danlegere

<p>Well I feel like such an idiot. Just spent the last 10 minutes thinking the shutter button was broken (it even sounds different?), turned out the camera was in Remote mode... But I never leave it it remote mode, so I just wasnt thinking. lol</p>

<p>I licensed an image of mine to a textbook a couple years ago. It was $500 for a print run of 150,000, unit price of $147, one edition.<br>

<br />They have contacted me again about permission and price to use in a new edition of the textbook, but this time it's 200,000 and unit price $235.</p>

<p>Do you charge less for re-use for a new edition of the same book? What would you charge for re-use, considering the print run and unit price is a bit higher?</p>

<p>I don't really buy photography. Your photos are good enough to be wall art provided you market them and get your name out. But to me they lack signature. There isnt anything that makes me think "Oh, that's X's photography!". When a photo is recognizable as an artists work, it appears more valuable for some reason (maybe that's just me).<br>

The photos I like are the BW canyon holes, the wilting flower, and the purple rainy chairs. The rest are good photos, but just nothing unique (to me) They could be to someone else.<br>

In my experience of selling prints, people tend to want something interesting that they havent seen before "holes", something sentimental (a photo of their favorite mountain - sell local), or something that matches their house decor, "purple" would look great in a cafe or bar that has similar colored lights or decor.</p>

 

<p>Video 6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUu9fPzicBo<br>

"every frame is meaning full again"<br>

And there's a physical ISO dial.<br>

Gotta be film.</p>

<p>Rodeo Joe , that is strange. You mean you just moved the wires around? Or reconnected and soldered them?</p>

<p>Here is apic of the inside, any idea what you would do? The top is the female end/flash mount, bottom is the male end/camera mount<img src="http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/8650/dtpe.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>@Frank skomial, The locking is a screw wheel. I've barely used the hotshoe on these cameras and it fits in very tight, so it's not a matter of it being lifted.<br>

<img src="http://i00.i.aliimg.com/img/pb/789/676/398/398676789_872.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="300" /></p>

<p>Mike, yeah I shoulda clarified, the left image is the male end of the cord and flipped it horizontal in photoshop. In reality the pins are in the right place to line up. Works fine on my D40, which is why i'm clueless why it wont on the d7000.</p>

<p>Shun, are you saying the pins might not be lining up? Here is an image of all of them taken side by side from a few feet above then aligned in photoshop. The cord pins seem to line up fine, possibly even better on the d7000. It's certainly not the end where the flash goes on, or it would work on the d40 either.</p>

<p><img src="http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/3600/07mi.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I got a "DSLRKit TTL-N" Cord. Says it works on d7000. Why shouldn't it, has all 4 pins. Attached my TTL flash (YN-468II), no ttl, only manual. TTL flash works on camera.<br /> Cord must be broken?<br /> So then I put the cord and same flash on my D40. TTL, aperture, and auto zoom now shows on the flash LCD and TTL exposes properly. What the F. How is this even possible? :(</p>

<p>Hi, I use spyder 3 with Bassicolor to calibrate.</p>

<p>But I am wondering if there are any other programs that I can use to verify the deltaE values for comparison. I'm also looking for something that will measure how much sRGB and AdobeRGB my monitor covers. Anyone know of any? Thanks</p>

<p>Heres what I got from basiccolor, look good?<br>

<img src="http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/8347/basiccolorips277100br10.png" alt="" width="780" height="717" /></p>

<p><strong>***UPDATE PROBLEM RESOLVED*</strong>**<br>

<br /> - Green tint<br /> - Low contrast with bassicolor<br /> - Redish blacks in photoshop with bassicolor</p>

<p>I know this thread is old, I ended up just using the spyder calibration for years and stayed mindfull of the slightly greenish tint in the grays. My prints still came out VERY close. But I've now gotten a new monitor and was playing around with bassicolor again and figured everything out!</p>

<p>These settings "fixed" the problem:<br /> Color Temp: D65<br /> Tonal Response: <strong>Gama 2.2</strong>. The"L*" option was what caused it to be to low in contrast.<br /> Luminance: 100cd/m, 0cd/m for blacks<br /> Profile Type: <strong>Matrix based</strong></p>

<p>During the calibration with basiCColor, the profile type was 16-bit LUT based by default. This is what was causing the redish blacks in photoshop. I had to change it to <strong>Matrix Based</strong>, and the colors in photoshop are fine now. :D However LUT is supposed to be much more accurate, but until I find out why it messes up photoshop colors, Matrix looks fine. As for the low contrast, instead of the"L*" option for Tonal Response, I used Gama 2.2</p>

<p>The ICC profile looks almost identical to the Spyders, but neutral greys, and much better deltaE. Monitor is now an LG IPS277. I still don't know what most of these numbers mean, but they look good to me:<br /> <img src="http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/8347/basiccolorips277100br10.png" alt="" /></p>

<p>I'll try this again soon on my previous TN panel monitor and see If I can get a good calibration with these settings. So if this helps anyone else then good. Worth a thread revive. :)</p>

<p>I agree, the d7000 is <em>more</em> neutral and looks more true to me, especially in the incandescent photo, but in many of my photos they show a green/yellow bias. Yes my monitor is calibrated and I will recall. Maybe this is just a difference between sensor technology. I've contacted nikon with the RAW files, we'll see what they say.</p>

<p>@Rodeo Joe, Yes the d7000 does seem more "accurate", but it's still a bit green/cyan/yellow looking in many pictures. The backdrop around it is supposed to to be gray.</p>

<p>@Howard Carson + Matt, That's why I did controlled lighting, and still got different results. I did several tests outdoors and they where all showing consistent results of being different colors. D7000 more blue/green/yellow, d40 more amber/magenta tints.</p>

<p>Picture settings look to only be effecting the files in viewNX. Opened in lightroom using adobe standard for camera calibration, 2 pictures with same exposure but different picture controls are <strong>identical</strong>. So I don't understand how that could be doing anything. The only thing that changes color in the RAW files is if I tweak the white balance settings, which show in lightroom under the temp/tint. The thing is, taking both a d7000 and d40 image, and setting the temp/tint to the same thing, doesn't make them look the same colors. I've tried resetting everything on the camera so I think this is just how it's producing color, I just want to know if this is normal or only mine that's doing it.</p>

<p>@Pete, Cory. That makes sense yeah, I just wouldnt expect such a big difference with identical WB and exposure settings.</p>

<p>Got this camera a week ago, I've noticed the white balance seems to produce more cyan/green/yellow tint, while the d40 produces more brown/magenta tint. All the same settings/lens. Don't matter if I view in NX2, lightroom, JPG, RAW. Even syncing the white balance in lightroom doesnt make them the same. Tweaking the WB on d7000 helps a bit, but then whites are a bit pink. My monitor is calibrated with spyder and I see it on the camera LCDs to. I thought white balance should be the same between them? Should the d7000 look like this?<br /><br /><br /> Test images with EXIF data if you'd like to check it, maybe I missed something?<br /> D40, cloudy WB. Sunset<br /> <img title=" " src="http://imageshack.us/a/img255/1222/13011617112.jpg" alt="" width="333" height="500" /><br /> D7000, cloudy WB. Sunset:<br /> <img title=" " src="http://imageshack.us/a/img46/5743/1301161713.jpg" alt="" width="332" height="500" /></p>

<p>Better examples<br /> D40, Daylight WB:<br /> <img title=" " src="http://imageshack.us/a/img844/7526/13011716064.jpg" alt="" /><br /> D7000, Daylight WB:<br /> <img title=" " src="http://imageshack.us/a/img832/8905/13011716062.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>For some reason these arnt showing the greenish tint I'm getting throughout my house (incandescent spotlight bulbs), but you can still see the clear difference between cameras with the same settings and WB. Lightroom RAWs no adjustments, the ones in viewNX with camera adjustments had orange looking reds.<br>

D40 Incandescent: <br>

<img title=" " src="http://imageshack.us/a/img854/7452/1301180235e.jpg" alt="" /><br>

D7000 Incadescent: <br>

<img src="http://imageshack.us/a/img585/8407/13011802332e.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>What if they end up needing more than 20k? They don't know how much they'll end up printing but there is no maximum and some issues might sell more.</p>

<p>I have a client who wants to feature 4 different photos of mine on a constant 2 page spread in their magazine, every month. They will either buy monthly, or in batches, depending on price. I used fotoquote and other sources to come up with a base price and will modify it for the fallowing:</p>

<p>1. I said I'll give quantity discounts.<strong> </strong> One website says -10% on >10 and -15% on >20. <strong>What % I should deduct for what amount?</strong></p>

<p>2. Their print run is 5700, but "prints of issues is subject to rising based on demand and sales of that particular<br />issue". They can't give me a maximum estimate. If they don't want to pay for unlimited, I'll license a higher print run,<strong> but what do I do about possible reprints? </strong>I heard it's a new contract of 75% of original price.</p>

<p>3. Publishing in 1 state, but ship worldwide for online orders and digital edition. They expect about 13% of sales to be online. <strong>Should I markup by 13%?</strong></p>

<p>4. They want to give me full credit with my name and info on the spread or photos. I know credit isnt worth much,<strong> how much of a reduction is it worth it?</strong></p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Well I did a lot of digging and they are indeed legit. Confirmed though 2 people, phone, emailed the websites contact email, facebook, adress, website, etc.</p>

<p>They only want to use the images in the gallery either as print or slideshows (not yet decided). Then possible merchandise in the future, obviously with payment and a new contract. So I don't know what to do, but they aren't a scam.</p>

<p>I definitely wouldn't just send them anything at this point. They saw my photos and contacted me through a forum and they are in another country. I know the museum is real and has a website, I'll get more info on them and replied asking them for their credentials and references. I do know the museum they are claiming to be, and can contact it directly for verification.</p>

<p>I'm just wondering what to do if they are legitimate. If it's ok to send high res after that, for them to print themselves. Obviously with a contract or something.</p>

<p>Hi, I was contacted by a museum who wants to display my photos. Here's a excerpt:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I work for the ________, a museum devoted to ________ and with over 100.000 visitors a year.</em><br /><br /><em>We were hoping that you would permit us to show some of your photos, of course with mention of the maker. If so, do you maybe have high res images that you could send us, and that we can use for making reproductions? Also, what name should be used for the credit to the photographer?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>What all should I know for museums using my photos, and is there anything I should ask them? It seems simple for what they're asking. I'd be sending them high res digital copies and they would do the prints for display. I know to do a contract, and then if they're selling them in any way then I charge somehow but what if it's only for display purposes?<em> </em>They do charge admission fees to visitors.</p>

<p>Makes sense, I get it all now.</p>

<p>As for the software, I have gone through tech support and received a new puck and still have problems with the Spyder 3 software (or still hardware). ColorsEyes Display Pro and BassiCColor still produces the neutral tones while the spyders software have a very noticeable green tint in the dark greys. I duno, I think I'll talk to them more.</p>

<p>I want to use BassiCColor, so my main problem is in photoshop, pure blacks are a VERY dark red, BUT with other calibration software, or in any other application like windows viewer or nikons View NX, the blacks are black. So how can this be from adjustments in the vid card when it doesnt do it with other software or show in other programs with this software??? It's gotta be something else.</p>

<p>Resetting my monitor to factory default and using any software settings to change things, and using native whitepoint still causes banding. Photo below: Ignore the weird shaped gradient caused my the viewing angle, i'm referring to the vertical lines. It's a little similar to the bottom diagram here but without e: http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/gradient.php<br>

<img src="http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/6724/dsc0110hv.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>My monitors native white point is measuring at 5400k, things have a yellow-greenish tint, so what good is it just lowing the luminance when the white point is still off? The brightness will be accurate, but not the color. And calibrating with native white point still causes banding.<br>

"The other adjustments" By that you mean the software calibration, and not the monitors controls, right? I think I'll get banding no matter what I do.</p>

<p>In terms of photoshop, things are weird. The red tint blacks are only happening when I use BasICColors profiles, but not with spyder3s or ColorEyes profiles. And when I open photoshop with default or spyder profile loaded, then switch to a BasICColor profile, the red tint doesnt appear even though the profile takes effect, but if I reopen photoshop with basiccolor profile loaded first, the tint is there. So I think this is not from the profile itself, but how it's interaction with photoshop.</p>

<p>(somewhat unrealated) I can't use the spyder software, it keeps giving me red or green tint in the dark greys (not just in photoshop) and even basiccolors sometimes gives a slight green tint in the greys, but ColorEyes seems to stay neutral. Maybe my puck is just faulty. I heard it's a common problem among spyder3 so I emailed tech support.</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses, I've done a ton of playing around and I think I've got what should be accurate. 2.2, 6500k, 100cdm, about 400:1. But I have a couple problems now.</p>

<p>I compared using only software and also pre adjusting with the OSD brightness and RGB, and they both produce noticeable <strong>banding in gradients after calibration</strong>. Using the OSD has slightly less but still noticeable.</p>

<p><strong>My other problem is in photoshop, the blacks are a really dark red now</strong> (only in photoshop) and I've checked the color settings, changed proofing, and tried different profiles and it stays the same! The only thing that makes black black again is turning off color profiles. What is the problem?</p>

<p>The spyder 3 express software is giving a green tint in dark greys so I got basICColor 4. I just have a samsung 2433, and an 8 year old Acer 4:3 ratio LCD (both TFT LCD) for now. After a lot of reasearch and testing, I think my basICColor settings should be: <em> </em><em>LCD, LUT-based, 6500k white point, 2.2 gamma, set target white/black luminance value, 16-bit LUT, CAT02, measure white point and adjust OSD RGB to get as close at 6500K and target luminance manually, then start profiling?</em></p>

<p>- In Tonal response curve, <strong>should I use gamma 2.2 or L* (recommended)?</strong> when I use L*, contrast seems way to low and blacks,greys have red,green tint. Gamma 2.2 looks normal. (my monitor gama is 2.2)</p>

<p>- In Luminance / contrast ratio, <strong>what does "maximum" and "min. neutral" luminance do?</strong> I should probably set a target luminance? My monitors default white/blacks measures at 160cd and 0.25cd and i'll target at about 120. <strong> </strong></p>

<p>- Now my main clarification, In hardware setup>color temperature, it asks that I adjust my monitors RGB via the monitors OSD first. It gos from 50,50,50RGB, 5300k and 160cd luminance, to 23,18,46, 6500k and 120cd.<br /> <strong>Should I be adjusting the hardware RGB to get target temp and luminance, </strong><strong>or just adjust brightness to get target luminance and let software do the RGB, </strong><strong>or leave my monitors settings all on the defaults and let all the calibration/profling be done via software?</strong> I would asume adjusting both would be more accurate, but I've heard adjusting monitors RGB first can cause banding and color problems? I guess I'll try both and compare.</p>

<p>I should also mention the textbook will have 1,600 images in it and $500 is consistent with what they pay for other images. And I'm wondering if it's right that they need the image now, but can't pay me until September? Should I have something in the contract or w.e about this?</p>

<p>Half the sites are calculating above $1,200, but these are prices for their stock websites business. This calculator is lower saying $500-650: http://photographersindex.com/stockprice.htmIt's based on surveys so maybe prices for textbooks have changed.</p>

<p>Michael, there would be credit given in the book along with a web address, the credit would read what I want it to say. Plus adding this job to my credentials.</p>

<p>John, my image is quite unique, there are only a couple similar on stock websites, but I do have many similar images myself. I explained the uniqueness to them and then asked for $850 instead but they are still set on $500 so that's the final price. Just need to decide on that now.</p>

<p>I was contacted by a researcher looking for images to be used in a biology textbook. The details are:</p>

<p>- Editorial textbook use in 3 titles (just different versions of the same textbook)<br>

- Interior, full page chapter opener<br>

- 260,000 total copies (this includes print, electronic, and ancillary products combined)<br>

- World wide in English and 2 additional languages<br>

- One time use, non-exclusive</p>

<p>Based on 6 sources I calculated a price between $700-1,600, ancillaries not included, but the ancillaries are combined with the 260,000 copies. So I told them $1,200. The most they can offer is $500 and they said payment would be approximately September.</p>

<p>Do you think you think $500 would still be fair? I'm not sure but I heard from somewhere that textbook photos haven't been selling for as much nowadays and 1 calculator said about $500-700 would ok.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

 

<p><strong>TLDR: What are some general </strong><strong>freelance editing </strong><strong>prices for amateur photographers photos for personal use or for</strong><strong> business use</strong><strong> or for building their portfolio?</strong></p>

<p>I have been approached by amatour photographers looking for editors and I'm interested in trying it. I only have business experience in photographing but my editing is certainly professional quality with over 5 years of photoshop experience ranging from graphics desin, retouching, manipulation, to painting.</p>

<p>What should I ask the client before hand?<br /> What kind of system should I use, what should I charge and how (hourly, per photo, per kind of edit, per what photo will used for, etc).<br /> What are general pricing for someone with my experience but is just starting out in the business. The little info I found seems to suggest a vast range from 5-50$ per photo to 50-250$ per hour. I really don't know but it probably depeds on several factors.</p>

<p>My clients requests range from general post processing to more advanced stuff like manipulation, stylized looks, blemish/object removal. Some photos will be for personal use, some for their portfolio. I will also like to use them in my portfolio so does that change costs or what if we start working together as in they send their photographs to me for editing and then they use their photographs in their portfolio or business?</p>

<p>Thanks for the help.</p>