tom_rittenhouse1

<p>I was thinking of getting a couple of softboxes for small product photography. After some thought I figure maybe I will get a couple of 24x36 inch boxes, and make baffle covers for them so I can use them as: 24x24 square, 8x36 strip, 22 round, and of course 24x36 rectangular. Giving me a lot of lighting options for a small investment. Am I thinking smart, or am I missing something? I have next to no experience with softboxes. (If it matters, my strobes are a 800w/s pack with 4 heads.)</p>

<p>Interesting lot of posts here. I have used extensively, the Mamiya Universal Press (6x7), a Rolleiflex 2.8E2 that was my portrait camera for years, a Mamiya C33 with a 105 lenses someone loaned me that I replaced with the Rollei when he wanted it back., A Ricohflex Super G, and several old Kodak folders. I listed them in my own order of preference. It is also pretty much the order of output quality. Unfortunately, I have never used a MF SLR extensively so cannot make any recommendations there (Actually, looking on eBay you can get an older Hassy fairly cheaply, only they cost quite a bit ot repair if there is a problem). BTW, except for the folders I doubt a client would be able to tell which of the cameras I listed above the photo was made with.</p>

<p>Answers both ways, I see. Listen to those who say the ground side of the glass. BTW, a 4x loupe is about optimum.</p>

<p>But make sure the whole focusing setup is in correctly. Some cameras have the fresnel in front and some have it in back. Most have the ground side of the glass towards the lens. My Crown Graphic had the whole thing turned around backward, the rangefinder misadjusted, and the wrong lens scale; I figure some "expert" fixed it. It took me a lot of time and research to get it all correct. Anyway if it is all setup correctly the ground side of the glass is exactly where the emulsion of the film will be when the holder is in place.</p>

<p>You go back the the 30's and 40's most of the photographers were looking for lenses that had that prized smooth look to the photos. Lenses were corrected to give that rather than the highest resolution. Also the lenses were corrected for black and white rather than color. That ran into the Post WWII era. Today everyone says Ektars are great and Raptars are junk. But in the day you chose Raptars if you shot B&W and Ektars if you shot color transparencies. Color print did not make a difference because the film was so bad you could use a 10 cent magnifying glass for a lens and not tell the difference (OK, so I exaggerate a bit).</p>

<p>A point to think about is that a heavy camera has more inertia than a light camera. That means it can be held steady at lower speeds than a lighter camera.</p>

<p>Another point is the enlargement factor. If you are blowing your image up to 8x10 from 35mm that is 8x, if you are making an 8x10 from a 4x5 that is 2x. In theory you should be able to shoot the 4x5 at 1/4 the shutterspeed of the 35mm with the same amount of blur.</p>

<p>In fact in my experience 1/100 of a second with my Pentax,and 1/25 of a second with with my Crown Graphic are about equally sharp (the 4x5 is much smoother looking however). Getting old but I used to be able to shoot 4x5 handheld at 1/10 sec with about a 80% success rate.</p>

<p>What you need to do is practice the proper handholding techniques a lot, then test to see what works for you.</p>

<p>The reason the old time photographers got great results with primitive cameras is because they were very skilled at what they did. Something many folks do not want to bother with these days. I can shoot faster with a manual camera than most photographers can with a automatic one. Not because I am superman, but because over the decades I learned all the tricks. A factor here is knowing what you are doing in your head is not the same thing as knowing what you are doing in your muscles, it takes practice. That is the problem with automation, you do not get the practice and can't do it when the chips are down. That seems to be hard for some folks to understand.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>A Graphic is a big flash snapshot camera with add-ons so the professional photographer of the 30's-40's could get by with one camera. The Technika is a technical camera with add-ons, so it could be used as a flash snapshot camera, and the professional photographer of the day could get by with one camera. If you are going to use it handheld 90% of the time the Graphic is the better camera. If you are going to use it on the tripaod 90% of the time the Technika is the better camera. 50-50 they are about equal. BTW: in their day they cost about the same ($250 or so).</p>

<p>The real reason photographers wanted to get rid of their Graphics back in the 50's and 60's was electronic flash. The camera is actually fun to shoot with flashbulbs, however a 12 pound powerpack hanging off your shoulder all day is not fun; but the accounting department figured they were cheaper to use than flashbulbs. Nowadays there is no place to dispose of hot flashbulbs; in the old days you just popped them out into a handy ashtray which were everywhere. I actually give them to the person I just photographed as a souvenir, as most of them have never even seen a flashbulb, much less a #5 or Press 22.</p>

<p>I kind of wish you could still get 12x film packs. The film in the later 16x packs was so thin it awas a hassle, but the older 12x packs had film about the same thickness as roll film.</p>

<p>My first press camea was a really beat up Speed Graphic, I replace it with a very late version of the Super Technike III (most of the features of the IV), I went through 3 Mamiya Universals (My favorite camera of all time, I guess), and now have a Crown Graphic I picked up about 15 years ago. I had pretty much quit shooting with my Crown as it is way too much trouble to setup and tear down the darkroom in my apartment. However, I recently acquired an old Epson 2400 and the 4x5 film adapter, so I plan on developing the negatives and scanning them. That will simplify logistics a lot.</p>

<p>I still like to shoot press camera style, using my little digital snapshot camera like a press camera. I use the viewfinder for handheld shots, and the LED for tripod shots. It amazes me how like a press camera it is, even to the point of being able to process a single shot like using a Polaroid back.</p>

<p>As for the Super Graphic, Toyo bought the rights to it and built them for a decade or two, but mostly sold them in Japan. Kind of hard to compete with the thousands of second hand ones available here in the US.</p>

<p>The problem with auto-everything cameras is that they do not know what you want. It looks like the camera was focusing on the brush in the foreground, My digital camera (An old Olympus C5050z; I simply can not afford a DSLR) has a fairly usable manual mode, but manual focus is as close to unusable as it could be and they can still claim it has it*. Anyway, if your camera has decent manual controls, an incident light meter (The light appears to be the same same at the camera position as at the subject's), manual settings, and raw format would have made that shot a no-brainer.</p>

<p>*A question I keep asking, is if digital auto cameras are so easy to use, how come mine has a 300 page reference manual? In contrast my Pentax MX had a 16 page manual and half of the pages were ads for accessories. Sigh!</p>

<p>It all comes down to jargon. The artsy types use artsy jargon. The techy types use techy jargon. Neither understand the other. So, the other must be wrong. The very strange thing is that most people do know what they like, although they may not be able to articulate it.</p>

<p>The strange thing here is I got bored with this thread and quit reading, but still wanted to post my opinion. Usually I read all the posts first. Personally, I do not think my photography is unique and wonderful, I consider myself professionally competent when I work at it, but I often do not put that effort into it. So, I guess I am just not artsy.</p>

 

<p>My digital Point & shoot has a 300 page manual, my old manual SLR had a 16 page manual and half of that was accessories you could buy. On the other hand, the P&S has a "P" setting. Now, I am of great grandfather age, so I do not like changes much. But then, again, I almost no longer shoot film. Since most of my photography the last few years has been snapshots and for ebay, there may be a reason for that. I do notice that a lot of modern shooters do not understand the basics. Of course, I am not sure color is a good idea from an artistic point of view... I only gave b&w up when I became a pro shooter in the 70's and my clients all wanted color. A Speed Graphic, a half-dozen film holders, and a pocket full of flash bulbs, now that is real photography.</p>

<p>Ilia, being one of those stupidly self-analytical people, I have watched my dreams. Some are almost instantaneous. For instance, I have often gone through a long dream and awoke to realize that whatever triggered it, like a noise, was still going on. On other occassions, I have awoken several times from an ongoing dream to note that hours had passed. I have no idea if they ran the whole time or just picked up again as I became semi-awake. I, personally, do not think dreams have anything whatsoever to do with reality, just a story made up to account for random synaptic triggering.</p>

<p>An entry level fee for the creative work (shooting) would be around $100/hr, and $25/hr for the post production stuff. Those are figures that are not likely to be challenged either way not too high, not too cheap.</p>

<p>Rembrandt. Oops, not a photographer, but he was one of the first artists heavily into self-promotions. He made hundreds of self-portrait etchings that he had printed up and distributed durning his life. Reading about that kind of changed my attitude about self-portraits. Besides you are always availabble when you want to do some testing.</p>

 

<p>Pure experience speaking here, every old flashgun I have used has needed to be taken apart and all the contact surfaces cleaned. The are all 50+ years old. PS: I still shoot flashbulbs, and most of the bulb are almost as old as the flashguns, but they still work.</p>

<p>Bulb is supposed to click back out. It keeps the shutter open as long as the trip lever is held down (deadman switch). Time is a toggle on and off (push to open, push again to close). But also, the cable from the side release to the lens board probably needs to be disassembled, lubricated, and put back together. They get crudded up over the years.</p>

<p>I used the solenoid trip the shutter, and the shutter to fire the flash, although I do have the solenoid set so it can sync the flash as well.</p>

<p>You might be interested in the stuff about press cameras on my website (www.graywolfphoto.com/presscameras/).</p>

<p>A "staff photographer" would definitely be doing work for hire unless there is a contract that says otherwise. What the OP needs to do is talk to them and get things straight, so both he and they understand what is what, then get it in writing. As they say, a verbal agreement is worth about as much as the paper it is written on.</p>

<p>However, a written agreement superceeds the provisions of the copyright law, it says so right in the law. A clear written agreement also insures that no one later forgets what the deal was.</p>

<p>A shared copyright is only possible with a written agreement, but what the OP mentions is not a shared copyright, it is a limited license to use the images for self-promotion and really truely needs to be in writing or is meaningless and a direct path to the photographer's netherworld.</p>

<p>The Bible here in the US is "ASMP Professional Business Practices in Photography". ASMP is the American Society of Media Photographers (asmp.org). However, I think that things may be a bit different in the UK.</p>

<p>Wow!</p>

<p>Here you have and issue, which is more important to you, your buddy or the money? If it is your buddy, deal with him. If it is the money deal with a high power NYC intellectual property rights lawyer. You buddy is correct it is his problem in that it is going to come out of his pocket either way unless he had an agent sharp enough to get the indemnify clause taken out of his contract.</p>

<p>However, he has done you a favor, because if the book is a proven best seller, then then you are not going to have to settle for the usual rates, because those are rates where the publisher is gambling on the sales. BTW, if the author is you buddy, why did he try to steal your photos?</p>

<p>Buy a cheap digital multimeter first. Use it to check the voltage across the flash sync terminals with the ready light on, it will not fire the flash as the resistance is to high, If it is 12 volts or less you should not have a problem. If it is higher you might want to invest in that Safe-Sync.</p>

<p>Actually anything that is less than 20 years old probably has a save voltage, but to give you an idea: my Vivitar 283, just recently deceased do to a clumsy idiot (me) dropping it, had 250 volts, my Norman 200B's were 200 volts, my recently acquired used Norman P808 has 4.4 volts.</p>

<p>The basic way is to use a background light. I often see 3 stops over exposure recommended, I have found that to get proper separation from light hair I need 4 stops. Subject at f2.8 and background at f11, in other words. With just two lights that means you would have to use one of them as the background light. You can use a reflector for you fill light.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Seems like a lot of questions about business names lately. A couple of points to consider:</p>

<p>A lot of states, counties, etc. do not require a DBA (doing business as) or a CAN (certificate of assumed name) if you use your own name, That kind of cuts out some red tape.</p>

<p>If you are going to incorporate, or want to eventually sell the business and good will, then you do not want to use your own name. And, you are going to have to go through the red tape anyway.</p>

<p>It is a commercial job, charge your commercial rate.</p>

<p>As a commercial photographer, I sold a service not images. How I dealt with donations was to invoice for the full amount minus a cash donation. The IRS never challenged me on that donation.</p>

<p>You do have to be an actually professional photographer with an established rate, I would also be very careful about claiming you did not make a profit that year because you donated so much.</p>

<p>Something else you get by doing it that way, the charity sees what the work would have cost them without the donation. They tend to treat you a lot better when they realize the time you are donating is valuable.</p>

<p>However, I suggest you talk to your accountant about this before doing it, I have been out of business for quite awhile.</p>

<p>"They contacted me for the job. A friend of mine is working as a graphic designer for me and suggested me for the job. Pricing was not outlined at any point, I simply sent them an invoice when I sent the images. The invoice did include terms of use, one of which clearly stated that I would need to receive payment before they were allowed to be published."</p>

<p>Did you at least get the request to do the job in writing? If you can prove that they asked you to shoot the job, you most likely can force them to pay industry standard rates which may actually be more than you expected. Talk to an attorney, often the first consutation is free.<br>

If you are in business, it is best if you have standard business practices. That should include a proposal form, an agreement (contract) form, and an invoice form. You should also have decided what you are going to do in case of non-payment. You also have to know what your rates are going to be; you should know what you have to get to pay the overhead, and what you expect to get to make a decent profit; never work for less than the first, and only for a good reason for less than the second.<br>

It is amazing the number of people who open a photography business without having any idea how to run a business. If you work for an employer you do not need to know that. But if you are self-employed you do (and not just for photography). Of course if you are rich enough to hire an experienced business manager you can let them take care of all that.</p>

 

<p>It looks like there is little understanding of Small Claims Courts here. SCC is not really a court of law, it is more of a binding arbitration court. In most, if not all, states SCC are local courts in the town, city, or county not state courts at all. The only jurisdiction limits are location and amount. The defendant can demand a trial by jury, and the SCC judge has no choice but to remand the case to the county courts, at that point I would assume the jurisdiction issue would come into play.</p>

<p>By the way, winning in small claims court does not actually mean you will get your money, it just gives you the right to collect it. The whole thing requires a lot of follow through on the part of the plaintif which most of them do not do, so experienced cheats tend to just ignore the judgment.</p>

<p>The copyright/property right laws keep changing (There is a lot of lobbying going on), but one thing I figured out a long time ago is that if there is big money involved CYOA, in writing.</p>

<p>In most cases, if something is clearly identifiable in your photography your commercial buyer is going to require a property release on the same CYOA principle. In other words if you want to sell the image to a third party you are going to need a model/property release of some sort, if the property is uniquely identifiable, your neighbor's blue Ford, for example, is just a blue Ford if you blank out the license plate.</p>

<p>I, at one time, tried using ASMP forms. No one would sign them, they are just too legalistic looking, anyone who did not have an attorney look it over before signing would be a fool. Realizing that not being sued was the purpose of releases, I finally made up a simple form that folks would not be intimidated by, but would leave the impression in their minds that they had given their written permission which hopefully would leave them thinking they had no grounds to sue. On that point you have to realize that if someone takes you to court, or vice versa, you have already lost. Even if you win, you are going to be out of a lot of time that could have been spent earning money. Therefore, the idea is to keep out of court and out of the hands of the lawyers if at all possible.</p>

<p>In the case of the OP, if she and her friend had agreed to submit the photo together there would be no problem. At this point the OP has the option of ignoring the whole thing, and thus retaining their friendship; or notifying the contest sponsors that she holds the copyright to the photo, thus protecting said copyright, but she will most likely lose that friend and maybe several mutual friends. If you are trying to make a living off your photography that is a very hard decision to make.</p>

<p>Actually, to my way of thinking, this copyright stuff is really only important in the case of advertising or breaking news where an image may wind up being worth thousands to millions of dollars. Also, may I point out, that the "It's my photo and you can not use it unless you pay me' is exactly the same as "It's my dog and you can not use its photo unless you pay me". In these digital days I simply give the client "All non-exclusive rights, no publication without photographer credit" and retain the same for myself. In this day and age, retail customers almost never come back later and buy another print anyway.</p>

<p>I know that my perspective is different from most folk's, but I have come to it over more than 50 years of off and on full time freelancing. If I could go back and do it over, I would bite the bullet, borrow the money, and open a studio with a couple of full time employees, and an attorney and an accountant on retainer. Freelancing on a shoestring sucks :)</p>

<p>I would think that you could get by with one 400w/s strobe on an 8-10 foot stand with a 45" silver umbrella for what you are wanting to do there. I would use two strobes but I already have them.</p>

<p>With the big groups you will want the subjects to cluster up, one light would be difficult to light a line of 10 people evenly. However, if you have the guys in their tuxes stand behind the ladies in their gowns it makes it easier to deal with the contrast range of the bright gowns and black tuxes, and brings the group together so you can light them pretty well with the single light. Have your subject stand a few feet in front of the backdrop so your light does not throw a shadow on it. For this type of thing setting the light a couple feet to the side of the camera and about 45 degrees above the subject works well. That is simple lighting but it does the job.</p>

<p>One of the things that happens in cases like this is one thinks he needs a lot of equipment, that he does not yet know how to use. Understanding lighting is a lot easier if you start out simple and work up to the complicated stuff. For example: If you start with that one light, your next step would be to add a reflector. Then add a background light, then a fill light with a second umbrella, and finally add kickers like a hair-light. Those four lights will handle most normal portraiture. You want a short stand for the background light, and a boom stand for the hair-light.</p>

<p>For commercial/advertising work you may need more stuff, but by the time you understand how to use it you will know what you need. Mostly you would be adding spotlights, softboxes, and a lot of passive light modifiers.</p>

<p>Anyway, as I said, I would recommend just getting a 400w/w monolight for this shoot. By limiting your purchase to just the one light you can afford to buy a commercial grade strobe that will be a foundation to a future setup instead of something you will want to get rid of by the time you figure out how to use it. Unfortunately, I am not up on current systems, so cannot make direct brand recommendations.</p>