epp_b

<blockquote>

<p>I suspect that as this is in the business section, then the former is the case.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I posted this in the business section because it is a business-related question.<br>

I would consider myself a "serious amateur". I'm not ready to launch into a full-fledged business (I don't even know if I can), but I don't see why doing something part-time should make any difference to being paid. A good product is a good product, no matter who's selling it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My site's images can't be "grabbed", especially those posted as event proofs in my secure shopping cart. Even with the password to view them, they can't be saved. So it is possible.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As I am also a website developer, I can confirm Jeff's comment that is, in fact, <strong>not</strong> possible. You can certainly make it more difficult or convoluted, but if it can be seen or heard online, it can be downloaded (in fact, if you're seeing it on your screen, it already <em>has</em> been downloaded); there is no way around it. I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just informing you that your confidence may be misplaced.</p>

<p>Anyway, back on topic: thank-you for the advice in your first reply. That's an interesting take on how to deal with the town. Unfortunately, I'm unable to offer such services at the moment due to medical issues and I don't want to make any promises I can't keep. But, I know that if I just ignore this particular instance, this will likely happen again at some point.</p>

<p>I'll try to make this as short as I can, but it's kind of a long story. So...</p>

<p><strong>Issue #1:</strong><br>

There is a fairly popular city newspaper that would like to use a photo of mine in a quarterly magazine that they distribute with the newspaper ... and they want it for free because, apparently, they "have no budget for buying photos" and simply offer a credit byline (as I understand it, attribution is a given when it comes to print publications anyway). As the distribution is well over 200,000 (this is according to the paper), I feel like they're trying to take advantage of me. It's not like they'll be in a bind if I say no, they'll just find someone willing to give their stuff away.<br /> My experience has been that giving away my work for attribution alone attracts either more people who want to "pay" me with more attribution or attracts no one at all.<br>

Should I stick to my guns on this one and respond saying that I won't give it away for free?</p>

<p><strong>Issue #2:</strong><br>

A staff member of the municipal government in the town where I live decided (naively, not maliciously, I'm sure) that I had given them permission to go through my website and use whatever imagery they want. Long story short, a picture of mine ended being used in the quarterly newsletter publication without so much as a mention or credit byline. I was not offered compensation for the usage and not even asked for permission.<br>

I'm having trouble figuring out how I can approach this without looking like the "bad guy", even though I am the only one completely in the right here. Their naivety reaches far enough that I will appear greedy simply by asking to be paid for my work ... yes, seriously.<br>

Any suggestions on how to approach this? I'm pretty poor at dealing with people and, as this is the town where I live (and want to live for a while), I don't want to alienate anyone.</p>

<p>I suppose the alternative is to ignore both situations and they'll basically "go away".</p>

<p><img src="http://pic.phyrefile.com/e/ep/epp_b/2011/02/15/DSC_1260.jpg" alt="" /><br>

D90 @ ISO 500, 1/15<br />Tokina 11-16 @ 11mm, f/2.8</p>

<p><img src="http://pic.phyrefile.com/e/ep/epp_b/2011/02/05/DSC_0193.jpg" alt="" /><br>

D90 @ 1/15, ISO 100<br />Tokina 11-16 @ 11mm, f/11</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Another one from the tropical house at the conservatory. It is too cold out to take pictures.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure, OK... you keep thinking that ;)</p>

<p>This was made in -15F, plus wind, with my D90 that I <em>finally</em> received back from Nikon, repaired on warranty, after a unacceptably-long two months...</p>

<p><img src="http://pic.phyrefile.com/e/ep/epp_b/2011/01/29/eerie_winter_morning.jpg" alt="" /><br>

D90 @ 1/1250, ISO 100<br />55-200 VR @ 200mm, f/11</p>

<p><img src="http://pic.phyrefile.com/e/ep/epp_b/2011/01/27/waiting.jpg" alt="" /><br>

D40 @ 1/10, ISO 400<br />Tokina 11-16 @ 11mm, f/2.8</p>

<p>Is that -44C with or without the windchill?</p>

<p>Having used a D40 (yes, you read that correctly) through two Canadian winters, where temperatures regularly hit -35 or colder, without a single failure, I can't imagine a weather-sealed D700 will have any problems in such conditions.</p>

<p>In those conditions, the camera body will quickly cool the ambient temperature. Snow will not condense on the body and can be easily wiped away.</p>

<p>All of the usual rules of using an SLR in cold weather apply:<br>

1. Hold your breath when shooting and changing lenses so that it doesn't exhale and condense on year gear.<br>

2. Seal your gear in a bag before going inside and leave it in the bag overnight before opening.<br>

3. Bring at least one spare battery and keep it warm when not in use (you will need to change them every few minutes)</p>

<p>Keeping in mind that I approach photography from an artistic perspective, when I read the word "quality", I think not of sharpness first, but of the various artistic elements that are used to build a composition. With respect, I have to disagree with your first point: quality and memories are <em>equally</em> as important. One is weak without the other.</p>

<p>I'll agree to your second point to an extent: I prefer to carry my moderately-sized SLR kit with me pretty well everywhere (it's <em>the camera I have with me</em>) Yeah, it's heavier than throwing a compact into a pocket, but it's worth it to have the versatility necessary to create exactly the image I've preconceived in my mind before even removing the camera from the bag, instead of being restricted by the limited use a point-and-shoot.</p>

<p>After a D50, I think you'll be disappointed with a D3000-series camera due it's comparatively clunky usability and lack of in-body AF motor.</p>

<p>The D90 has really tumbled in price lately...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>does Nikon SB 900 is really ultimate flash for NIkon body ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?</p>

<p>Sorry, couldn't resist ;)</p>

<p><img src="http://pic.phyrefile.com/e/ep/epp_b/2010/10/23/DSC_1375.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="399" /><br>

D90 @ ISO 100, 1/640th<br />55-200 VR @ 175mm, f/11</p>

<p>Thanks, Mike. It's good to know I'm not the only one with this problem.</p>

<p>It doesn't seem to make a difference how I hold the camera, neither in terms of grip nor orientation. I bought it about half a year ago, so it still has plenty of warranty left.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do you a second (or third) battery? Have you tried a few images with a different battery?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I have two batteries. It occurs with both of them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Did you do a 'Two Button Reset' or manual reset of custom functions ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I used "Reset Custom Settings" in the menu.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe AF-Assist Illuminator is Off ? (Setting A3).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What difference would that make if this problem occurs in manual focus and AF-L?</p>

<p>Better late than never, I suppose...</p>

<p><img src="http://pic.phyrefile.com/e/ep/epp_b/2010/10/14/rotation.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<strong><em>"Rotation"</em></strong><br>

<strong><em><br /></em></strong><br>

D90 @ 1/640th, ISO 100<br />55-200 @ 175mm, f/11</p>

<p>I use cheap UV/skylight/clear filters for physical protection; I don't notice any severe aberrations or lack of sharpness. Then again, I don't have any terribly expensive lenses either.</p>

<p>I only take them off only when using an effect filter (ie.: ND or CPL) to avoid vignetting and whenever I shoot into bright light sources. Most of time, this means they can stay on.</p>

<p>For no reason that I can explain, my D90's shutter button has started lagging at random. This started about two or three weeks ago.<br /> <br /> Sometimes, the shutter fires as expected, sometimes it lags for a second or so before firing and sometimes it doesn't fire at all. I haven't noticed any of this lag using the IR remote.</p>

<p>So that we needn't navigate a semantic maze through two dozen responses...</p>

<ul>

<li>Yes, I know how to use a two-stage shutter button properly</li>

<li>Yes, it happens with all of my lenses</li>

<li>Yes, the contacts are clean and connecting without error (ie.: the aperture indicator is not displaying "--" when the lagging occurs)</li>

<li>Yes, I've reset the custom functions</li>

<li>No, the autofocus is not hunting; this still happens while using manual focus or AF-L</li>

<li>No, it's not in MLU / Exposure Delay Mode</li>

<li>No, the buffer isn't full</li>

<li>No, the timer isn't set</li>

<li>No, I have not dropped, mishandled nor mistreated it</li>

</ul>

<p>I can't think of anything else to try.</p>

<p>Is there some obscure function or procedure I haven't thought of? Has anyone else experienced this problem with a D90 or, for that matter, any other Nikon model?</p>

<p>Sending it into Nikon Canada for warranty repair would mean dealing with their dimwitted customer service reps and month-long turn-around time. It is an absolute last resort for me.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance. I'll now go and try to help out with some other threads to increase my karma ;)</p>

<blockquote><em>"FP sync to actually be useful. Plus, you need direct iTTL communication to use it wirelessly (CLS doesn't work for this)." - </em>why CLS doesn't work like WHAT?</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, you're right; that is quite unclear. What I meant to say is that CLS doesn't work with FP sync, at least not on the D90. It turns out that I was incorrect, so ignore that claim.</p>

<p>Still, it does have the disadvantage of requiring more lighting power.</p>

<p>1/500th flash sync was both a blessing and a curse. It meant that you could flash sync in just about any conditions, but it required a CCD sensor, prone to blooming, and a fairly pointless physical shutter.</p>

<p>I know I used it on more than one occasion with my D40. Here's a nice little unadvertised feature with that: if you block the iTTL contacts, leaving only the dumb "pop the flash" contact connected, it will sync all the way up to 1/4000th <em>and work</em> -- no shutter blackout! Using an RF off-camera system with no iTTL contacts, such as Alienbees Cybersyncs, it still syncs up to 1/2500th. Fantastic.</p>

<p>Yes, FP sync works, but it sucks. You need to be able to afford huge flash power for FP sync to actually be useful. Plus, you need direct iTTL communication to use it wirelessly (CLS doesn't work for this).</p>

<p>As they say in motoring, there is no replacement for displacement. Likewise, there is no replacement for pure shutter speed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The catch is that Olympus' f2 zoom is for the 4/3 format, which requires a much smaller image circle and has a 2x "crop factor." Therefore, it is not a fair comparison with Nikon F mount lenses.<br>

A constant f2 zoom for FX or even just for DX would have been huge and expensive. If image quality is not great at f2, it'll be hard to find buyers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is all true, but it's not really what the thread creator asked.</p>

<p>Is it technically possible? Yes.</p>

<p>Is it economically feasible? Only for 4/3rds format.</p>

<p>This year's local festival featured a group of dirtbike stunt riders. These guys were seriously-legit professionals doing highly technical and risky tricks. They let me get inside the fence where I was, at some points, directly beneath the stunt-jump area. It was an awesome experience.<br>

<img src="http://pic.phyrefile.com/e/ep/epp_b/2010/07/28/dsc_5568.jpg" alt="" /><br>

D90 @ 1/4000, ISO 100<br />55-200 VR @ 116mm, f/11</p>