glenn_carroll
-
Posts
34 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by glenn_carroll
-
-
Hi I just had a customer ask if I would print something 90"x60" - which is massive. Largest I've ever printed is 40x60. I want high quality,
thick, matte paper. (Non glossy). At least 13 mil thick. Do you recommend any online shop that can do this? Thanks
-
<p>Hey I am going to begin selling photos & graphic prints in local art stores in my home city. I plan on providing framed options and also just the prints themselves. What have you found to be the best way to present prints? I have shrink wrap and a heat gun to bind them, but I have not found a good surface that is economical to bind them to. I was thinking cardboard. Do you just buy sheets of cardboard and cut it down to size? Where is a good place to get it? A nice white backing or black backing of some kind would look great, but might cost more.<br>
Any help / recommendations would be great, thanks<br>
Glenn</p>
-
<p>Thanks everyone for the excellent responses. I think I may go with the 5d. I am not a professional, do not really blow up images to the extreme, and believe that an extra 1000 plus dollars is unnecessary for me. I DO love the idea of being able to take night shots without the headaches I have with this rebel. I think the mk ii would be really good with that. But I think that's an upgrade for another day. Thanks again.</p>
-
<p>Hello, I am looking to upgrade from a rebel camera to a full frame camera. I've done some reading and I am most attracted to the ability to get nice wide shots. higher quality dof blur is also attractive. I have the 24-105 and am going to get the 16-35mm. If I have a rebel camera, then I would really not be getting much of the benefits from a 16-35mm lens right? because it crops it. <br>
I can get a used 5d for like $650, or a new 5d mark ii for $1,900. Is there THAT much of an advantage to get a newer model? I dont care so much about frames / second and some other bells & whistles. As long as its pretty good quality, full frame, and would utilize the lens to its ability, I will be happy.<br>
ANY thoughts, suggestions, etc. would be a warm welcome. Thanks so much<br>
Glenn</p>
-
<p>Hey steven F, you say that if I use this then my DOF will be paper thin and the pic will look like garbage. Thats at f/4. Well if you go to this link below, you'll find some sample pictures of what people have put up there. There is one of green peas. It says they took that picture with an aperture of 1.8 with 36mm of extension tube @ a focal length of 50mm. If my settings would grant paper thin results, then those settings would have microscopically thin results, right? What do you think... I'm all confused. The picture of peas looks pretty good<br>
<p> </p>
-
<p>thanks guys. Steven F, I was reading another forum about this fotodiox and someone suggested getting a really expensive one that was able to control the aperture. As far as I'm concerned, this is just a dag-um spacer and there's no reason it should cost much of anything. molded plastic. But I really dont mind spending $50 or so if it grants good macro photography and allows me to avoid getting an entirely different lens.</p>
<p>Jack, thanks for that. I was wondering if there was some way to turn the thing off without it defaulting to wide open</p>
-
<p>Hey I just bought this to get good macro photography with a standard telephoto lens:<br>
As you can see, it comes with three different extensions, 7mm 14mm and 28mm. You can use them all or separately. However, since the lens cannot communicate with the body, I am unsure how to focus. I know I cannot control the aperture, but I figured you could still focus somehow. I've tried it out and it is a blurred mess whether the object is 1 foot away or 1/2 inch away from the lens. I have a 24-105m f/4 L.<br>
Also I have no idea what 7mm 14mm and 28mm mean. Do you automatically have a good idea of how far the object needs to be from the lens based on whehter you are using the 7mm ring as opposed to the 14mm ring?<br>
Any insight on this would be fantastic. No, I dont want to spend 1,000 on an extension tube to be able to control the aperture. Thanks</p>
-
<p>So I know about the different color space for different purposes (for the most part). sRGB = internet purpose. ProPhoto RGB = high quality prints. This is mainly because of the different in size of color gamut. What I don't understand is 2 things.<br>
1) What makes ProPhoto RGB so good if printers cannot output the colors anyway because it is so big. I mean, most places I go to like Bayphoto and Nations Photolab ask for adobe 1998 AND jpeg rather than TIFF. So if I want to make a great print (we're talking museum quality)...where do I go online?<br>
2) I'm thinking of making some posters with images from illustrator. Vista print asks specifically for the file to be done in CMYK because thats how the printers work with the image. OR they said send it in the natural illustrator.ai file type. after reading this thread (below)and some comments by Andrew Rodney (the apparent kind in this stuff), it seems like the people at vistaprint dont know what they're talking about. Andrew said all printers expect RGB colorspaces, so you need to give it to them. THEN they convert to CMYK<br>
http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00YjZ4?start=0<br>
so if some of these people are right, and CMYK is garbage to work in, why is it even available to work in? why would adobe products allow us to work in garbage colorspaces?</p>
-
<p>the i1display pro is like 244 bucks. Can you tell me anything about this:<br>
It looks to be a good product and I've heard a lot of good things about colormunki</p>
-
<p>thank you all so much for the input. You make it seem so much simpler than others., and I never even considered the idea that corps strategically create negative reviews. what a headache for the consumer!</p>
-
<p>Hello I hope you all great people can help. I have a brand new imac 21.5inch desktop. All I want is to calibrate this thing because I want prints ordered to match what I see on the monitor. Is this so hard? I found these settings to plug in: gamma 2.2, 6500k and 110 luminance for macs. Look, I'm not technical guru, I just want to be able to calibrate this monitor. After reading call sorts of reviews and other posts on photo.net, I am at a loss. All I can find is confused people and contradicting customer reviews. Just take a look below to see what I mean. I am looking for something around $100 but will pay 150 if I have to. I just dont see why one would be so much more than another -- they do the SAME tihng right??? what am I paying extra for with respect to the munki device? PLEASE HELP -- maybe an amazon link to something would be great.<br>
SPYDER 3 ELITE<br />Review 1) strightforward installation on a mac, calibration is a breeze, it lets you see before and after differences and the prints come out perfect. It even takes ambient light readings while plugged into the usb port. I highly recommend this.<br>
Review 2) I switched from Spyder2 Pro to Spyder3Elite for work. Mistake. The new software for the S3E is buggy and the UI is awful -- it's like they forgot everything they did right with the S2. The Big One: poor calibration! I ran both wizard mode and expert mode, then used the colorimeter to check the color temperature of gray patches, and the S3 calibrated colors were all over the map -- different by thousands of degrees. The S2Pro calibrated results were nearly spot on from near black to full white<br>
SPYDER 2 PRO<br />review 1) I had no problem understanding the procedure from color vision. HUGE difference from before to after. Great job color vision!<br>
review 2) I had better results without using this thing. I was looking forward to aligning my computers with proper calibration and this product failed. It was a waste of time. This is just terrible.<br /><br />I1DISPLAY 2<br>
Review 1) great product! easy to use, no previous learning required, and simply does exactly what it says it will do: Calibrate.<br>
Review 2) this is an obsolete unit. It is discontinued and not usable by furture apple users.</p>
-
<p>Thanks for the responses. No I haven't done much research on the industry yet. I just got back from new zealand and this came to mind when thinking of something to do for some income. I didn't think I had to be an expert at this before asking some questions on photo.net. I've always come here to ask something when I wasn't sure but when it comes to the business forum it seems like people had better know their shit before hand. Yeah I know Hallmark pays for artists' work - maybe even 300 artists' work. But that doesnt change my point that when people think of fine art greeting cards, Hallmark is not in their head. I'll research next time and already know the answers to my questions next time I want to ask a question on the business forum, even though that makes absolutely no sense. Have a great day Jeffery</p>
-
<p>hey guys, thanks for the input. I do plan on making money at this and no its not to get my name out. I didnt mean the typical postcard that comes to mind to most people. That was the wrong word. I am really imagining being a competitor to something like Hallmark with cards, but I would be small time and sell high quality cards. Instead of generic designs that hallmark uses on everything, I would offer something very nice with fine art and quality stock paper. Many of them might be blank. It would be very seasonal - xmas would be a popular time for example. maybe in the 4-5$ range for a card? It doesnt have to produce rock solid results immediately. It just seems like selling at the local farmers market for a $18/day booth would allow for a high profit potential at the get go with little cost.</p>
-
<p>Hello I am thinking of trying to find a niche in postcard photography. Like having birthday cards, get well cards, etc. etc. made but with fine art photography on them. Does anyone know of a good company that can allow for your photos to be uploaded to them and cards be produced and mailed to you? maybe with short sayings in a custom font?<br>
Any ideas or suggestions would be welcome. Thank you<br>
Glenn</p>
-
<p>Hey, i am having a hard time getting lightroom to export my large file. I'm trying to take 5 or 6 different images of a scene, stitch them together in photoshop merge, edit in lightroom and save. Also, each photo is an HDR photo of three different exposures. haha so here is what i have done more specifically: Taken 3 exposures for 6 different pans. I took the RAW file for each exposure, and made 6 HDR images in photoshop. Then I took the HDR images which i think are PSD files now, and stitched them together in photomerge. Then this pops out one big panoramic photo in psd format. I imported that into lightroom, cropped, edited color, and finally tried to export as a 16 bit TIF completely uncompressed file for maximum quality. Lightroom took about 5 minutes to export it. When it is done, the final picture is a whopping 280MB, but the image is 1/2 solid gray and 1/2 messed up / horribly blurry, etc.<br>
If anyone knows what i am doing wrong, or if anyone knows of a better process to make the image, I would be very grateful for any input. THANKS<br>
Glenn</p>
-
<p>thanks for the suggestions. the heavy duty zip lock bags sound like good ideas. i can tape them real good to the lens good and be golden. ill also get one of the dehumidifiers--never would have thought...<br>
Im planning on initially going to queensland and staying around there until mid december, taking weekend trips all over the place. then i will go to the north island and do the same thing for warmer weather. cant wait</p>
-
<p>Hey, im planning on going to new zealand for a year beginning this august and living there / traveling around taking pictures. Since there is so much rainfall to be expected I am concerned about how to protect my camera and lens. I want to go on these amazing hikes with my camera out ready to take pictures instead of keeping it in the bag. Any advice on how yall do this would be very much appreciated<br>
I have a canon XSI camera and the 24-105 f/4L and 50m f/1.4 lenses<br>
thanks</p>
-
<p>Thank you all for your input. I will check them all out. Take care</p>
-
<p>Im going to say what everyone is thinking. This website is absolutely horrible. I thought this post was a joke when I first opened the webpage. Dagmar, if you are not joking and really do want to draw people in to view your creativity and enjoy your style, then you've got to change your style. Sorry, but thats the hard truth. It looks like something that was created in the 70's and left untouched until now. Please take this as constructive criticism -- revamp then entire site</p>
-
<p>Hello<br>
I am in the process of learning how to create a nice webpage for an upcoming photography side-business of mine. I want to be able to display several pictures and allow people to buy them from the website just like they would buy something from Amazon or some other website. But I dont know how to set this up. I would welcome any ideas you all have of the best way to do this. I've heard from some people to get paypal set up, but just thought i would ask others to see what yall do. Thanks in advance</p>
-
<p>haha dont be scared. When i went to your website and saw the opening pictures my first thought was "wow, those look really good." Then i saw one i really liked--i think it was the girl against the bricks and thought "geez, that's an awesome picture--I bet Suzanne charges a lot for these" haha no joke. then i saw the prices and thought "oh, hmm... I guess she is a low key photographer just trying to make supplementary income." That was a ballpark thought process from my end. not sure how others feel, but I dont think you should feel ashamed to charge more.<br>
GOOD LUCK</p>
-
<p>Hey, looks like most people have added good comments here. music tends to add a nice feeling, but i would probably change the specific song you have. layout of the website is nice. Lots of pictures and a very simple setup. Photographers dont need lots of links, information, etc. so you did well there. I would even agree with the others and say cut down on the info in some of the sections. Short and simple is always good--it makes people feel less like their reading a book and more like they're enjoying looking at beautiful pictures while also getting all the info they need with a single paragraph or two.<br>
Pricing is interesting. You might feel like you would get more clients and more money by not charging much, but i feel the oppisite might be true. I've heard from friends that when you charge a lot you come across as being very professional and worth a lot. People have the idea that you get what you pay for, and photography is no exception. Its an art, art takes talent, and with talent should come money. Look at yourself as a professional and you will come across as such</p>
-
<p>Someone above mentioned "editorial Use" of photographs, and in that case you would not need a release from that person, whether they are famous or not. I assume you would have to make that magazine company sign a contract with you stating that they will ONLY use that photograph for a newsworthy source. The idea is that you can use photographs for a newsworthy purpose because that purpose is protected by the first amendment "freedom of the press." What i was saying is that you cant sell it for pure personal gain becasue you are exploiting their famousness for your own benefit. This would fall under commercial use in the same way it does when Nike used Tiger Wood's image to promote golf (that "was" worth millions to be able to do)... make sense?<br>
But you asked if someone is not so famous. The lines get vague, and attourneys always say if you are in doubt just get the release to be safe. Courts sometimes could go either way. By a general rule, you can always use it for editorial use, but if you can make money on the photograph by itself, then its probably violating that person's right to publicity. No non-famous people have to right to publicity becasue their value in a photograph has $0 worth.</p>
-
<p>one more thing--i also asked if companies really care if some small time photographer is trying to make a buck, and the answer is yes. Many companies actually do track you down and bust you. This is particularly the case with the NFL. They mean business, but the first time is a warning if caught. If you keep doing it, its jail time</p>
Large photos
in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing
Posted