pete_harlan1

September 1, 2009

At one time I briefly touched on this subject; but never really jumped in with examples.

The two photos here have all EXIF data intact to avoid questions like what ISO, WB, lens, f/stop shutter etc..etc.

One photo is as is (UN-corrected) as shot.

The other photo is corrected w/ levels & curves..That's all.

I have seem this time and time again and now wonder, WHY..WHY the "fog" as I call it? Slime might be a good word too.

I fully understand the need for PP in nearly all digital images, but C'mon..Is this the life of digital?

Is it impossible to have achieved the (corrected) image w/o ANY PP?

Looking at the histogram, ya; it's a tad overexposed, but I just don't believe this is the reason for the "fog."

Whoever looks at this, compare the two images; switching from A to B while watching the histogram.

I see a small shift to the right, BUT, the levels remain relatively unchanged.<div></div>

September 1, 2009

UV filter? Sure; if you are working above 10,000 feet.

Protection? Make your own risk asscessment based on the shooting environment.

Image degradation? Noticeable? Yes. Then take it off. No. Leave it on.

What's the issue here?

Do what works for YOU.

September 1, 2009

Josh,

Ahhh..a workflow question.

There are several ways to do this, all of which come under the general heading of Digital Workflow.

I'm not trying to blow you off...I don't think this is the proper forum for this question.

"Digital Darkroom" would probably be the better forum, but I'm not sure if the nice folks at PN will allow you to cross post now.

The way you suggest will work fine..Is it the way I would do it? Probably not, but it will accomplish what you want.

Extensive edits? I'd suffer the slow procesing time for any real gain in quality.

September 1, 2009

Ok..I think I see what you're after..and yes, it can be a delicate subject.

I have no real advice how to contact the people you need.

As far as wording?...I would advertise my portraiture services and word it the same regardless of who I am photographing in a formal or semi-formal setting.

They're people; right?

They or their families either want some nice portraits or they don't.

September 1, 2009

How do I determine what I should reduce my image to before editing in <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/#" target="_blank">photoshop<img src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2.gif" alt="" width="10" height="10" /></a>, or should I not reduce it at all?

</blockquote>

I believe the correct answer will depend on the final print size, level, type and number of edits you are applying to the images (before and after HDR conversion) and how much of a processing delay you are willing to tolerate.

Working with the greatest amount of data is always preferable, esp when extensive edits need to be done. One of many reasons many prefer RAW shooting and editing.

Ballpark guess?...3K x 3K would be fine. So would 2.5K x 2.5K.

Start shrinking the file..experiment.

September 1, 2009

PS....

I was a bit surprised YOU provided the contract.

Most professional established models have their own releases.

September 1, 2009

use the photos as selfpromotion...

I had a contract signer by her.

</blockquote>

Diego,

I'd have to see the contract; word for word before I would even attempt to render a opinion.

..and that's precisely what you will get, a opinion based on my experience; which is lengthy due to the area of photography I operate within.

You have TWO issues to deal with.

1) The Business decision

2) The Legal remedy

1) Unless you are talking about a lot of money, it would be a bad (business) decision to create ill will between yourself and a client.

2) Usually the legal remedy (if you are sued and must defend) will cost you more than what you might garner from the shoot.

I can win ALL arguements with my clients if I don't mind losing a lot of business.

September 1, 2009

Jackie,

1) Most "contests" already have a agreement concerning the (USE) of the photos...I suggest you read it.

2) The images you shot are automatically considered "copyrighted" material.

They can not be used w/o a release from you unless you have already signed a agreement for the

contest.

3) What is your concern with your photos and/or the judges?

September 1, 2009

No direct experience with this company, but after a quick look at their site, I see no clear differences between them and people like Alamy, Shutter Stock etc...

I'm guessing you want to try the world of Micro stock?

August 31, 2009

As a follow on to Keith's comments.

YES! Referrals!

Word of mouth is great, but it's the referrals that keeps the business coming in and fresh.

This is known as "Prospecting" or actively seeking out more business in many places/sources.

It is used continuously by successful companies from the one man band to the multi-million dollar giants.

There are many ways to prospect. It is not cold calling people on the phone or knocking on doors. Many visualize those scenarios when they hear the word (Prospecting)

Think of it as planting seeds...Plant a lot of seeds and water them as needed.

(i.e) Talk to a ton of people...let everyone you know what you do...ask them for referrals or if they know anyone who could benefit from your services etc..etc...

Books have been written on prospecting alone. It is a sub-category of marketing, and a important one.

Personally, I don't like prospecting, it's kinda' boring, a lot of hard work with returns that are hard to measure at first.

Without it though, I would have no business at all!

August 31, 2009

I enjoyed the work and would like to advertise my services, but I am not sure how to do it in a tasteful way.

Thank you all for your responses, but I don't plan to use any of the photos I have for advertising.

</blockquote>

Maybe this is what threw me off topic? Hmmmm?

Tom, what is it you want to advertise or not advertise?

Are you seeking other places to photograph special needs people?

To what end? Sell photos?

I'm missing something here, but that's pretty normal after a 16 hour day. ;)

</blockquote>

August 31, 2009

Steve,

First, I have to agree with Matt; it's a tuff read w/o paragraph breaks. Whew!

I also consider the source when I read something written from a point of assumed authority.

While much of what I read seems like common sense, it kinda' reminded me of making a call to microsofts's customer help line; 100% accurate and 100% useless and difficult to understand and interpret.

I actually read the entire posting, so gimme' some credit. I seriously doubt most will read it all given the lenth coupled with free flowing disjointed ideas.

Sorry

August 31, 2009

Don't forget, atmospheric haze, thermals, dust etc make getting sharp images difficult when shooting at long ranges. You said you were at 300mm for most shots, so I will assume the boats were quite a ways away.

August 31, 2009

I am currently working on "word of mouth" by doing portraits of seniors of friends of friends.

</blockquote>

You are doing the right things given your current situation.

Be patient; it takes time.

You will find, many, many people get their start with word of mouth and often parlay that source into a viable working company.

At this point, customer satisfaction means everything. "Under promise and over deliver" is a great business ethic.

My best advice I can offer you other than what you are already doing....?

Stay away from negative people and nay sayers. They are poison.

Attitude is everything in today's business climate and will carry you further than relying on just pretty pictures.

August 31, 2009

heh-Heh..Thanks Elliot, that made me smile.

When a camera company produces the perfect camera, I hope someone will post a review..No wait; if it's perfect, it won't need a review; right? ;)

August 31, 2009

I tend to change it from time to time depending on what I'll be shooting,

but for the most part I've assigned my function button to FV LOCK.

August 31, 2009

Jeff;

Quote me from ANY civil code to back that up.

RE: "ASSOCIATION" ""PHOTOS USED FOR SELF PROMOTION DO NOT REQUIRE A RELEASE AS LONG AS THE PEOPLE IN THEM ARE NOT PERCEIVED TO BE (ADVOCATES) OR (SPONSORS) OF YOUR BUSINESS.

Read Calif Code 3344 (e)

Paid wedding photographers are one of the rare exceptions to this law. For the wedding photographer to use the photos they shot as "self promotion" only, requires a release from each person identifiable in the photos. Why? Because the photographer is advertising and "associating" the photos with what they do for profit and benefit in some monetary form.

This release should be included by all wedding shooters if they publically display the photos for anything other than editorial use. Even Editorial Use may not fly since the photographer was there for a specific reason. This is constantly being flirted with prior to political elections...Mudslinging..bordering on libel..yet it is allowed and ruled "In the publics best interest" and for the dissemination of the greater good. These less than complimentary images of candidates hide under the gray area of "Editorial Use."

It is not a requirement to have this release if you are a wedding shooter, but heaven help you if a identifiable person is in the background of a photo who is let's say having a trist with his mistress. You, the weddng photographer w/o a release from Mr. Cheater can be sued for a variety of reasons. The photo was posted to a web site and his wife sees it..he loses everything in the divorce. The judge easily finds the photo itself caused the damage...and on and on and on..the wedding shooter is up the creek, and deeply!

What is being advertised has nothing to do with it.

</blockquote>

If I am sued, (WHAT) is being advertised, endorsed, has associaion with, has EVERYTHING to do with weather I will prevail or not.

Have a look around at many stock agencies that have photos of PEOPLE without releases. These agencies (Licensee) MAY require a model release AFTER determining (USE) . Until that is determined, a photographer is well within the law to license his/her images without a release. Now the better agencies usually demand the release from the photographer only to protect themselves and place the responsibility right back on the photographer.

If the photog is truly worried, I suggest the following be included in all submissions to any and all who may buy your work

"I make no representations concerning the existance of a model release in the following images"

You probably won't sell as many images, but you will be safe from a law suit.

I'm not the bad guy here my friends, just someone well versed in business law as it pertains to photography be it copyright, licensing, model releases, trade marks.

Irrelevent? Tell that to the estate of James Brown..who by the way lost their claim against Corbis.

August 31, 2009

If you use someone's likeness in an advertisement, you certainly want their release to do so

</blockquote>

Sorry Matt, again, that statement standing on it's own is incorrect.

What is being advertised? Nursing homes? Wheel chairs? Medical care?

Is there a trade marked item anywhere in the photo?..or does the poster want the photos for

"Self Promotion"?

We still have NOT heard what the posters (USE) for the photos will be or under (WHAT) circumstances the photos were taken.

Did the poster sneak the shots? Given permission to shoot them?

Was the shoot controlled as in a studio setting or informal as he walked around?

Private Property or public?

Is there any expectation of privacy?

Did the residents know there photo was being taken and why?

(If) the posters intent is for "Self Promotion" and there is no intent to "associate" or "Advocate" their likenesses to a opinion or endorsement; no release is necessary or required by any law.

There is no gray area here in the above context. The only gray area is the posters (Intent of Use) which I am ASSUMING is "Self Promotion"

I strongly recommend ALL photographers who fear lawsuits study up on Copyright Law, Licensing Law, Model Releases, Trademarks.

Also, google (JAMES BROWN Vs CORBIS) Interesting reading when money (a lot of it) is at risk.

I've heard these arguements over and over. There must be a basis in law for the existance of a model release as well as the question of; is one necessary?

How many times have we heard "You can't take pictures in here" at a shopping mall? An airport? etc..etc..., the mall is probably NOT private property.

Mall security people may say this, yet often there is no basis, legal or otherwise.

Now the question is it worth the aggravation is another story all together.

I wonder how many photogs with releases in hand have compensated the "model" in some way or another. As we all should know, w/o some form of compensation, a model release is useless.

Saying someting does not make it true. Bringing suit is meaningless until a judge decides

August 30, 2009

Just remember that if you use some of those images in your advertising, you're going to need modeling releases.

</blockquote>

Sorry Matt, but that is completely untrue.

I am not a lawyer either but my side of photography deals with this almost every day.

This idea of a model realeas needed for every photo of a person place or thing is simply misunderstanding how the law is written and how the photographer themselves are either protected or not protected.

W/o going into every nuance of business law as it relates the the shooter of the image, the following is the law.

1) You do not need a model release to photograph anything. Period. If we did, our cameras would not function.

2) The (USE) of the image is what detwrmines any violations of either copyright law or licensing requirements.

3) The (photographer) is almost never responsible for infringements unless they assume the role of "Publisher"

Copyright law, licensing, publishing, publisizing, editorial use, advert use etc..etc seem to be well (mis) understood by far too many photographers.

The poster made no information available as to HOW the images are to be used.

This is legally what is known as (use) W/o this info, there is no way anyone can make a determination is a release is needed or not.

August 30, 2009

Your question is best answered with..It Depends.

I have clients that have no problem with me using the images for self promotional purposes only; not for sale.

In other words, I can promote myself with images I shot, but I can not SELL the images for a profit.

This should be clearly spelled out in your contracts. If you intend the (USE) (legal term) to be for Publisizing, Publishing, or Advertisement, it needs to be clearly understood by the client.

NOT asking or telling them you intend to display the work you just did is not only unprofessional, but will harm your reputation.

August 30, 2009

Fred,

Finding wedding shooters who shoot Canon or Nikon might be a chore.

Here's an easier way to get a percentage and even names.

Watch NFL Football every chance you get..Might wanna record it so you can slow or pause the recording later.

Now; all ya' gotta' do is count the number of WHITE lenses Vs The number of BLACK lenses.

All those people on the sidelines probably qualify as using "High End"

August 30, 2009

Does is really matter what anyone else thinks?

What matters is what works for you in YOUR shooting situation.

August 30, 2009

Lanette,

Please..Please..Get a book or two on marketing.

I have to agree with Eric...flyers; for lack of a better term look "rinky dink."

Any other inexpensive ways to get your name out there while your waiting for word of mouth to spread?

</blockquote>

Not really.

Marketing can be a complex subject and covers many variables. Any attempt to tell you everything you need to know will be futile at best. You are in the proper forum for this question though.

May I suggest one of the "Guerilla Marketing" books? They wrote several and all are excellent.

I think at this point a few questions may help you focus in on what YOU want to accomplish with marketing.

1) What is your earnings goal? Time frame?

2) Who do you want to market too?

3) What is your current budget for marketing?

4) How much time can you devote to marketing?

Let's start there ok?

Unless you have clearly defined those questions, I fear you are spinning your wheels in a concept called

"Voodoo Economics."

August 28, 2009

Hmm?

Well the ISO explanation seems most plausible and logical. I too thought the same but said to myself "Hmm, the ISO is already stated in the exif data;why the redundency?"

I (thought) I had not changed ISO and was seeing gain changes in the EXIF data.

Worse, I had wondered if it was something I set via a menu; which seemed doubtful as I am quite aware of what every menu item does on the D-300. ;)

Thanks all.

August 28, 2009

I was looking at the EXIF data shot with the D-300

What is (Gain)?

I shot a few photos last evening and noticed some indicated (Gain:None) While some indicated (Gain: Low up)

I'm mystified.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by pete_harlan1