pete_harlan1

September 26, 2009

Thanks Mikael. LOL....Probably why I know little about MS sites; I don't partake in them. ;)

Back on track though, the OP should go RM if he believes his images are money makers.

RF?..Might be ok for some..I'll pass.

September 26, 2009

<a href="http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html">http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html</a>

With time and repetition, many values begin to be 2nd nature to you.

September 26, 2009

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcytZolh_d0">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcytZolh_d0</a>

The reviewer moves quickly, so if you missed it; you must select "Use MB-D10 first" if you want 8 FPS.

do I need to adjust any setup in the D300 to use the MB-D10 or not

</blockquote>

You don't have to, but you will probably want to.

The grip can be configured (buttons, wheels, selector) as you want via the camera menu. (i.e) Function of these controls such as AE-L/AF-L can operate independent of the camera configuration or mirror it.

September 26, 2009

Thomas,

Whew! Now you need to pick yourself up and dust off the critiques; yet take them to heart.

In a totally different perspective, it appears to me you are seeking "The Magic Bullet" in a marketing scheme. There are none. Your post smacks with "I need more viewers"

Read all you can about sales & marketing.

September 26, 2009

Keep the better ones for personal use where I can get more profit out of them

</blockquote>

That is a decision only you can make.

Micro-stock removes quite a bit of control from you as far as pricing is concerned.

I suppose could upload to the MS and license it as RM with a ton of limitations, but good luck raking in the $$$.

Check out some of the NON- Micro-Stock agencies. You have more control in pricing.

Lsstly, you mention making more yourself.

Great option if you know how and desire to license your own work.

September 24, 2009

This part is not relevent to the story as one cannot sign away the privacy rights of another.

</blockquote>

If you drew that inference than I blame myself for not communicating it more clearly.

Of course no one can sign away privacy rights for another.

Had the photo been used with the caption "City Attorney is a drunk"..Now there would be a problem unless the guy signed a rather broad release, which doesn't happen nor does it apply at weddings.

Looking back on the OP question, it appears someone either in the wedding party or a guest is trying to prevent some photos from being displayed, which is not possible as long as the photos do not associate that person with anything.

Perhaps I am not understanding what the OP is after?

September 24, 2009

There's a widespread misconception that you need a model release in order to show images on your website. You don't.

</blockquote>

Gee; I had a similar debate here not too long ago, where a few swore up and down that a release was necessary irrelevent of use.

Nice to see someone else has read the laws concerning releases.

Jonathan, short story that happened to a good friend of mine. (A wedding shooter)

His contracts with the B&G allow him to use the photos for ANY application. Ya; a release can often be worded so nebulous to allow any "use." usually the pics are for nothing more than self promotion for most.

One of the guests was a political power in town. He was irate when he found out he was visible in the background of a B&G photo. In the photo, it was quite clear the politician was being less than gentlemanly toward another guest.

He tried to sue claiming the photog had no right to publish images of him.

Obviously he lost such a silly claim. It didn't get much traction; although he did have his day in court which cost him plenty in attorneys fees. The photog then counter sued and prevailed showing that the incident had damaged his business because of the notoriety of the politician.

There is a expectation of privacy in some situations; a wedding venue is not one of them when a photog is present.

This all goes to a question of "association." Since the politician was not being "associated" with anything, there is no case. Further, there was no "intent" to photograph the politician.

Just goes to show you how many people misunderstand releases, including in this case, The City Attorney!

September 24, 2009

So, maybe I am a “pro photographer....again”,

</blockquote>

If you are being paid to shoot, you're a pro.

If you're not getting paid, you're an amateur.

Getting paid to shoot however, has nothing to do with the quality of your work.

Shooting as a amateur has nothing to do with the quality of your work.

Hmmm?..Go figure.

September 24, 2009

$75-$350

Keep the copyrights..assign Non-Exclusive one time limited use.

September 24, 2009

I never quite got why it is so necessary to have a dedicated button for that anyway.

</blockquote>

True, it could locate itself in a menu item; but I like it there for the "gotchya'" moment. As I look over the top of my D-300 and (SEE) the QUAL button, I am reminded to check if I am shooting RAW or JPEG. This helps me prevent "Oh crap, I just shot 200 frames in RAW when what I wanted was JPEG" LOL Same for the ISO and WB button. The "Three Kings" are a nice reminder to me to set it up right before I start shooting.

Improvements? I'd like to see the ALL buttons with text glow in the dark!..or tie in with the meter on light.

Posted September 24, 2009 · September 24, 2009

(I also wondered if it might be a plus to have the the Nikon profile!

</blockquote>

To the best of what I can ascertain from a search, "generic" is the sRGB color space. This is the default color space for the D-700.

Unless you are doing all your own printing, I see no logical reason to set the camera to (Adobe RGB 1998)

Technically it is a wider gamut, (and so is ProPhoto RGB) but in practical terms, how many printers can reproduce it?

99% of all my printing is done at a pro lab. I have (their) ICC profile which I soft proof from.

I also include a guide print. That may seem old school to some, but I am quite fatigued in chasing the elusive color calibration game. I simply convert to one of two profiles,,,sRGB or the profile specifically set up for me at the lab I use.

Unless you convert to a ICC profile via software, there is no way the printer can know how to reproduce the colors accuretly. sRGB is standard with most labs.

As most have said, if you worry about it, shoot RAW and assign whatever you want as a profile.

September 24, 2009

Mostly, though: keep the resolution low, and the problem pretty well takes care of itself.

</blockquote>

Matt as well as others provide the best short term answer at this time. Low res.

Stock agencies are not interested as already mentioned in web images; they also are wary of anything w/o the proper releases. Further insulation is provided by the people who buy the and publish the images.

If you seek something to concern yourself with, have a look at "Creative Commons" licensing. Yikes!

Now that's scarey! Ooops; did I open a can of worms? ;)

September 24, 2009

Fair question and answered well.

The D-300 has "weather" seals at critical points (buttons & dials)..Is it waterproof? No. Nikon has never made that claim.

How long will it stand up to a down pour? I'd rather not find out. I carry a large trash bag in my camera bag just in case; large enough to hold the entire bag..It's been a life-saver a few times.

The advantage of the seals for me are their anti dust and dirt ability, which is far more important to me than the camera being 100% waterproof. I remember several years back, my D-70 seem to be a dust magnet.

yet I would love to shoot in inclimate wheather. How much can it take?

</blockquote>

There are products specifically for this.

September 23, 2009

What are you asking? How to price, how to license or how to word the agreement?

"By placing a order and using the photographs provided to you by (your name here), You acknowledge that you accept the terms of this licence."....

"The following uses are not authorised in compliance with the licence granted to you here."

1

2

3 etc...etc...

"It is forbidden to resell, give a sub-licence, give, lend, sub-let, distribute the whole or part of an image,..."

This is some of the verbage you will find in licensing agreements.

It sounds like this is a "ONE TIME" "non-exclusive" use to appear in a magazine for one run.

Ask the photo editor what his/her specific use will be and write your agreement along those lines.

Assume no risk in whatever forum they publish to.

September 23, 2009

I know one well-known photog around here who does that. He shoots JPG and has his albums online 3 days after an event.

</blockquote>

So do I. A close personal friend of mine shoots weddings every weekend. Not a Hi-end shooter ($1,200-$1,500/shoot) He has totally abandoned RAW shoots. He's a pretty good shooter; I can not tell if he shot RAW or jpg! His shotsare online the very next day!

He has eliminated RAW from his workflow and can now go fishing with me with his xtra time. :)

Many will argue RAW Vs JPG. It is not my intention to raise this old debate; but I will say this..for the wedding shooter, and based on what I see in imagery; a photog grounded in solid fundementals, need not shoot RAW.

I don't know too many B&G's who pixel peep. :)

September 23, 2009

Pretty good concensus..I agree with most.

Personally, it has been a life saver at times when I don't want to bump up the iso.

I've always had a concern about the moveable lens elements.

I wonder if lens collimation is as good as a fixed Non-VR lens and; is it subject to variability shot to shot?

So far I have not (visually) seen any evidence there might be inconsistencies in this regard.

My biggest complaint;

1) VR really chews battery life.

September 23, 2009

Ok, let me get to the point: I'm assuming that the best way to start is to just start sending photos to magazines.

</blockquote>

This is probably the worst thing you could do.

Magazines, trade journals etc are generally NOT interested in unsolicited submissions.

99% of such material will quickly find their way to the circular file. This is not unlike the writers market.

I suggest the following if this is the path you desire to take.

1) Research the publications you wish to submit to.

Are your images the type/genre' they might be interested in?

2) Send a query letter. Target this letter to the person who can help you. Not "To whom it may concern" That will deal a death blow to you now and in the future with the publication.

Read what you can about what a query letter is and what it is not.

Many raise their hand in class with the answer, but the teacher only calls on one. :)

3) Have a tightly edited portfolio for each publication.

You can try to submit random pics to a 100 publications; this is a waste of your time.

This will also get you labled as "Mr. Blitzkreig"..(lightning war)..NOT the way this industry works.

I have no idea where you got your figures from. They make no real sense unless you've evaluated YOUR market. $75 bucks might work for you; as long as you can get 100 images sold/month.

September 23, 2009

It sounds like a great opportunity for you.

Make it clear to your friend that you are not yet a seasoned pro shooter, but will do your best.

Give your friend a thousand dollar shoot for a few bucks.

Money: Kinda' depends on your end goal. It sounds like you are perhaps beginning to build your portfolio? If so, charge little. These situations often offer more for the emerging photographer than the client; in this case your portfolio.

Studio usually means indoors; but this not need be the case.

The type of photo you produce will be a reflection of your friends persona, music and what they want to portray to the public who will buy their CD. An indoor studio shot may not be what fills the bill.

The cool thing for you; as you will soon see, is that you will rise to your photographic limits, doing the best job you can. You will no doubt be a little nervous; but that's a good thing for a beginner.

Concern yourself with the shot for now; NOT the money.

September 22, 2009

translate in layman's terms what the stock usage phrases actually mean?

</blockquote>

In a word?...No.

One of the problems you will eventually run into in trying to ascertain the meaning of "useage", is that the word can have various meanings. How is this possible?

Each stock house has "useage" agreements that you either agree or disagree with.

Commercial stock houses have stipulations placed upon various uses.

Exclusive..First Rights...Limited...Editorial etc..etc...

Following each (base use) use are restrictions written into the agreement.

What does this mean to the photographer doing business?

You had better read and understand ALL the language of a contract. If you can't, get someone who can.

One problem for many in designing their own contractual agreements is that many reputable agencies won't use them. They have their own and expect you to abide by their terms. Their contracts are boiler plate and have passsed muster with their rather expensive legal depts.

Your take on revisions is essentially correct, but limits the sale-ability of your images.

For instance: Many commercial uses prefer a lot of dead space in a image so they can place their logo or text. By inserting text, they may be violating the "No Revision Clause"..So be careful with this language when selling imagery.

September 22, 2009

Do I need to select any special metering mode like matrix etc.

</blockquote>

I'm not sure, but I think I am seeing 3 different questions here.

1) Metering for outdoor exposures

2) Using flash outdoors. Fill or primary.

3) Use of multiple focus points.

Metering modes at best are the camera's attempt to "guess" what is the best exposure.

Just like us photographers, it is interpretive. Meters are often fooled in many situations.

Books have been written on this subject, so I will only give one example.

Outdoors..Bright sunlight..no shade..no flash.

The photographer needs to determine what he/she wants exposed properly.

Barring HDR imaging, you need to make a decision since you are not going to get everything is perfect exposure with one shot. (i.e) Pure white to pure black and everything in between ain't happening.

If the subject is a person, you will want to meter off their skin tone. get close using Matrix to fill the frame, memorize the shutter/aperture combo, set to manual and shoot away. Or stand back and spot meter the subjects skin tone.

The background will no doubt be blown out in this scenario, this is life.

Is there a way around it? Sure there is. Balanced fill.

Perhaps another poster will tell you about fill flash..Or a good book would make for some nice light reading.

Some camera's do a far better job metering than others as they rely on a database filled with many possible exposure combinations which is then compared to the scene you are metering. This still does not make them infallible.

When all else fail, you chimp.

September 22, 2009

Working an awards show, where I'll be taking shots of audience members

</blockquote>

Connie,

I've done similar shoots under poor light. I always ask the event organizer what quality level they seek in the images. If they say "we want the best images possible", I quickly advise them the quality is tied to how (intrusive) I am allowed to be. :)

I am so against straight on flash.

If they want great quality, I would bring my assistant. Their job was very difficult. I would have them hold a 4'x5' white foam core board to bounce off. If your assistant understands the game of pool, they know how to hold the reflector. ;)

September 22, 2009

What kind of lighting would you recommend?

</blockquote>

Strobes are great.

I'm surprised no one included natural light in the mix?

I read you are converting a 2 car garage. What a great opportunity to cut a few holes and strategically install some windows and sky lights. Each can be covered with shades when not needed.

You will still want strobes of course when the weather isn't cooperating; but natural light rocks when it's available and under your control.

September 21, 2009

I think many of us need to do a little PP after the fact to level.

I see this further exaccerbated when using extreme wide angles when distortion comes into play, so even the VF may not be 100% honest. :)

The (virtual horizon) IMO is a little gimmicky. It works like a aircrafts gyro horizon, always maintaining level. Great if you need to know if the CAMERA is level, but useless when the horizon may not be level or when the photographer wants to introduce some intentional skew. Like others here, I prefer static grid lines in the VF; mine are off most of the time unless I have little no reference to horizontal or vertical.

I guess I came up the old fashioned way learning to use the VF edges to insure good alignment. ;)

September 21, 2009

If you look at my earlier response, I agree, there is no "law" preventing you from taking pics at a public race or selling them as long as you have the necessary releases.

unauthorized photography would make you a trespasser

</blockquote>

Not true. Unauthorized "SALES" of photos taken at the game would be prohibited.

Everyone takes pics at NFL games! Yeesh!

I've been to several "public" NFL practice sessions..on public grounds with no admittance fee.

Take a photo of Peyton Manning at a open practice on public ground and begin to offer it for sale; see what happens..You will be asked to cease and desist. If that didn't work, you would be sued by a fairly large 800 lb gorilla, The NFL and any of it's affiliates.

September 21, 2009

On what basis can this right be claimed? I'm not sure if it is pertinent to the mechanism by which a race organiser might "claim" the right to send cease and desist orders, but it's an established fact of trademark law that trademarks that appear "incidentally" in a photograph are not breached.

</blockquote>

I don't believe that is what David meant.

Many races are sponsored. If (Nike) was a sponsor, the (exclusive) official photographer is allowed to stamp the Nike Swoosh on the prints for sale as long as Nike agrees to it. Sponsors usually agree to it with stipulations of course.

Now if a (un-official) shooter catches the Nike logo in the background, there is no infringement as that does not prove or show endorsement or association.

Each situation has to be looked at on a case by case basis.

For instance, The NFL is copyrighted (rebroadcast rights etc...) AND trademarked (Logo and merchandise). You would be in violation if you photographed a player during the game and then attempted to sell the images.

You could be sued by the NFL, it's affiliates, the players PR company and the player.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by pete_harlan1