james_black3

<p>Hi, if you are a Mac user and have two monitors to do Photoshop and or Lightroom editing, please tell me what kind of monitors you have and how you like them. I have a Macbook pro 17" running OS X 10.8.5. In the coming new year I'd love to buy a pair of matching 21" or so monitors so I can see my work more clearly and use the duel monitors to edit more efficiently. If I have posted this in the wrong forum, I apologize in advance. Thank you!</p>

<p>I see many photos of models on black background where the foreground floor of the shot is so reflective it looks just like water. Is this some kind of plastic or mylar that is laid down on the floor, or is it linoleum? I'm sure they don't flood the studio floor with an inch of water, but it sure looks like it. Sometimes the effect is smooth and sometimes it is rippled like water. How is this done? I want to do it! Thanks.</p>

<p>AI Servo is what I have been using. Why? Is that the problem?</p>

<p>I am shooting with a Canon EOS 50D, Canon 70-200 EF IS USM f/2.8. I shoot mostly rugby. I am having a problem with consistent tack-sharp focusing on the single player at the center of the action. It's sometimes hit and miss and I'm not sure what is happening. I use the single center focus point, dead center of the jersey of the player at peak action. Generally that player is running toward me. I've got the lens racked out to 200mm most of the time and my minimum shutter speed is 1/1000 at all times. I try to keep the lens wide open for great bokeh. That's why I bought a $1,700 lens.<br>

One theory I wish to confirm or eliminate is the question of whether or not Canon's autofocus reacts differently to bright red/orange than it would to blue/green. In certain shots where a player's jersey is white, or blue and white, or even green, I seem to have a lot more luck with the autofocus. If the player is wearing a bright red/orange jersey, the center of the depth of field seems to be about six feet behind the player even though I've got the red dot of the single point focus right in the middle of his chest when the motor drive shutter makes the exposures. If I get off a burst of six frames, maybe one of them will be tack sharp, but then again, maybe not. I'm getting really tired of coming home from a game thinking I've got some tack sharp images (according to the 3" screen on the back of the 50D) only to open them in Photoshop and see that I just barely missed! Frustrating to say the least.</p>

<p>Thank you Charles, I know how to Google. I already went to that site and because it doesn't specifically list the older Speedo 2401b, nor does the site mention Canon 50Ds, I thought I would post here to see if someone has actually had experience with it. Guess my next stop is to get in touch with Speedotron and ask them. I'll post a reply if I get one. Meanwhile, my question stands. Thanks.</p>

<p>Hi, I just bought a used Speedotron 2401B strobe power supply. It has the old synch outlet/input that looks like a household plug-in. The contacts fire great when I short across a household to PC cable that came with it. But I'm afraid to plug the PC cord end into my Canon 50D before checking with somebody to see if the old Speedotron 2401B has too much voltage and might ruin my Canon 50D. Some people tell me "just plug it in and try it." Right! like I'm going to take a $1,000+ camera and take a chance on frying the circuit board. So does anyone here know whether it's OK to do that? or do I need a Wein Safe-sync voltage regulator in between my camera and the Speedotron box?</p>

<p>John O'Keefe-Odom those are wise words:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you don't predict some future need for commercial threat protection, and the need to retain counsel, and the need to go out there and aggressively sue people who violate your rights, then the whole process may be of negligible value.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps 10 percent of my images have commercial value. The rest of them I don't think I would waste the energy to fight over. By the time the lawyers get done with you, you can "win" a settlement and the only persons who made any money were the attorneys on both sides.<br>

But it's the principle of the thing. Too many people think photos are free for the taking if they see them on the Web. It doesn't matter if it has a copyright symbol or a photo credit or whatever. They just rip it and run it. There is no Internet policeman there to write them a ticket. If the photographer never finds out about it, it was free content, a free illustration.<br>

So at the end of the day, they will keep on stealing and cheating photographers out of their art and their labors until they get punished and publicly called to task. I guess that's really up to us, as photographers, how much of this stuff we are willing to tolerate. Disputes are costly, time consuming, emotionally draining and may wind up costing more money than if the photographer just let it go. There's an old saying about picking fights: Chose which hill you are willing to die on. But if my work ends up on a billboard for a brand of toothpaste in Great Britain and nobody contacted me for license rights, you bet that's a hill I'm going to fight for.</p>

 

<p>@ John A:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You wrote: Remember that if you have uploaded an image here, to your website or a blog etc, that it is considered to be published. You have to send these differently. There is actually a paper form (2 that go together actually) you can use to send in every image published in the same calendar year--you are supposed to know the date each was published. This costs $65 and is not available electronically at this time--but the forms can be downloaded.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh gosh, does that mean if I have already put pictures up on Flickr, or Picasa Web Albums that these images are considered "published"? If so, I've got to re-think what I'm willing to do to display my work. So far, the Picasa Web Album pics I have put up there are on the "private" setting so the only people who get to see them are people I have invited to look at them Look only, not download or distribute. I put a © All Rights Reserved on every image I put up on Picasa. I thought I could always go back and do the official copyright paperwork later.<br>

Also, I just switched over to Mac from PC and I haven't even begun to explore iPhoto or the other photo tools. Is it easy to batch resize copies of images to make a DVD to send to the copyright office? Can anyone walk me through it?<br>

Thanks for everyone's help. I look forward to more.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I just read the "eCO" tips bulletin from the U.S. Copyright office for submitting copies of photographs to get a copyright. As I understand it, you can group a whole bunch of photos together and call it a collection and get a single copyright on the whole group of photos. If this is not correct, let me know.<br>

The bulletin also says you can get the application on line, pay the fee of $35, and then upload your collection as an electronic file and it goes onto their servers and is processed. Then you get an email back saying your stuff has been accepted and copyrighted. Tell me if I'm reading that wrong too.<br>

So the question is, how small can you make all these images in the collection? Because obviously you would want to group the maximum number of images into one $35 collection as possible, right up to the limit of the file size they will accept.<br>

I mean, can you send them thumbnails? If so, I can get several hundred images in one "collection" and have it copyrighted for $35.<br>

Can someone who has experience with this process please enlighten me?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What percentage of this settlement did the law firm representing Getty (Pinsent Mason), get for their services, and then how much of the settlement did Getty keep and finally, how much did the photographer eventually get (if anything)? I don't mean to be cynical, but these are the realities of law suits. The discovery of the mis-appropriation of the photo was in 2007. It is now 2 years later. That's a long time for this thing to wind its way through the judicial system.</p>

<p>That is a very subjective question. "Which stock agencies are best?" Best for what?<br>

Well, for me, the best agency would be one that is perused daily by news agencies, magazine and book publishers and the international press looking for specific images.<br>

For me, the best agency would try to get top dollar for one-time rights to my images.<br>

For me, the best agency would not take more than 50%.<br>

For me, the best agency would get to know me and what I do and over time, establish a relationship with me to send me out on assignments for a day rate, plus give me a percentage on the images used.<br>

I don't care if the agency is hard to break into. Big or small, a well-known name or some agency you never heard of. As long as photo editors for news agencies, magazine and book publishers and the international press regularly ask this agency for photos, that's all I really care about.<br>

Tell me about your "best" photo agency experiences.</p>

<p>I agree with those who say it's better to ASK them to put a by-line on the bottom of the photo:<br>

© Photo by Rod Melotte<br>

That way, you get lots of credit, you are a good guy. You get more business. If you force the issue, (and this happened to me when I was very young photographer all full of myself), they will stop using your photo and pick some other artwork and they will never use you again for anything.<br>

But for the future, make it clear in writing exactly what they can and cannot do with your photos. Be very specific.</p>

<p>I just bought a new LG internal CD/DVD RW for my computer. I use Nero software. The idea was I would just start loading up DVDs with my images to archive them. Bad surprise: I que up a bunch of photo files in Nero and select DVD burn and when I hit "burn" an error message comes up saying that I have the wrong media in the burner and that I need to put in a CD, not a DVD. Grrrrr. What am I doing wrong? Do I need a special software other than Nero to burn photo files onto a DVD for archiving them?</p>

<p>Thanks Jeff,<br>

Either one, the Argus or the Nikonos, would be fine for my purposes. (Not sure my last comment posted). Please tell me how you did the Nikonos one. Thanks!</p>

<p>Can someone tell me the steps in Photoshop (Ver. 5+) to overlay a semi-transparent copyright symbol onto .jpgs? I want to put up some photos on Flickr and or Picasa but not use their automated text overlay because it is too harsh-looking. I have seen other photographers do this semi-transparent technique with just the askii character copyright symbol (the circle with the C in the middle) and it looks pretty cool, but I've tried to experiment with it several times and can't figure it out. Any help appreciated. Please redirect to the proper forum if this is not a beginner question. Thanks.</p>

I've been shooting rugby games lately. Sometimes the games are played at night, under the lights. I rented a

70-200 f/2.8 L USM with Image Stabilization for one afternoon game and tried it with and without the Canon EF 2X

Extender. I LOVED it! A rugby field (pitch) is wider than our American football field and luck has it that action

always seems to take place far from where I am. But with the combo mentioned above, I got very high resolution

images even at long distances, using virtual film speed of 800 ASA. I was stopping action at 1000/sec. at about

f5.6. The images without the extender were sharper, of course, but even with the 2x, the quality was excellent.

 

What I forgot to do, in all the excitement of running up and down the sidelines, was to turn off the IS and try

using a monopod to stabilize. I was having too much fun to stop. But is the IS really worth the extra money for

sports photography? I know this lens is what I want. But should I pay $400 or more and go with the Image

Stabilizer, or live with carrying a monopod?

 

Anyone here have personal experience with either or both versions of this lens? Can you share your opinions? I'll

spend the dough if I have to, but I'm curious about the non-IS version of this fine lens.

 

Oh, and one other thing: I shot the game on a Sunday afternoon. Monday morning I was so sore from hefting that

3.5 lb. monster of a lens for the 90+ minutes of the match, that I could hardly lift my left arm! I'm in pretty

good shape, but that hunkin' lens almost did me in. Next time, I'll practice hefting a dumbbell a few times a

week before a game. Ow!

Thank you Brian P. for a kind and helpful answer to my question.

I bought my first digital, the new 400D, or XTi as it's called. I then bought

both of the available remote shutter release devices to try them out. The

Infrared one is the most puzzling. You can only use if you are pointing it at

the front of the camera. But Canon has inexplicably placed the camera's tiny

little sensor on the front of the camera body between the handgrip and the lens

in a location that blocks its reception to a very narrow forward-looking aspect

range. Using a wide angle lens, you are almost certain to have at least your

hand in the shot in order to position the remote to shoot its beam into the

sensor on the camera.

 

In fact, there is a rather unintentionally humorous illustration in the 400D

manual that shows a hand pointing the IR release at a 400D on a tripod some

distance away, and a dotted line from the device to the camera. What's funny

about that is that Canon apparently believes that photographers want to take

lots of pictures of themselves holding a little black box in their hands,

pointing the damned thing at the camera, or at least furtively trying to hide

the device and looking innocent as they press the release. It's stupid. I plan

to sell it on eBay and recoup a fraction of my small $18 investment.

 

The hard-wired device (RS60 E3) with the 2' cord is sufficient and useful for

macro table top setups and bulb exposures. It does nicely at triggering the

autofocus and shutter release with little or no vibration.

 

The RS60 E3 plugs into the 400D through a mini-jack port in the side access

panel on the camera.

 

So my question is: Is there a radio remote available that will work with the

Canon 400D?

WHEN is the question. When can I get one? And where. I called B&H this morning

and they said "Don't know when." Is there a waiting list I can get on to buy

one? "We don't have waiting lists." Well, when do you think they will ship in

the U.S.A. "Don't know." .... And apparently, from their attitude on the phone,

they don't care. I hate calling these stores. They treat you like you've got

three heads and four eyes just for asking a simple question. He made me feel

like I was wasting his time just by asking. As if: "Hey, you don't wanna buy

something, then get off the phone, I'm busy!"

 

Followup question, what is your favorite outlet for buying a new product that's

just about to be released and shipped? Are there any stores that keep waiting lists?

WHEN is the question. When can I get one? And where. I called B&H this morning and they said "Don't know when." Is there a waiting list I can get on to buy one? "We don't have waiting lists." Well, when do you think they will ship in the U.S.A. "Don't know." .... And apparently, from their attitude on the phone, they don't care. I hate calling these stores. They treat you like you've got three heads and four eyes just for asking a simple question. He made me feel like I was wasting his time just by asking. As if: "Hey, you don't wanna buy something, then get off the phone, I'm busy!"

Thanks Erik, that's good thinking. Along more existential lines, I'm wondering if I really want to spend the next four months, a couple of hours each day digitizing old stuff that has more sentimental than commercial value. Probably 10 percent of it is saleable, mostly my rock concert shoots from the 1960s including lots of never-before-published backstage/on stage Greatful Dead, Quicksilver Messinger Service, Frank Zappa, right on up through the Eagles.

 

Probably another 10 percent is just good stock photography of the historical times, like the L.A. riots, war protests, a lot of my stuff that I shot in Vietnam.

 

The other 80 percent is nostalgia that maybe only I can appreciate. Many times as I shuffle through that mess I remember stuff that I've tried pretty hard to forget.

 

So in addition to contemplating which scanner to buy, I'm also asking myself whether I really want or need to invest myself in this task. It would be interesting to start a thread here that asks people who've done all their scanning if it was useful/satisfying/profitable in the long run. I'll bet there are some interesting stories.

 

But I think after reading all the opinions so far, I'm probably going to get the Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 ED, with glass film holder, scan my stuff, then re-sell it on Ebay.

Gentlemen, Ladies, please. The topic is medium format film scanners. Thanks.

I've been researching the features/advantages of two scanners: Microtek

Artixscan 120TF and the Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 ED. But the more I read

reviews about either of them, they each have critical minuses to go with the

pluses. I like the fact that the 120TF comes with Silverfast HDR, but I've read

that the technology under the skin of the 120TF was from some older Polaroid

scanner, six or more years old. With the Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 ED, you get a

Dmax of an impressive 4.8, but I understand that many people have had problems

with Nikon's software. If I wanted to upgrade to Silverfast HDR, I'd have to buy

it separately at around $400.

 

So before I agonize any more about what to buy, I'm wondering if anyone has seen

any magazine articles recently concerning any brand new MF film scanners that

are about to hit the market or that have come out within the past year.