stephen_delear

And this one<div></div>

Hum some fun with film as of two days ago.<div></div>

Um I hate to ask a noobie question but can somebody explain to me how to do an HDR image. I take it this is a

bit more then simply bracketing the shot and cutting photo shopping in the best exposed sky..

Ok a couple things. First are you in the United States. That last sentence sounded like you might be a native Spanish speaker. Opening a business is legal in the U.S. though other countries can have other laws.

 

1) If there's more then one person involved decide how the money will be handled before you start, equal shares, everyone that was at an event, bonus to the person who landed the business, ectra.

 

2) Decide how the rights to the images will be handled while the business is in existence and after it desolves.

 

3) Decide what will happen when the business dissolves or somebody wants to leave the business (do they get brought out, what if they go inactive but don't formally quit).

 

4) Right all of this down and both sign it yourself and get your parents to sign it (if under 18).

 

5) You are now a Partnership. For variou legal reasons being a partnership is a bad thing. You will want to register a Limited Liability Company with your States Secretary of State (forms can be found on the web with most states and are generally not hard). Do to your ages I would suggest a manager, managed LLC, if you need to you can appoint one of your parents as the manager.

 

6) Since there will be more then one of you get an EIN for the business of the IRS. This simply means filling out a form of their website. If you aren't planing to talk to an accountant I suggest you check the partnership box when it comes to how you'll be taxed.

 

7) Once you have a check in hand from somebody go open a business account at a bank.

 

The only thing I can think of that is likely to get you into deep legal hot water is shooting nudes. If your business makes over $600 in a year it's probably time to go talk to an accountant.

If you're in a big city (say New York) call around and see if any shops still have a Canon 50mm F/1 (that's right f one) for rent. If you can't get images with that at ISO 3200 you might ask why they need a photographer for a Ceremony that's being held in pitch black (ok possibly a bit of an exaggeration but back in the day that lens had a reputation for taking shots when it was to dark for the photographer to see!).

Didn't we have the same discussion about everyone getting into the photography game back when auto exposure was first introduced? (And I'd hazard to guess that there was a similar discussion when split focusing screens were first introduced).

 

That said the photo is whatever works with the output medium. A film photographer knows what a small number of variations (film type, paper stock, chemical processing) will do. Shooting in digital increases the variables. A film photographer wants to nail the shot in relation to the film and output used, only a limited range of post processing is possible.

 

A digital photographer has a much wider range of post production available. Digital can do things in post production that the laws of physics will keep you from doing in a darkroom. A digital photographer does not know what is possible with an image until post production, to many variables. For example instead of having a couple paper grades, like the film photographer (and lets face it most of us standardized on one paper / contrast for most of our shots and learned it's quirks) the digital photographer has near limitless subtle variations on image contrast. As a result many digital shooters will expose for maximum information density in their images, film shooter choose the information they want and chuck the rest.

 

BTW on film photographers never getting a previews two words: Polaroid Back.

Also you might want to try: http://www.nppa.org/

Depends. Freelance photojournalism normally pays quite poorly (and by the picture). Other parties probably will be willing to pay more realistically.

Just when the sun is crossing the horizon either up or down is rarely the best time to shoot. The light tends to be flat. I think the question is what were you trying to accomplish. If you're looking for golden light to shoot in, an hour before sunset or after dawn is usually best. If you're looking for a sky lit in color, after sunset is normally best.

 

I wouldn't say you need a ND filter for everything but if you're going to shoot directly into the sun, that's going to require a ND filter or you could photoshop two exposures together (which may be the best idea in this case). On the burned highlights, try the dodge/burn tool in photoshop to see if you can bring them out.

Bernie

 

Any chance you can pop the brown tones in that image a bit? Looks like you got a saturated green, but the green isn't much of your image. That shadow detail just isn't doing anything for me right now.

In 2001 a large amount of news photography would still have been via film scanned on a film scanner. News photography has a tendency to get cropped to fit the page. First generation digital SLR's where EXTREMELY expensive. Early DSLR's didn't have enough megapixels for much cropping. The common kit of the day involved two film SLRs with some variation on 18-35, 28-70 and 70-200 lenses. Digital would have been used, most often for breaking news. Sports might have been shot with digital or it might have been shot with scanned negative (Fuji NPZ-800) depending on the situation. Now if you don't mind I'm going to go cry at the thought of anyone getting caught in an explosion big enough to do that to somebodies gear.

Does anybody have any suggestions for a print or negative film with highly saturated brown tones (Royal Gold 25

you will be missed)?

 

Stephen