Jump to content

joel_b.1

PhotoNet Pro
  • Posts

    146
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thank you. Will indeed be putting a softbox on there. Need to get another couple sandbags if only for peace of mind. Thanks again.
  2. I have watched so many YouTube videos but I'm still nervous about booming my strobe on my new C-stand. Does this look right? Thank you.
  3. <p>See https://maisondesprit.com/series/new_york_times_magazine. I know what Ektachrome is, but what's a "transfer print" in this context? </p> <p> </p>
  4. <p>For travel snaps, I take a D7100 w/ the 35mm 1.8 DX. I used to tote the D800e + 35mm 1.4 -- I'm glad I got over that. Unless you're printing BIG or trying to sell your travel images I don't see why a crop won't do for travel snaps.</p> <p>BTW I have TWICE purchased a Fuji X100/s on the theory that it would be better for travel, and I have TWICE sold the fiddly little things. I know many people love them, but I just can't give up the responsiveness of a DSLR. I hope I've finally learned my lesson! </p>
  5. <p>I'm a writer and professor and I make my living that way. I also take photographs and I particularly love making portraits. My work brings me into contact with a lot of writers and artists. Sometimes people say, "Hey, could you take an author photo for me that I can use on my book jacket/website/Facebook?" Other times, I'm the initiator -- I say, "Hey, can I make your portrait?", and then after I make the picture, people say, "Hey, that's great, can I have a copy of that to use for my book jacket/website/Facebook page?"</p> <p>I don't necessarily need to make money doing this, but my dear spouse points out that I have spent a lot of money on equipment and a lot of time on education, and I probably should be charging what I'm worth. Also, I am aware that if I am giving images away for free, that may be somewhere cutting into the livelihood of the professional the subject might otherwise have hired. Also, I think having a set fee will discourage people who ask for an author photo casually without really thinking about the work that it entails for me. If I can say, "Sure, I'd be glad to, I charge X for Y service," that will cut down on the number of people looking to occupy my Saturday afternoon just for the hell of it. </p> <p>So -- strange as it sounds to put it this way -- I'm resigned to the fact that I really should be charging people. But this conclusion generates more questions, which is why I've come to you today. </p> <p>1. What's a reasonable rate to ask for spending an hour with someone and providing him/her with 5-7 edited full-size jpgs with a royalty-free unlimited use license? Figuring in my two hours of setup and two hours of editing on either side of that one hour shoot. </p> <p>2. Am I crazy to sell the images with a royalty-free unlimited use license? I'm thinking of going that way -- rather than licensing for particular uses -- because it creates the least amount of hassle for me. Also, I've done many shoots now for friends and family where I put the images up on my Zenfolio site and told the subjects, you can download small jpgs for free, but if you want prints, please buy them through my site. Guess what happens. That's right -- everyone downloads the little jpgs and no one buys prints. Are they making crap prints at CVS with the little jpgs? I have no idea; if they are, that's even worse. I'm thinking maybe it's least painful to just sell them the digital hi-rez jpgs and let them do whatever they want with them -- print, social media, whatever. </p> <p>3. Where can I find a simple boilerplate contract to sign with the person? </p> <p>Thanks in advance for your counsel. </p> <p>Joel<br> </p>
  6. <p>Thanks, Howard and Doug. I don't have anything like "transparency" selected, and there's nothing blocking the calibration gap. I found a solution in that if I tick the "Color Restoration" box, then I get appropriate-looking scans. I don't remember having had to tick that box in the past, but like I said, it's been some time since I used this scanner. Anyway, still kind of mysterious, but the problem is solved. Thanks again.</p>
  7. <p>Sorry, I feel like this answer must be obvious but I'm not sure what it is. I'm scanning color negative 120 with Epson V600 using the Epson Scan software that came with the scanner. I've done this before and scans came out fine, but I haven't done this for a long time, and today the scans are all coming up blue and washed out. I must have changed some setting somewhere but I can't find what I'm doing wrong. If anyone can point me in the right direction I'd be grateful. </p> <p>http://www.photo.net/photo/17975633</p>
  8. <p>The 1.8 is fantastic. Don't look back. Shun helped me buy mine from his local shop! I've been over the moon about it ever since. </p>
  9. <p>We live in an era of radically expanded possibilities, where any weekend dabbler has on his desktop the tools to make any exposure, film or DNG, take on a thousand different looks just by clicking. What's disappearing isn't the "film look" -- as many here have said, that's kind of a meaningless term -- but rather certain qualities of attention which the production of prints required in the pre-digital era. Working with a DSLR and good Photoshop skills, you could certainly match the look of a W. Eugene Smith photo, but you'd be missing out on <a href="http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2013/11/20/in-the-darkroom-with-w-eugene-smith/">the process</a> of attention and experimentation he undertook in the darkroom, so you'd be unlikely to make the same kinds of discoveries, or achieve the same kinds of results. In short, perhaps it's not the "film look" that's disappearing, but rather something like the "film mind."</p>
  10. <p>Thanks everyone. I got the lens on fleabay for $31 -- mostly I just wanted to test out this focal length, which I've never used, and I figured this was a pretty inexpensive way to try it. Thanks again.</p>
  11. <p>I've tried to find this information via Google, I promise, but I got confused trying to get a clear answer. I'm looking at a "Nikkor-Q 135mm f2.8 Camera Lens Ai'd Mount Nikon Ai Factory Converted" on Fleabay but I want to be sure: will this work on a contemporary DSLR (D800)? Thanks for your help. </p>
  12. <p>I took the plunge and bought a pano kit, took care to dial in no-parallax points for my lens, and went out and shot a three-row pano, 14 across, total of 42 images. Pulled the NEFs into LR4, applied lens correction, then outputted the DNGs as small JPGs to play with in PS5 to determine the best stitching method.</p> <p>Incredibly diverse results, as you can see:<br> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1m6nbq12raa4r68/AAB0XVN7Mj40cm0Raftri2lKa?dl=0</p> <p>I thought that shooting with the nodal slide and eliminating parallax would make stitching a cinch, but the "auto," "collage," and "reposition" settings in PS5 are all totally distorted. The "perspective" stitch option is by far the best in the center, but gets way out of whack at the edges. </p> <p>How do you decide for each individual pano which PS5 stitching option is going to work best? Is "perspective" working best here because I'm relatively close to the subject? </p> <p>Glad for any thoughts or advice you have to offer. My hope was that I could use the pano kit and fast tele primes (here the 85 1.8) to mimic MF DOF through Brenizer type pano technique.</p>
×
×
  • Create New...