joel_b.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.

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. 

<p>Thanks for the responses, everyone.</p>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

 

<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>

<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>

<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>

<p>Many thanks. </p>

<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>

<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>

<p>It never fails -- come to these forums to ask a question, and find it already asked and thoroughly answered. </p>

<p>For the record, in case any future visitors would like to see it, this is the official description from Nikon regarding the new firmware's updates to the camera's behavior in AF-S mode:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li>When AF-ON only was selected for Custom Setting a4 (AF activation) and the AF-ON button was pressed to initiate autofocus during viewfinder photography, focus remained locked even after the user took their finger off the button, and the shutter could be released at any time. However, specifications have been modified so that the shutter cannot be released under the following conditions if the camera fails to focus.</li>

<li></li>

<ul>

<li>Autofocus mode is set to AF-S (single-servo AF)</li>

<li>AF-area mode is set to Single-point AF</li>

<li>Custom Setting a2 (AF-S priority selection) is set to Focus</li>

</ul>

</ul>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I am in AF-C 99% of the time, so this change doesn't affect me much. I was curious, though, about what problem this revision was intended to solve when in AF-S, and the robust discussion here has proved very illuminating. My thanks to all.</p>

<p>Uh oh, I'm afraid I'm about to be ashamed of myself for not having read past page 2 of my manual . . . </p>

<p>Well I'll think about it, Brian -- heaven (and Amex) knows I do love to spend money on gear -- but I my Sekonic L608 is pretty cute (it's red!) and has served me pretty well . . . Plus, I aspire to one day completely internalize Fred Parker's Ultimate Exposure Computer and just meter with my eyeballs . . . </p>

<p>My thanks to Sheldon and Craig for your helpful comments.</p>

<p>Sheldon, you're right that I don't need to plug the Sekonic into the transmitter, and right too to remind me to keep the ambient / flash ratios in mind. I use flash only as subtle fill and my goal is that its effects are "invisible," so to speak. My Sekonic (L608) doesn't have a "% figure" on it, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. </p>

<p>Craig, no, my Sekonic is more basic and doesn't have the PocketWizard module, and I don't think I'm moving to PW any time soon, since these cheapo Phottix triggers have been super consistent for me. Thanks for your input about using the DSLR to meter; it's very helpful. </p>

<p>Thanks again, everyone. I'm off to experiment. It's good to know I'm roughly on the right track. Cheers, Joel</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I understand the virtues of the sync cord, David -- for one thing, no batteries to fail! -- but I also really like the freedom of the wireless triggers. </p>

<p>I was thinking about another tactic -- what if instead of using the light meter, I used a DSLR to do my metering for me? I could put the radio trigger on the DSLR and shoot a frame, check the exposure and histogram, adjust the flash if necessary, repeat, and then once I'm happy with the exposure, I put the radio trigger on the Hasselblad and make the "real" picture. </p>

<p>This seems simpler than my current process, and has the added virtue of giving me an immediate rough preview of what the film negative will look like, sort of like folks used to do (and I suppose some still do) with polaroid backs. Might give it a try! Thoughts? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks for your response, Brian. I take you to mean that I'm not doing anything stupid, and just need more practice to make the process more fluid. </p>

<p>My process for using speedlights with the 501cm is cumbersome and I wonder if you have suggestions for how I might improve my process.</p>

<p>Once on location, I set up a Nikon SB910 with its hotshoe in a Phottix Stratos radio receiver, on a lightstand behind an umbrella. Then I set up my Hasselblad on a tripod with a 80mm CFE lens. </p>

<p>Next I take the Phottix transmitter and plug it into the port on a Sekonic L-608S meter. </p>

<p>I set the speedlight to manual and make a ballpark guess about how much power I will need. Then I ensure that I have the ISO on the Sekonic set to match my film speed. Then I activate the flash metering mode on the Sekonic, hold it in place in front of the subject, and use the Phottix transmitter to pop the flash. </p>

<p>I consult the results on the Sekonic. If it's above or below my desired exposure, I go back to the speedlight and dial it up or down as appropriate, then repeat the metering to see if I've got it right. </p>

<p>Once I'm satisfied that the speedlight is providing appropriate output for my desired aperture and shutter settings, I disconnect the transmitter from the Sekonic, and attach it to the jack on the Hasselblad lens, using the hotshoe on top of my camera's PME5 prism finder to hold the transmitter. </p>

<p>Then it's time to set my desired aperture and shutter speed, focus, and shoot. </p>

<p>This whole dance can take some time, and I wonder if there are more efficient processes I should be using. Maybe I just need more practice. </p>

<p>I only very recently got the SB910 and before that was using a fully-manual Yongnuo. I am very pleased using the SB910 for TTL on my digital camera, but of course must use it in manual mode when using the Hasselblad. I offer this point of information lest you think me foolish for buying an expensive TTL flash and then only using it in manual mode. Actually, to tell the truth, the Yongnuo was a lot easier to use for film than the SB910, with all its complicated menus and buttons.</p>

<p>Anyway, as always for any suggestions you may have!</p>

 

<p>Thank you, Dan. In fact I've sent a version of the message above to RRS and I'm looking forward to hearing back from them, but I'd be glad to have input from users as well. Thank you again for the suggestion. </p>

<p>Hello, I am an aspiring portrait photographer. I'm interested in experimenting with some multirow shallow DOF portraiture panoramas in the manner popularized by Ryan Brenizer. For this I would use a D800 w/ 85mm or 70-200mm 2.8 or maybe someday a 200mm prime.</p>

<p>I know Brenizer does these freehand without a tripod, but he's a wedding photographer in a hurry. I like to work more deliberately, and I also want minimal trouble stitching the frames together in pp, so I am thinking I'd like to try a tripod attachment that will allow me to take consistently accurate (i.e., parallax-free) 12-36 frame multirow panos of portraiture subjects.</p>

<p>Researching the world of pano gear has me a bit bewildered. I am focussing on Really Right Stuff equipment as a way of narrowing the field. Can anyone tell me the functional differences between the RRS Ultimate Pro Omni Pivot Package and the PG02 Pro Omni Pivot Package? Further, must I use a leveling base? If so, do I use it instead of the ballhead or on top of it?</p>

<p>I have spent a good deal of time reading discussion boards and the RRS FAQs but I keep coming up with different answers. So I thought perhaps I'd ask you for your advice regarding my specific needs.</p>

<p>What I'd like, to reiterate, is an apparatus atop my tripod which would allow me to shoot 12-36 frame multirow panoramas of portrait subjects, quickly, while maintaining a constant entrance pupil distance so as to eliminate parallax errors during stitching.</p>

<p>Thank you very much for your kind attention; I am grateful for any counsel you can offer.</p>

<p>Thanks again. I think I've decided to go ahead with the 34L and B55. </p>

<p>Next I'll be posting pano head questions!</p>

<p>Whew, six inches in diameter? That's large indeed.</p>

<p>I thought I knew what I wanted to do but the more I think about it the more I think I'm headed for some serious overkill. I need a tripod and head I can set my Hasselblad on for portraiture and landscapes. I don't need it to be super tiny because I'm not a hiker, but I'd rather it not be enormous, either. I've for years been using a plain ol' Manfrotto 055XPROB with a 498RC2 and I haven't been unhappy, but that head is hardly rock solid and I know I'd appreciate the greater precision and robustness of a nicer head especially. I'm prepared, per Thom Hogan's advice, to spend once on something good rather than move up by increments, but it's hard to know what will work best, especially when one has only the internet and no way to try things out in person. </p>

<p>Anyway, an overly familiar story to us all, sorry to be dull. Thanks for your input. </p>