has been done but it has been converted to B/W. Maybe this is not so cut and dry but any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Oh, not sure if it makes a difference but I shot it in Raw/NEF and saved it as tif.</p>

<p>Hey all! Just wondering if this has sparked any interest. @ first I kind of shrugged it off but after reading the specs I might re-consider. Unlike Nikon, this Sigma has a much shorter minimum focusing distance, (85cm) to be precise. I find this a huge asset. </p>

<p>Keep your kit len and buy an 85 1.8.</p>

<p>In good light, the 18-105 is a winner. </p>