pete_harlan1

September 13, 2009

First things first.

The SBA is great for many things; legal advice NOT being one of them.

You will need first to decide what "structure" you wish to operate a business under.

There are several choices; so I highly suggest you research them.

1) Sole Propriertorship

2) LLC....Probably best for most

3) Incorporated

4) Partnership

5) S-Corp

6) dba's

In all except the first one, you can research business names in your state to determine if the name is in registered use legally.

Welcome to the business side of of photography.

September 11, 2009

I should note that in most cases I was using a bounce flash, reflecting the light off the ceiling.

</blockquote>

Ummm; not in these two pics.

The dead giveaway is the catchlight dead center in the subjects eyes...and pic #2 shows shadow right behind her.

Straight on flash is one of the most uncomplimentary ways to use flash.

Yes, makeup helps with some people, but this is a case of poor lighting.

Post another, but this time with (bounced) flash.

September 10, 2009

Ratings are completely subjective.

</blockquote>

Photography is completely subjective.

Jason, chill out.

I had a photo on another forum a few years ago..It received very low ratings.

I licensed it 3 months after posting and ate for 3 months!

September 10, 2009

I a'm the only photographer on payroll.

</blockquote>

this seems quite unusual. This would fall under "work for hire"

shared copyright

</blockquote>

This is legally not possible. A copyright is automatically granted to the creator.

It is either owned by a entity (corp) etc or a individual.

I'd love to see this in writing.

September 10, 2009

PS:

If you go ahead with unrestricted rights inperpetuity, make SURE you have them sign a "Hold Harmless" or "Indemnity" clause in your sign off. In other words

"I make no representations as to the existance of model or property releases"

Feel free to email me with specifics if you wish further guidance.

I would need more specifics to make a determination.

I know you need to contact this person today, but I'd suggest holding off one day.

I won't be back to my computer until midnight CST.

September 10, 2009

This is difficult to answer Jason.

I shoot all commercial now and license my images under various contracts and stipulations; but I have never given anyone "unrestricted use" "inperpetuity" (i.e) Forever. I would if I could retire on it. ;)

How you value a work is completely up to you and somewhat driven by current market trends in your area. Factored in are circulation numbers if in a publication, billboard use, TV, internet, newspaper ads and position and size and on and on. Last, is your standing in the (stock) photography world, which is what this is; stock photography.

A few questions I would answer to come to grips with this if I were you:

1) If I price out the roof, will they look for another shooter or re-negotiate (counter) with me?

2) What agencies if any have they used? What was the pricing structure?

3) How frequent is the image to be used?

What I'm trying to subtly get at Jason is the (what if) game.

What if they use this image to launch a major ad campaign?

I used to approach this question for myself like a flow chart:

1) Ask if they are open to "LIMITED" use of the image.

2) If NO, how about granting unrestricted use for (1 year) and (I) keep the copyright for self promotional uses.

3) Still no..OK..Give more...Unrestricted use forever (inperpetuity) OK..and I keep the copyright.

4) No?....How about licensing for each use. (i.e) One for Newspaper, one for Internet etc...

None of that work for you?

$10,000 then or, whatever you can get.

This is not a flip answer. YOU have to value your work, both now AND in the future.

Keeping the copyright is EVERYTHING Jason unless you feel there is zero value after the sale. That is rare. I hope you see what I am getting at. Again, if the company uses your image in a highly visible way, it looks good on your resume' as in "As seen in ABC products" or citing a magazine it may appear in.

Those of us who shoot stock for a living call what they are attempting a "Rights Grab" and you are well within your right to sell it for whatever you want.

If you need 500 bucks to get you by, ask 500...$5,000, ask that.

If you see your image in some top level magazine ad and sign off on a unrestricted use inperpetuity, you have no recourse. Does it happen? YEP..Is it rare? YEP again.

Releasing the copyright with no restrictions is rolling the dice.

Hope that helps you a bit.

September 10, 2009

Which type of basic claim do I need to do #1, #2, or #3 based on what I described above

</blockquote>

As soon as you display your work so it can be viewed by the public, it is published.

"Unpublished" is most often used by commercial photographers prior to releasing a work for sale...or by overly paranoid photographers.

#3 will serve you best in your situation.

Curious; what is your concern with copyrighting your images?

September 10, 2009

and full usage

</blockquote>

Full useage?

1) Are you aware what that means from a license stand point?

2) Are you hoping for a one time "pop" or are you wantng to grow a career in photography?

Any tips or ball park estimates?

</blockquote>

1) Where will the images appear?

2) How will the images appear?

3) Frequency of appearance?

4) Photo credit given?

5) Inperpetuity or "limited" use?

September 10, 2009

wedding photography and yet book jobs and charge for them?

</blockquote>

Some people are great at marketing.

Some are great at photography.

Very few are great at both.

Perhaps the OP is in the first category.

Point?..I've seen lousy photography from a technical POV that has been marketed to

the nth degree. I've also seen technically excellent shooters that can't earn a dime.

One of my favorite little riddles:

Q: "How many photographers does it take to screw in a light bulb?"

A: 50....One who actually screws the bulb in, and 49 others who said "I could have done that."

'Nuff said.

September 9, 2009

I don't usually like to use flash. I always try for the more natural approach so you are right, I do not know much about off-camera flash.

</blockquote>

You are missing the point (or use) behind flash photography.

Sure, natural light is great; when you have it. Often times, there is either not enough of it, or the quality of it is terrible, or positionally it is not flattering.

One of the keys to (good) flash photography is using it to a (natural) effect. Positioned, bounced and gel'd properly, all but a good pro can't tell if it's flash, ambient, or a combo of the two..and then trying to guess at the ratios.

Never discount flash photography. It is great to have this in your arsenal. You should learn it well if you desire to advance in your photographic skills.

I've seen far too many photographes who (mistakingly) believe since the own a f/2.8 whatever that they can bypass the need for flash.

Learn all you can about artificial lighting; esp off cam flash.

You might find it interesting, most excellent shooters, be it wedding, portrait, stills, use a TON off off cam flash.

September 9, 2009

rules of thumb for this kind of thing?

</blockquote>

Ya; get all you can!

Unlimited use? I never heard of such a thing.

I'd read the contract very carefully.

Generally, professional stock sellers price AND (license) according to the numbers.

(i.e) Circulation numbers, visibility, position etc...

Personally, and probably the smart thing to do is license each (USE) individually; giving you far more control.

As you have this worded, what they are asking you is tantamount to a full copyright release.

I would weigh value Vs future business.

September 8, 2009

sorry--i cannot work up any sympathy for some one who has squandered money like she has--three ny townhouses--a place in rheinbeck

</blockquote>

I'm with William on this one.

That's 24 with SIX zeros behind it!

My opinion has nothing to do with WHO it is.

Anyone who can squander that kind of cash deserves no sympathy from anyone....

I feel the same about high priced pro sports players...anyone, who can blow that much, well; I think their eyes were bigger than their stomachs.

Then I read about alleged copyright infringement..I hope it's baseless, but if proven true; well, what respect I had for Ms. Liebowitz will be reduced to zero.

September 8, 2009

I looked at the website. I can't honestly say I see any special effect.

What I do see is proper use of lighting.

September 8, 2009

But to be honest, that is way to much work

</blockquote>

I appreciate your honesty Josh; and yes, it would be a lot of work.

If the question then remains, to use real "sounding" names, that's cool.

I don't like names like "MRf/8" either.

So far, PN IMO does a great job moderating the forums.

September 8, 2009

As a suggestion, perhaps a 2 or 3 tiered system?

1)Allow anyone to use what PN feels is appropriate names be they fake names or not.

2) "Certify" posters who show their real name. Telephone verification etc...

3) "Certify" people who are actually in the business of photography.

A small icon can appear next to their name indicating this status.

I can't speak for all, but I always consider the source of the information.

If (Joe B. says) "This is the best way to do it" I am not so inclined to listen.

If (Dan Heller) says the same, I am far more inclined to listen.

September 8, 2009

What's the question?

How to prevent squinting?

September 8, 2009

In case anyone missed this.

<a href="http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/annie-leibovitz-faces-a-loan-deadline/?hp">http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/annie-leibovitz-faces-a-loan-deadline/?hp</a>

September 8, 2009

First wedding and no one has discussed pricing? Hmmm?

Well; one of the easiest ways to do this for you would be the $$$/HR rate.

In other words, what is your time worth per hour?...or what is the minimum you'

d work for?

If your goal is to start your portfolio, perhaps you are willing to work cheap.

I would think your #1 concern if you plan on doing more weddings, is getting this shoot as perfect as you can for your own benefit. Again, if you are going to shoot on the cheap, let's say a few hundred bucks, make sure you give them the $1,500 treatment.

September 8, 2009

As Bill mentioned, there are many ways to accomplish this.

If you are simply trying to (smooth) someone who has rough skin texture:

If you don't want to apply the effect globally; try this....

With your (eye-dropper), sample the skin color in the area you wish to smooth.

Select a "soft" brush, reduce opacity to 20% or so and begin painting the skin.

You will have to resample the skin often as you move from different tonal areas.

20% is a good starting point, but should be adjusted accordingly depending on how much effect is needed.

September 8, 2009

Are there differences between 12 and 14 bit? Sure. Can you realize any visual benefit when going to print.

None you'd be able to see.

You are exactly right, final output to a 8 bit file (jpg) essentially clips most of that wonderful detail we strived to achieve in RAW. So why bother; right?

Simple: Editing..period; end of story. Working with greater overhead (dynamic range) and color detail is a big advantage when extensive edits are to be carried out.

This RAW Vs JPG arguement has raged for a long time. It comes down to personal preference and final output.

Birthday parties and such? I never shoot RAW.

Paid work? Always.

September 7, 2009

All that flash compensation does, is change the point at which the camera tells the flash to stop. For example a flash compensation value of -1.0 means that the camera tells the flash to stop when it thinks the image is exactly 1 stop underexposed.

</blockquote>

Just to clarify for Victoria, the above statement is true only in TTL mode.

If you learn to use your camera in full manual, the flash comp does increase and decrease flash output.

September 7, 2009

I suppose it is possible to "bounce" the on-cam flash using some sort of modifier, but I fear

it will be quite limited. The built in flash is woefully under-powered to begin with.

1) If you are attempting to bounce it, you need to set as much PLUS comp as the camera can muster.

2) Metering ambient from your subject is fine, but now you will have the additive effects of the flash.

I'm guessing you want to use it as fill? If so, all you want to do is (lift) the shadow areas slightly.

(i.e) Minimal contribution of the flash. There are a couple ways to go about this.

1) A you stated, meter normally and dial in some negative comp so the subject is not over-exposed..

2) Meter normally, back off 1 stop and fire flash at normal power.

Both will give you different results.

Distance to subject plays a major role of course.

May I suggest "planetneil.com"

Although he deals mostly with off camera flash, you will begin to see how flash is tightly relational

to ISO...f/stop... shutter speed.

September 5, 2009

I shoot in manual mode, usually wide open as I am nearly always struggling for enough light here

</blockquote>

Stephen,

You kinda' lost me.

You say you shoot wide open and in manual mode.

Exp comp does nothing in manual mode except bias the meter.

Is it the best method? Maybe and in your scenario I'd say probably.

AUTO ISO might be advantageous in your situation since the D-300 allows you to set a min shutter speed you are willing to accept before the camera raises the ISO.

September 5, 2009

Suppose they balk at paying anything, what should I then do?

</blockquote>

1) Be prepared to go to court for redress.

2) Be prepared to offer evidence how you were harmed financially

3) Be prepared to prove this is copyright infringement.

4) Be prepared to litigate against a government agency..(i.e) Spend a lot of money.

5) Be prepared to answer the question, "Is this worth my time and expense?"

September 4, 2009

Let's see ten years from now, whether it is still necessary to use tripods.

</blockquote>

In video production?

Ever watch a feature film being made? The stabilizing structures for the cameras are immense! They don't even call them tripods. Even the "Steady-cam" is gyroscopically stabilized.

Sure, blowing out the birthday candles might be ok w/o a tripod, but not for a serious shoot..Please, no one quote "The Blair Witch Project" :)

10 Years?..Unless someone can come up with a way for a human to steady and level heavy weights for long shutter speeds.

Kinda' odd too; I noticed tripods used 100 yrs ago..Hmm? I have VR lenses and still use a tripod..That's weird. ;)

Ya' want pro video, but pro video.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by pete_harlan1