jennifer_spencer

<p>Sounds like a great trip. Definitely call and ask the park rangers - seems like there's always someone on staff who has this sussed out. I asked at the Petrified Forest and they called over to their photography buff and gave me the scoop. It was a great help. </p>

<p>I love the Yellow Mounds, but I am into saturated color. The colors of the mounds are bleached out pretty well in the light of the day but the yellow really comes out when the sun is low in the sky. That is true of most of the Badlands; midday shots should probably be more about the silhouettes.</p>

<p>I shot what I thought was a nice panoramic view in the lowlands, near the prairie, I want to say it was near Burns Basin, between the Yellow Mounds and the Fossil Exhibit. They aren't obvious Badlands images, but I liked the prairie.</p>

<p>Here's what I shot: http://jspencerphotography.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/come-back-soon-and-often-devils-tower-the-badlands-and-sioux-falls/</p>

<p>Bring plenty of water; it's dry and alkali out there and it dries you out faster than you expect. It can be windy too, so you might want something to keep the sting out of your eyes.</p>

<p>Some of the really small regional jets (CRJ & Embraer) have tiny "bins" overhead. They are more like the size of a large turkey roasting pan than an overhead bin. Not every camera bag will fit up there, no matter what you do. The best thing I've done is to have good camera insurance and a slim profile backpack or business-looking case. If it looks like a camera case, it just screams "weigh me" or "search me", and it won't always fit on the regional jet. Carrying business cards showing you are really a photographer helps you prove the worth of your equipment. (Even if you only do a little bit of paid work, cards are a good investment for travel.) Alternately, you could simply plan to check the bag and hope it doesn't get waylaid. Note that I am talking about that hard Pelican case you'll be buying beforehand. With bar codes on luggage nowadays, very little gets permanently lost, though I find it still gets delayed. In the scenario with a wedding to shoot at the destination, I would first make sure there was a camera rental agency on the other end of the flight. </p>

<p>So far, I've not had to gate check, but I have been given a hard time about weight once or twice. In those situations, I put my favorite lenses into my purse and pockets and tried again. They never take a lady's purse, at least. For the bag not fitting, I find if I appear agonized (which I am) and explain that it's got a $10K worth of equipment inside, the flight personnel try to help me find a way to make it work. If I had to check the bag, my contingency plan is to unpack my two best lenses from it and put them into my purse, add some padding like my jacket to the bag, and hope for the best. You can nearly always rent or buy a new/used body of at least acceptable quality, but lenses are another matter. If something got broken, the airline is only liable for something like $700, and that's where my insurance would come in. Point is, have a contingency plan! </p>

<p>I was so sorry to read about Nadine's passing in the newsletter today. When I first started my own photography business, Nadine was very helpful to me. Every piece of advice she had was useful and practical, and her criticism was constructive and correct - and all of it well-said in a way I could absorb. She had such a good way of putting things. My sincere condolences go to her family and loved ones, and I hope they know just how many people she has helped over the years. May her spirit rest in peace. </p>

<p>It's on sale right now - I just got mail from NG.<br>

http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/ngs/browse/familyProductDetail.jsp?productId=FB020&code=EM111611A1</p>

<p>I bought the magazine on DVD, as part of a Public Broadcasting plegde - from the first magazine through 2011. It's pretty cool. They sell it for a lot less than it would take at $1 per hour on your scanner! Please consider buying it if only to save yourself the trouble. It's searchable and everything. </p>

<p>I'll second Jeff's suggestion about <em>Light, Science & Magic</em> by Hunter et al. It's a great book, and it's a good "teacher" too. </p>

<p>I am still learning with my macro rings. So far, I find that my D200's meter does not seem to "see" the light change with these rings and I have to remember to "overexpose" (at least as far as the camera meter thinks) if I am going to end up with the correct exposure. When shooting at an event, I'd maybe forget to do that compensation with everything else going on. I could reset the exposure compensation but I might forget to turn it off. So I'll keep my rings to lower-pressure shooting scenarios for now. Maybe when paid events get to be old hat, I'll try it - because it had not occurred to me to use them for events. </p>

<p>I think the shooting angle becomes more and more important the tighter in you are framing the subject. Would you agree with that, WW? I like your angle on the 50mm portrait, above. </p>

<p>Hi Hocus - Thanks for posting these examples. They are pretty cool. I must say that I have not tried that tight a head shot with my clients, but maybe now I will. With the macro lens to give it the tightly controlled focus, and an interesting veil texture, it could be excellent.<br>

I've done a lot of side-view portraits that are a little further out, with 3/4 of the head and the full face showing. Usually taken while the subject is off in his/her own world, thinking, and doesn't notice the photographer. Here's one where the client didn't mind my using it...<br>

<img src="http://www.jspencerphotography.com/misc/elephant-1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Hocus, you know, you did say "extreme close-ups" in your original post. Not to be rude, but maybe we all thought you meant exactly that. But if you don't mean "extreme close-up", then what do you mean? I'm curious too. Some examples would be great. </p>

<p>My 105mm Macro is the longest lens I own. I use it for anything that I need to bring closer, and I love the fine focus ability I have with it. It takes great portraits and even wildlife photos sometimes - I mean elephants, not insects. But I am not really sure, other than focus control, what it brings me that a regular 105 mm would not, at least from a distance. Can you elaborate?</p>

<p>This is definitely software. Either in-camera (you can set the Nikon to shoot with more vibrance) or post-production saturation, or more likely both. I think it was done selectively, by first selecting the only the area she wanted to enhance and then adjusting those levels or saturation. I say that because the skin and the white hair-flowers still look close to natural. I think it's overdone as well, but it is quite fashionable now. </p>

<p>As for the lights, I see rectangles in the eye catch-lights. So, either a big window nearby or more likely, some hot lights with rectangular softboxes modifying the light. Flash and babies don't mix.</p>

<p>The look reminds me of a two-stop overexposure in color film that has had a little more time printing in the enlarger. Except that it's even more saturated than that, and it's been selectively saturated. To see an example of film that's been overexposed and then chemically printed, have a look at this one (the photographer told me her process on this, so I know for sure that's how it was done): http://www.lesleylouden.com/lessliceev1.html</p>

<p>I recall reading here that to be a successful professional photographer it is more valuable to be a good business person than to be a good photographer. I think that is dead-on right. I know people who sell utter crap, poor exposures and bad auto-focus, and sell it consistently. They're making a living or a comfortable vacation fund out of it. And I know people who are great image-makers but are lousy business people. They have day jobs. </p>

<p>Alan's right, above!</p>

<p>I've used my 105mm macro lens as a telephoto portrait lens, to allow myself greater control over focus, but never at a "macro" distance from the subject. I'm usually 10 feet away from the subject with that lens just to get the head framed. The lens makes for a good portrait lens, IMO. But I wouldn't want my bride to see her pores up-close and personal. </p>

<p>Whatever you buy, I would consider trying to hold one of the cameras in your hand before you buy it, or if you buy online, make sure there's a very good return policy.</p>

<p>I think, especially with medium format, there is a big difference between the feel of different cameras. Some of them have prism viewfinders, some of them are waist-level and others have a top-finder with no prism (unless someone installed a prism as an extra). It affects the way a person is going to compose a picture - for me, it's a big change. I have a great TLR, but it's a waistfinder. I have a hard time composing pictures and I'm lucky if I get a good keeper once per roll of 12. I love the thing and I am still working to improve, but with my Nikon 35mm, my good-to-crud ratio is more like 1 in 5 or 7. The eye viewfinder makes it for me. The weight of some of these cameras is highly variable too, and I don't want that to interfere with my using a camera. I don't know if you had considered that. </p>

<p>I would double check some buzz on the reliability of the Bronica you are considering. I had a Bronica SQ from the 60s and that thing was a dog. It felt good in hand and was good to use, for about a day and a half until the shutter failed. There were design problems due to cheap materials - an attempt to save cost to the customer that backfired. When Bronicas work, they are great, but I believe the Mamiya line is far more reliable. I know the Bronica fans here may get upset with me for saying that, but I doubt I am the first one to say it or think it, and my camera repairman was of similar opinion after 40 years in business. At least check on it before you make a decision. Whatever you buy, you need something you can depend on for your money, a camera that will be a trusty friend and a ready tool. A camera that will not be an encumbrance, a hassle or a wallet-drainer. </p>

<p>I applaud you for going with film - you will have a great time with it and learn a lot! Have fun!</p>

<p>Hi Hayley, and welcome to your new SLR. I took courses at my local community college and I learned *a lot*. I don't learn well from reading unconnected threads and I do a lot better with feedback and an instructor. My first course was black & white film, in a darkroom, which taught me a lot more than "intro to digital photography" at the same place. I learned a ton from the color film and color printing class (all chem) and also working with slides and getting instruction that way. When I went to doing mostly digital, everything translated easily and frankly, my color is better for it. </p>

<p>I too think you need to remove the D200 from the running. I have one and I use it with wonderful results from ISO 100 - ISO 400. I get moderate results up to ISO 800. After that? Forget it unless converting to b&w or sepia. Just too much noise. I am saving up for a used D3. The idea that you can have excellent prints from ISO 2000 is just too tempting!</p>

<p>The only upside to the D200 in my opinion is the fact that you can use older lenses with it ("Non CPU lens"). I needed that feature for compatibility with my older film lenses. The D90 doesn't do that. I took the D200 around the world in all kinds of weather and I have shot in a lot of rain with no problems. But in heavy rain I use a rain kit with my camera and lenses. That's about $30, so get one and remove "better water sealing" from your list of concerns. </p>

<p>Nikon typically releases new cameras right around this time of year (March-May), or so I am told by the rental department at my local camera store. You might wait and see what they will be replacing your choices with, because if nothing else, the prices will go down on the model you want if you're in the same line as a new release. </p>

<p>I agree with the others who are pointing you toward the D7000 or even the D90.</p>

<p>KEH Used Cameras is listing a Bay 1, f3.5 Planar Rollei TLR for $499, in bargain condition. I think their prices are pretty close to what the market would reasonably bear. Lately, everything I have seen on ebay has been horribly inflated and no way would I pay those prices.</p>

<p>The camera probably needs some cleaning and lubricant for the knobs. Have you looked for fungus in the lenses? It sounds like you have, but if there is fungus, it would take more cleaning work to remove it. I would base my price on the condition of the camera thinking about what it might cost to overhaul if that becomes necessary. I am guessing that $400-$550 would be more than fair given the screw replacement and the extras he's adding. I doubt he'd get more than $500 from anyone for the camera alone given the screw replacement and broken meter.</p>

<p>I'm curious what everyone else thinks. </p>

<p>Just went back to check your site and found a couple of typos in your header: "Clope Up" and "Protraiture"</p>

<p>Heh - I think if I went that far, my husband would divorce me. That raft of bags up in the garage would be the tipping point for him, I am sure. </p>

<p>But it is so true that the bag matters. I love it that he considers bag weight empty before buying, because that's usually number one for me too. The weight really gets to me over time and the way so many great bags have lousy, cutting straps is another issue. Then there's the interior configuration options and whether there's enough padding to survive taxi rides in the third world. Not to mention whether it's easy to re-pack after airport security has taken it apart! </p>

<p>So far, I am of the opinion that you do need a different bag for a different occasion. I can use the thin-strap Nikon bag for events, with a Kata to carry around during the shoot, but I need that Tamrac backpack for long travel. The less-padded small Domke bag is great for a hike with a couple of lenses. Nothing seems to work for my large format camera - still looking to replace the very stinky & heavy toolbox-like case it sits in. </p>

<p>I've been hearing of photographers selling high-resolution images, per piece, to the client. The client only gets small jpgs on delivery of the main product. Then they are given the option of buying prints or another printed product (e.g. canvas print) at the photographer's price or they can buy the image at full-res to be printed as the client wants. Some photographers charge as much as $150 per image for those rights, or $2500 for a full DVD of all of the wedding images. </p>

<p>I haven't done a book for a client yet, but I do take photos of the tallit, the yad, the scrolls, the ark, etc, when I am on the job. The clients usually love those. I would see if the client wants the graphics quotes before including them - I think that's a style choice they should have. </p>

<p>Hi Riz -<br>

Glad to be helpful. My website has a LONG way to go and needs a lot of improvement. I'm browsing this forum because I am planning an overhaul. I'll be sure to ask you for input when I get it done! I'm going to need it. Thanks for your kind words. </p>

<p>Good you tested on your mobile device. Smart thinking. One thing about Flash: the newest Apple products, iPhone & iPad, do not currently support Flash. There is a belief that it will change soon but for now, you can't run any Flash on them. I plan to stick to HTML until then, even with a total re-code. You could leave your HTML code in place alongside some Flash code, and choose which to load up if you can detect it's an iPad/iPhone. Put in an automatic software test for what kind of device the browser is coming from. If it's an Apple mobile device, then just give them the HTML/frames version. See what I mean? <br>

Keep shooting!<br>

-Jennifer</p>

<p>A friend of mine shoots portraits of children. Sometimes she works on the playground. One of her portraits was a great shot of a young kid on the way down a spiral slide - good composition, good capture of the kid, good expression, etc. But the slide was super-saturated blue-green paint and the child's face was, as a result, greenish on one side. That was due to natural daylight reflecting off the slide onto the child - a color cast. Not exactly a healthy look for skin.</p>

<p>In another situation, in a dark, high-ceilinged ballroom I shot, the venue staff had replaced all the bulbs in the hanging chandeliers with greenish CFL light bulbs, leaving higher recessed tungsten lights in the room, in the ceiling. Maybe waiting until they got a bigger ladder, or because the fixtures couldn't take the big CFLs - dunno - but it was ugly. My flash was white, and even if I'd gelled it to be another color, there would have been problems due to the mixed lighting, no matter what Kelvin setting I could have chosen. In another ballroom with a low, low ceiling, there were all tungsten fixtures that looked orange. Even my lowest K setting looked yellow. I gelled my flash and I was able to take out a great deal of that as a one-stop setting change in post production. I still had some tweaks to do, but if I'd mixed my own flash as white with that tungsten, it would have been worse.</p>

<p>Sometimes you get color cast, mixed color lights, or just a super-heavy tungsten that you cannot do much about with a white balance setting change. Sadly. Especially in reception halls. The tablecloth was working against you here, too. Dunno if you have considered gelling for these dark halls?</p>

<p>It occurs to me that your layout, with the frames, seems designed to work with traditional computers or laptops only. That is, I wonder if you need to look at how it will appear to people with smart phones or iPads. On the other hand, I don't know how prevalent that technology will be for your prospective clients. Where I live these products are a real design driver for website updates. I believe you can get code to test for device type at the beginning of the site load and design something separate but similar for the new stuff coming out. </p>

<p>Some people have a real beef with frames and don't care for them - saying that they are too bossy and force a browsing preference on the viewer. I don't feel that way. However, should someone after me give a compelling reason to avoid them, you can use CSS instead to replicate the same left-side information on every page that loads.</p>

<p>I hope my comment about English language came out right. What I meant was that every country that uses English uses it differently. I tried to read an English-language daily newspaper a few times while I was in India and it was a challenge. They seem to love using very long sentences and they choose words differently than an American paper would. And American papers choose words differently than a British newspaper would, et cetera. Given our different use of the same language, I don't know the impression your wording would have on your fellow countrymen. I was speaking to my own impression only. Hopefully you see what I meant. Thanks for allowing me to politically correct myself to the Nth degree here!</p>

<p>I really like the way you have laid out the galleries, with the fixed frame at the left and then a scrolling length of images to the right. Nice choice. Very cool watermark choice, too.</p>

<p>There is a bit of repetition in your portfolio. It ends up diluting the value of the other work that's there. You come out making a great impression but then you throw in the same thing a few times and it takes that impression down, removing the novelty. For instance, in close-ups, you have three shots of six that are wood bark. It's too much. Choose one wood bark that you like and remove the other two. Same with the images of the same child in "Portraits" and the same very beautiful mountain valley in the "Nature & Landscapes" section. LN1 or LN9 would be my choice, removing whichever one you like less and removing LN4 and LN11. Those four are just too similar, diluting the portfolio. The home page has two color photos that have the same artistic effects used on them. I would remove one of those and replace it with one of your great color shots that does not use the same effect. </p>

<p>I am wondering why "Contact" & "Projects" are separate areas. It seems like anyone who'd want to contact you would go to that section and not ever read the stuff you need them to know in "Projects". See what I mean? Also, I wanted to talk to you about the choice of language under "Projects". I know the English in Pakistan is different than the English in America or in England. To me, this sounds sort of timid:<br>

"For projects within Karachi region I would need at least one day notice and for out of station projects I would need to have three days notice prior shoot."<br>

Sort of like you're saying "well, if you were to maybe hire me, it would theoretically mean I need X time to prepare". I'd rather see you making a more definite statement. Maybe something like "Projects within the Karachi region will require 24 hours notice; 72 hours notice required for out of station projects." Somewhere near that statement, you need something positive and encouraging to round out the impression you'll be giving, I think. </p>

<p>Hope this helps, and I wish you good luck. I like your images. </p>

<p>You should find out exactly where they are having the reception and cocktail party. Be sure of where those events take place. I always scout and practice at a location, but I am new to this business as well. </p>

<p>You've gotten great advice about color film speed. My experience indoors with B&W film, or outdoors in the early evening, is that 1600 and 3200 are about right without flash. I was a guest-with-camera at a wedding in an aquarium with false candlelight, actual candlelight, and floor lights that were essentially powered like a home's front walkway lighting. That was 3200 ISO shot wide open at f1.4 most of the night. Another night wedding had the same requirements, and a late, cloudy afternoon wedding needed ISO 400, moving quickly to ISO 1600 as the evening crept in. If you have a flash, you can greatly improve your choices, and do some shutter dragging or rear-curtain flash to help. </p>

<p>You asked whether to limit your flash use or not. I think it's up to the B&G, to a certain extent. You want to get the shot but you don't want to irritate everyone either. That aquarium wedding I mentioned above was covered by someone who must have taken 6000 photos because the place was practically lit continuously with her strobe. As a guest, I was irritated as heck. It was obnoxious. OTOH, if I am getting paid to get those shots, I want to be sure I get them, you know? But the "spray and pray" philosophy is not one I believe in following either. I'd be interested to hear what others say about it.</p>

<p>Lastly, your role and your friend's. I know I may be nuts, but I use a reflector at some events when I have a friend handy to direct it. If the available light is great from one direction, but I need fill, that's how I like to get the fill. It works very well with redwoods. That aside, have you and your friend thought about how you will do any formal shots for the couple and whether one of you will be the "boss" and the other one the "assistant" for those? With one of you posing them, the other shooting, or one of you holding a reflector or off-camera flash? Or moving a flash on a stand? Will you take turns? Probably good to work that out before you get there. If you've never posed people for photos, can you two get a couple of people to practice on? You have to be organized for the brief period you get the bride, groom & family alone for photos. Have you two worked together before, professionally?</p>