pete_harlan1

<p>Alin,</p>

<p>Just down Res the file..No big deal.<br>

This is done in the (image/resize) option.<br>

Enter 300 PPI for resolution and 1181 Pixels for the long dimension.</p>

<p>PPI & DPI get a little confused..DPI is used when printing to describe the deposition of (droplets) of ink per inch.<br>

PPI=Pixels per inch</p>

<p>A couple more for ya' Marten..and my frind NW of me in the windy city. ;)</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Marten,<br>

Perhaps this might be more to your liking.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Okey-Dokey..as soon as I get home I'll take a shot at it.<br>

As I said in my response, the original is a case of salvage work as it was not<br>

shot properly 1st time around. We shall see.</p>

<p>Neither shot is particularly good, original or the PP's one which is far too contrasty with a severe color shift.<br>

You may try duping the image w/overlay as a blending layer, then gaussian blur to salvage the image.</p>

<p>As already mentioned, Cokin started out as special effects filters.</p>

<p>I own ONE, and the only reason was cost due to my 77mm thread. It is a ND.</p>

<p>Overall inpression? Junk. Simple physics dictates the mounting method employed will produce reflection and refraction. (air/glass/air/glass. (i.e) ghosting and flare. Any screw on filter suffers from this problem, but not to the degree of the Cokin due to the distance between filter and lens.</p>

<p>Do I use it? Ya; when I have to. When it comes to ND, I prefer shooting 2 shots and sandwiching (layer) the exposures.</p>

<p>If you feel Matt was a little rough on you; get used to it!<br>

It (is) good advice.</p>

<p>The (business) of photography is no place if you are the type of person easily offended. <br>

Rejection?...That too; if you can't handle it, you're in the wrong biz.<br>

Mom, Dad and your friends invariably always say how great your photography is.<br>

Submitting your work to various sources will open your eyes to just how good it is.</p>

<p>Get a copy of "The Photographer Market 2009"<br>

Before you start blitzing the world with your work by sending files all over the place; be advised, the people who make decisions concerning your submissions are more tightly knit than you may realize. (i.e) They talk to eachother. You don't want the reputation too early in your "emerging" career of someone who floods art directors, editors etc...with file after file of material that may not be relevent.</p>

<p>(alt 0169) will produce the © symbol.<br>

It is then a text layer that you can manipulate to your hearts content.<br>

Is this what you were after? </p>

<p>Chad,</p>

<p>Like another poster here, I no longer shoot weddings; but some things never change; like good customer service and solid communication between the shooter and B&G.</p>

<p>My habit when I did do weddings was to meet with the couple TWO times prior to the event.<br>

First meeting about 60 days out and then again 1 week out.<br>

The 2 month period was for me to get to know my client, go over what I <strong>WILL</strong> do, total time I will be there, additional charges if I needed to stay later, a shot list <strong>THEY</strong> wanted etc..etc..etc...Planning the photos is the responsibility of the photog AND the client.<br>

1 week out was to verify everything we talked about and to make sure nothing new was required of me.<br>

I can't get a shot of Aunt Mary if I don't know who she is or was not told it was important to photograph her.</p>

<p>Communication is the key here. If you didn't get what YOU wanted, the fault is yours unless the shooter was a total schlep. A good wedding shooter should know how to interview the client to insure their complete satisfaction...but in defense of the wedding shooters; they can't read your mind.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>although I've already racked up a decent portfolio!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow!..There are so many avenues open to you in advertising, most will be driven by your budget.</p>

<p>I'll address only one based on the quoted segment:</p>

<p>I will assume with a "decent portfolio" already built, that you are are following up with these clients on a regular scheduled basis?<br>

Prior customers are often the source of a ton of future business when prospected properly. <br>

If you know how to prospect, these prior customers are gold mines.</p>

<p>No..The D-300 will not disappoint at all; I have one and love it, as long as one puts excellent glass on it.</p>

<p>My thought for the OP was low light</p>

<blockquote>

<p>performance photographs (comedy, theatre, music)</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Theaters, where lighting is usually low, the 700's larger sensor would be a great benefit to the OP. While the D-300 is a superb piece of engineeering at a great price, I am less than thrilled at it's low light performance when shooting above ISO 400; although I am aware there is none better with APS-C with competitors to the 300.</p>

<p>..and so true, most of us must factor in budget considerations when preparing to build a system, now and down the road.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>as soon as the photo is being taking, the screen shakes inside like a little click in the shake,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What I think you're describing here is the VR effect. Some people see it, some don't.<br>

I see it quite clearly as the lens elements attempt to hold collimation..It's normal.<br>

If you've never used stabilized lenses, it's a little weird to see this at first.</p>

<p>..But ya, agreed, get your shutter speed up a little higher.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm leaning towards D300 now I think.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nothing worse than buying something and a few weeks later wishing you had more.</p>

<p>If you have the money for the 700 and are prepared to make a little lens investment, why would you <strong>not </strong>get<br>

the 700? It is laid out identically to the D-300, feels and handles like the 300, with the only primary difference being the larger sensor, which<br>

performs far better in low light.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can we be prevented from doing so either by the 'owners' of the race or by the police or city officials?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />No. Not unless there is some specific restriction.<br>

Now if you are intrusive,(i.e) interfereing with the runners etc, that would be another story.</p>

<p>Public property, photographing the runners to sell to the runners..I see no problem as long as you are not being PAID to shoot the event.</p>

<p>There are many instances where photographers are being harrassed by unknowing people (security guards)..Shopping malls etc...where you do have legal right to be there; but quoting chapter and verse of legal issues usually enflames the situation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>question is whether photo libraries and publishers are going to be happy with a 12 megapixel image</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It depends Dean.<br>

Publishers vary requirements depending on final use.<br>

Several stock agencies require that the file be non-destructively interpolated to 50Mb and are specific in the methodology.<br>

This is not a problem for 12 MP camera's.<br>

Some agencies (again, depending on final use) require the camera shoots natively at no less than 16Mb .</p>

<p>You'll have to look at the image guidelines for each publisher.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I feel that I'm making way too much out of this</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably, but I understand your concern</p>

<p>Take the worst case scenario and proceed from there.</p>

<p>Let's say Mr. Giant company steals your image and places it in a big ad campaign.<br>

Odds of that happening? I've said it before, Like %000.000</p>

<p>Let's pretend they did steal it. Now what?<br>

A nice letter asking them to cease useage of your image.<br>

They say "go pound sand"<br>

Now it's time for legal action.<br>

Do you have the resources to litigate against Mr. Big?<br>

What if the offending party is outside your jurisdiction? Again; good luck.</p>

<p>It's a silly scenario, and I can't say I know of this scenario ever playing out.</p>

<p>How about "Mr. Little Inc"? They place your photo is a newspaper advertisement.<br>

Not a lot of money was made, but still, they infringed on your copyright.<br>

The first thing the newspaper will do is point the finger at the photog. Well the photog has no money, so the finger points right back to the newspaper..and on it goes.<br>

If you can prove ownership, they will no doubt settle out of court for X amount of money. <br>

Let's say it goes to court. You better prevail because it will cost you plenty is attorneys fees if you<br>

lose your claim.</p>

<p>I've not seen many web images that can be used in commercial quality applications anyway.</p>

<p>If you feel this particular image has some possible future value, then by all means, have it copyrighted throuh the normal channels...It'll cost ya about 30 bucks U.S. At least if a infringement claim is ever filed by you, it is much easier to prove the image is yours in front of a judge.</p>

<p>If this image is a good as you say, get a gallery to display it.<br>

Often the gallery itself will put their necks on the line if infringement is shown.<br>

Even if they don't, it is further proof this image is yours.</p>

<p>Ya, I really think you are making too much out of it.<br>

I wish someone would steal one of my registered images and made a ton of money with it.<br>

Pete would be on Ka'Ching street!</p>

<p>Last word for me on this:<br>

You can't prevent anyone from stealing images unless you never show your images...<br>

just like laws do not prevent crimes, they only offer recourse in the event of.</p>

<p>Any image can be copied if it's on the net.</p>

<p>If you fear someone (printing) your work for personal use, I see no problem.<br>

If you want to thwart enlargements, size the image down, perhaps 650 as you say and 72PPI.<br>

A 8x10 at that res will look poor.<br>

A big © all over the image might deter the cloners but mess up the aesthetics of the image.</p>

<p>What is your real fear with this?</p>

<p>From the information you provided, the answer is a pretty easy (NO), unless of course you pay the Earhardt people a cut. ;) You'd have to talk with his legal people to arrange it..don't expect a yes from them. :)</p>

<p>Logos?..again, probably not as they are Trade Marks.</p>

<p>Displaying work is one thing, selling it is quite another when people or products are involved.</p>

<p>I doubt Dale would sue you if you sold a print to your buddy for 10 bucks; but ya never know.</p>

<p>The 20D has been around a while now and is a good camera that will serve you well with a good lens.<br>

You will notice with your link, there are a few more available in the used category that are quite a bit more money. You might want to ascertain how many shutter activations have been recorded. Shutters do have a limited life span. Also; read the return policy just in case there is a problem.</p>

<p>You may have to look into the used market. With some homework and due diligence, you can minimize your risk.<br>

Your budget won't support a new DSLR w/lens, unless my currency converter is off, but it appears about $500 U.S.</p>

<p>As Matt has pointed, a little more info about your shooting goals would be very helpful. </p>

<p>Ahh..sorry G, I just found the ISO.</p>

<p>ISO 800 is pushing it with the D-90, esp in low light.</p>

<p>G;</p>

<p>Sure, I'd show it to a client as a proof. I doubt I'd enlarge it much past 5x7 w/o some extensive PP work.<br>

Looking at the EXIF data, it appears you were in full auto? Yikes! ISO 400?<br>

Auto WB w/ auto Exp +flash +ambient is not the best recipe for a clean exposure.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Actually, if the photos are used in an article there's no need for releases since this would be editorial usage.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Be very careful taking such advice.<br>

Canadian laws differs greatly from U.S law. I can not speak to Canadian law.<br>

Here in the U.S there is a (great measure) of "editorial" protection under our 1st amendment rights.<br>

This is far from saying one is totally protected; we are not.<br>

One can not speak anything or print anything they desire and then hope they can hide behind "editorial use."<br>

It's been tried, and companies have been sued.</p>