denniswms

<p>Since all the P67 lenses are usable on the 645D, and I own most of them, if I was going for digital MF that interchangeability would appeal to me. Zooms are a non issue.<br>

The reality is my client base is still more than satisfied by my relatively small 65MB scans from 67 originals so even the price drop still does not change the viability of investing in digital cameras.</p>

<p>I agree. Provide the images gratis. </p>

<p>So far every soap box I've seen attached to change.org has been from an extremist whack job - currently that a certain Hearst women's magazine is pornography. Something fun would be refreshing.</p>

<p>Is there a reason you have omitted what the family member's 15 minutes is based on?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I know for a fact they will be shown on a Canadian TV show alongside his phone interview<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p> Showing a home phone number on TV seems a bit unwise.</p>

<p>Good luck Liz. Illogical clients are such a treasure.</p>

<p>The mom should appreciate that you provide 60 images and give her both free choice and options on a readily accessible CD. My clients get neither. I make those decisions. The clients receive 2 or 3 images per look on a drive and their agency chooses from those. No contact sheets, no outtakes.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> The photographers who add value to their clients businesses and lives will continue to flourish as they have for decades. The hacks will fall back through the cracks where they were before digital encouraged anyone with a checkbook to become a photographer without bothering to learn technique or craft. <br>

<br>

</p>

<p>Flattering is subjective and your goal. Should it not be up to the viewer to decide if the images are flattering ?</p>

<p>If you feel the need to categorize - and not having seen the work- I'd probably use 'styled portraits'.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm missing something here. The model reviews the images on her computer. She delivers a copy to her booker. The booker will review the shots on her computer and decide which are to be printed and how they are to be cropped- if it is not done in house. You have been paid and yet are they working with low res files.</p>

<p>I do not see how having contact sheet will help unless she does not have a device to view the digital files. When she opens the disc each image will have a name next to it so how will also having it printed out make it any clearer? She can load a digital contact sheet on her phone. It is not like she'll be happy with all 60 images printed on one page. Ten 8x10s is a lot of ink and why should you be responsible for a set of wallet size photos unless she wants to pay another hundred dollars. </p>

<p>Never let clients decide anything off of actual contact sheets. Images that look perfect at small printed sizes may look like trash blown up to portfolio sizes and you will be held accountable.</p>

<p>Hi Jolie</p>

<p>It makes a difference to the people it makes a difference to. It will make a difference to you only if it cuts into bookings or prevents you from getting the shot you want or need to get.</p>

<p>As for my personal experience with client's perceptions- for the better part of a decade new clients have had online access to a sizable portfolio of my work. I clearly state the brand/ format of cameras and the regimen that I follow to create all my images. Anyone calling for a consultation knows exactly what they're getting before they pick up the phone. No one has ever asked if different equipment is an option. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do you think it's possible to have a successful business without a full frame camera?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure, but as someone who works with 56mm x 67mm originals out of a 67, there are two directions to go from full frame<em>.</em><br>

:)</p>

<p>Now that I have been informed my current equipment is beyond obsolete I can continue to go about my business. </p>

<p>I would ask for 100$ and an all access pass to athletic events.</p>

<p>While it may be the publisher's responsibility to have releases on file, I have never yet met a publisher who was willing to pay for images that did not come with releases if releases would be needed.</p>

<p>University uses images shot by an employee on University property of University students I would suspect releases will not be an issue. But not a contract lawyer. I have shot on behalf of University sports teams in the U. S. creating promotional materials and there were never releases obtained before the images were published. Same goes for a group shot used on the cover of Shipmate magazine at the US Navel Academy. </p>

<p>Obviously I do not know how it may or may not apply to enthusiasts but in my circle the term <em>burn film</em> was coined and applicable when one takes into account the photographer is being paid 5 or 6 figures a day, the models 4 or 5 figures and then there are all the rest of the paychecks to account for in arriving at a given location with x amount of time- shooting film and shooting every conceivable frame that may contribute to the collection of images, or shooting alternate angles and crops, makes perfect sense. It is the least expensive element in the production and though I regularly shoot the frame that is used right off I frequently continue none the less for some coverage and because I won't be back.</p>

<p>I regularly read comments stating "my 1st digital camera came and I never shot a roll of film again"... and think how lucky for that photographer's clients that there was no learning curve with the new equipment and the quality they had come to expect and depend on was equaled or exceeded first day out with the digital equipment. I can not conceive of switching from 67 fully manual film to 3:2 digital overnight. Framing alone would require significant adjustments. I would expect the transition to take months.</p>

<p>The fact that the client is angry because he did not discuss a timeline with the musician is not your problem unless you let it be.</p>

<p>The fact that the musician you photographed on behalf of said client will not sign off on usage of those photographs before seeing them and is due to leave town is not your problem unless you let it be.</p>

<p>The obsession over contracts is laughable considering that a carefully worded piece of paper only protects you from being sued for breaking a contract. Whoop-de-do. It has zero practical effect on the scenario at hand. Reminding your client that Saturday AM that <em>the contract</em> states a turnaround of 5 days would not have gotten you paid, another job or positive word of mouth. The client does not care and would have gone ballistic. His problem is the musician and the musician does not give a wit what your contract might say. The musician would still have pulled the prima donna act and your client would still have been angry and letting loose on you since he can't afford to let loose on the musician and you are dispensable. Welcome to the real world. </p>

<p>You had two choices. You chose to accede to your client's emotional irrational outburst and do what he wanted. </p>

<p>This far in advance I would walk without a second thought. Someone is not telling someone something and life is too short.</p>

<p><em>That an hour drive makes any one even blink amuses me no end.</em></p>

<p>I rarely attend events unless I am working and when I do I do not take a camera. While emotionally I may want to be shooting, experience shows without control and complete access I am never satisfied with the images created when compared to work product. Plus, I don't shoot strangers.</p>

<p>Photos which are not going to be used professionally or at the very least be included on the web site perform no service. I am sure if I had been shooting for only a few years or was not accustomed to free range wandering at events I might draw different conclusions. A candid shot of one more swimmer or volleyball player holds no allure for me especially since the quality of people I already have access to is top shelf.</p>

<p>There are so many athletic events year round featuring each of these sports that anyone interested in shooting show jumping or rapids etc. can certainly fill their desires outside of the Olympic spotlight. Many sports that receive zero attention over the intervening four years would be thrilled to receive the attention.</p>

<p>As for some empty venues that is disappointing, I have never checked on pricing but money is tight all over. There could have been a contingency plan for bringing people in to fill the seats. Conversely, the natatorium was jam packed and I would not sit in the stands for gymnastics either. </p>

<p>This shot is useless. Poorly framed, styled and his eyes don't match. And where is the other hand? Burn it.<br>

Kids work tends to be commercial print. The logical and most efficient course of action is for the model (parents/ guardian) to contact the local agencies (or agencies in the market they expect to work in) and find out what form those bookers prefer submissions to take.<br>

The most likely responses are either straightforward neutral background head and shoulder, front & profile, 3/4 and full length- or due to the commercial aspect, a half dozen images including a smiling headshot and several fully styled activity shots.<br>

Based on this image you should not be charging her.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I use iWeb and upload to my own domain (11 a year) hosted (50 a year) by GoDaddy. I control everything from my own desk top and am quite satisfied.</p>

<p> I was recently at an Apple store and we accessed my site on a variety of devices- iPads, iMacs , the new retina MBP- and I was very pleased the colors were close if not spot on on the computers (which of course are adjustable) and the iPad which was terrific in its fixed native form. </p>

<p>I have three identical bodies (one is the backup) and most of the available lenses with duplicate 90 and 135 so that I can run identical rigs simultaneously with color trans in one and B&W neg in the other. I haven't bought anything in years.</p>

<p>I use several <strong>67</strong> bodies and many of the lenses. The 135 macros get the most work. I'd say the 90 mm SMC 2.8 is most comparable with the 80mm CF. The 165 LS is handy if you like flash.<br>

My entire work output for over two decades. All handheld.<br>

Enjoy.</p>

<p>For whatever reason I am not allowed to refer you to the best research archives for this camera and the lenses. If you google "pentax 67" they both come up. One provides a complete and extensive run down on the bodies over the years and one has an excellent chart on all the various versions of all the lenses. </p>

<p>Sorry I cannot be more specific but I keep getting blocked even when just typing the names as opposed to dropping in actual links.</p>

 

<p>Just curious, you don't have a web site listed, have you ascertained where the Spanish site got your image in a usable form? </p>

<p>You refer to it as one of your most popular images. Popular where? If it is being sold through a stock company they may go to bat on your behalf. If it is being sold as posters in gift shops being associated with the Spanish web site would need to have a large international footprint to impact US sales but I am guessing that would also depend on what the photo is and what the web site is.</p>

<p>Good luck with this.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>My question was...<strong >have you ever had a client asking for the copyright of "their" pictures?</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>if I will not be able to used them for self promotion, what is the use of retaining the copyright?</p>

</blockquote><p>

I haven't the foggiest. Then again I believe the near obsession folks display over copyrights for family work- along with many other types of jobs for that matter- to be laughable. As far as self promotion is concerned, how many baby pictures does it take to prove you can take a baby picture? Take your days pay and move on. Oh, and the idea of doubling your fee is probably ill-advised unless you are dealing with stupid clients or you don't want to work.</p>

<p>Since every job I've shot for a quarter century was manually focused and all my bodies are manual focus- all manual for that matter- and it's all handheld - it is very safe to say I'm OK with manual focus for everything under every condition. Since I often experience little change in exposure over a couple hours of shooting during a morning or afternoon the focus becomes the most important variable and the most often in play. I hit 99% out of a 70 frame shoot. Handing over the responsibility for that to a machine has yet to hold any appeal to me. I love my scanners though!</p>

 

<p>Not to change the subject but do you want to be attached to images that were 'recut' ? When your images generate work for the models you shoot you've done your job and word will get around. No one will recut your images because the cache of having shot with you will mean something. While you are still practicing it just does not matter- and you may be better off in this day and age to be anonymous. Between flick'r, blogspot, tumblr and FB you have given up control to the hoards the moment you deliver a file. The contracts aren't worth the paper they are written on. If they had money...</p>

<p>Once you're at the point where you are charging before you pick up the camera and your images are making clients money they will leave your images alone. And if they don't charge more.</p>

<p>Lastly - unless this girl is signing with FORD or CLICK next week and your images will be in her book, you don't want to be attached to these images. You got some experience, move on to the next girl. When the people you shoot book national campaigns with your images in their portfolios the junk you shot early on just sits in a drawer and you will not care. Or you'll be mildly horrified. lol. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'd leave the gear at home. Go and enjoy the moment.</p>

<p>A representative from a production company with a <em>cute</em> name like BAD ROBOT, FUZZY DOOR, BARWOOD, SCOTT FREE, WINGNUT, A BAND APART, MIRAMAX, RELATIVITY, SYNCOPY, LITTLE BEAR, ROGUE, BOY OF THE YEAR, PLAN B, LIGHTSTORM... to name a few, all merit an immediate call back from me.</p>

<p>I would charge them for what you would have charged to go out and shoot the athlete for two hours. No variable use fees just a flat rate buy out. <br>

I am curious (but not asking) under what circumstances the images were created to begin with, theorizing the images are useless to you without a model release and with zero shelf life, so it qualifies as found money.</p>

<p>Good grief take it out. In at least one camera - mine- rotating the take up spool in reverse damages the mechanism.</p>