tonybynum

Kevin, I mention stock photography and upgrading since in order to stay on top you need to take

advantage of every tool available to you. LR upgrade is simple and cheep particularly if you already use

it. The list of why's is very long. I cant image still trying to run my business with an older version. . . the

mapping alone is worth the upgrade, ever mind the soft proofing and the improvements to the

development mode. Google lightroom queen what's new with lr 4 and see her lists . . . On the down

side, if youre still using xp you'll have to upgrade, if your a mac user I think youre okay as long as you

keep that up to date as well . . . It's not a must but if your plan is to stay in business, why wait? It's the cheapest form of efficiency I've ever paid paid money for . . .

I think you can keyword in LR in such a manner that when you export you can tag or ID certain keywords

so they get stripped on export. In other words, you dont want to key word photos with thing you do not

want other people to see or read . . . I'm pretty sure there's a way to add those key words and tell LR to

NOT export them. The problem is I cant remember how to do it. It is possible so I'd look more into it

before you go tagging you photos with things like "regected by corbis." One more thing, update to LR 4.1. If youre in the game of stock shooting, you should really upgrade, it's not expensive . . .

Cheers . . .

Harold, why not add something to what is otherwise a useful discussion? If you are as prophetic as you

claim, why not join the discussion and tell us more about how the thoughts from an expert landscape

photographer?

care to help educate us Harold? Particularly with regard to hyperfocal and shorter focal lengths than the

12mm's that's already been mentioned. . . Looking forward to your thoughts . ..

Hm, @william, what's the "monumental challenge?" We're not sure if education, awareness or

experience would have changed the outcome of that situation. I'm not sure how many grizzly bears

you've been around but it's kinda like this. . . Remember when you were young, and you did a few

things that later you look back on and say, "wow, I was lucky to have made it through that experience?"

If you've spent much time with grizzly bears, and your photograph them regularly, and you want

photographs that show the bear up close you're going to be in a situation that's not altogether safe -

even with the longest and best lenses, and the best plans. Look at all the people that crowd around

coastal bears eating salmon, if you were following those rules - the one's you have to follow even when

youre on a bear photography workshop, in denali you'd be out of compliance and there are seldom

deaths. Just the other day some guy from eagle river was hiking and was mauled, he did not even

have a camera. What should we do, legislate no hiking in grizzly country? That does not mean its okay

to get closer - just because some people do it - it simply means that sometimes "$%& happens." I

believe I understand bear habits pretty well having live among them for many years. I dont know if

anyone is ever an expert no matter how much experience they have, as you've rightly pointed out, they

are wild and at times as much as we know, and as much experience as we have, they do

unpredictable things. . . I've experienced it myself and I've been lucky more than once. Even in "safe"

situations. As far as I can tell, this may have been the case here. No need to change anything, it is

what it is . . . continue to educate and inform, accidents happen. The ONLY way to stay 100% secure

is to stay home . . . Heck you might die stepping off the curb. . . What i wonder is if he had bear spray

and if he did, if he used it. . . If not, did he have time? What was he doing at the time? As was

pointed out, there's no evidence, based on the photographs, of aggressive, defensive, or offensive behavior from the bear. . . We dont know what happened, we do know that wild animals are wild and

sometimes they do unpredictable things. . . You said it yourself, they are wild. Wild means wild. . .

Are you thinking we need now to ban bear photography at McNeil River or Brooks falls? The truth is

I'm surprised there are not more incidents at those places, it's just a matter of time . . .

Of course the more help you can get the better, as you cant shoot and talk to potential clients at the same

time. That said, I'm curious what you're doing? Are you planning to sell the photographs to the parents?

Are you a small business, or just taking photos for fun? I'm also curious what agreement you have with the

school. Are you insured? (You dont have to answer all those questions, i mostly am pointing out things you should think about or consider). I would make sure you've gone though all the proper channels with the school,

the school district and the sports program. I'm on our local school board, I'm also a full time professional

photographer. I would expect some minimum qualifications if you are doing this as a business venture. If

you dont have any credentials and experience, I might not be as willing to allow you to be on the field. If,

on the other hand you are planning to shoot from the public access areas, you'd have fewer issues.

Finally, some schools these days have taken a hard look at this issue and have come up with some

logical and well reasoned rules. . . In some smaller, rural areas, it's much less of an issue.

Fantastic results from a great discussion. This is what this site should be about! Thank you guys for

your efforts! Comments: I cant disagree with either Mitchel or Carron on this subject. I will however

point out that neither of them has addressed the other elements that remain facts about slower vs

faster. . . I will agree that @ f8 most manufacture (not third party) lenses these days will produce

similar results in the normal to slightly wide range. It's when you get the extremes and the limits of the

equipment - the areas where i find my best work produced - that things change. Back to the other

important aspects . . . color rendition, coatings, light fall off, aberrations, both color and spherical,

build quality, diaphragm blades, flair, diffraction and ghosting (some of these things can be managed

better today with software than in the past, but i'm a photographer not a computer geek. All of these

things matter and are apparent in many cases when you compare the slower with the faster . . .

Canon as done a remarkable job with their f4 line, no doubt about it. I also often use an f4 24-120

nikon as a "walk around" landscape/wildlife lens because of it's size and it's quality. It's a tool that fits

my needs and works well for what I'm using it for. Quick access to a quality lens that has a nice zoom

range. I'm never disappointed with it. But even when i compare it to a fixed or the 12-24, or other "fast

glass" there are big differences.

One last thing, back to the normal range. At 50mm or there-bouts, there's little to worry about, you'll

get great results with about any modern manufacturers lens. . . go either longer or shorter and shoot at

the more extremes of the focal range or aperture and you will see a significant difference between

slow and fast. . . and i would not put the constant f4 lenses in the same class and any of the consumer

grade variable aperture lenses . . . They are marvelous and i would own them if i were a canon user!

If by fast youre really talking about 1.2, 1.4, then i'd suggest you not spend the thousands of $ on those

lenses to get the quality at the wide open end that they are known for if you're planning just to shoot landscapes . . .

oops i put the wrong information down about where to find the article about what we should or should not

do about the unfortunate situation in denali. If anyone cares to read it it's on another blog i have on my

site tony bynum .com /blog

I photograph grizzly bears about 15 days a year. I can say that no matter how much you know (and it

helps to know and have a lot of experience around them) when youre time is up, it's up. . . They are wild

and they do not all behave the same no matter how much you know about them, there is risk. That part

that sucks is that in almost 100 years no one has been killed let alone eaten and now with our regulatory

hungry government things may change for the worse. The National Park System is always closing more

and more of our back country - talk about fixing stupid. I wonder if the man had bear spray if it was deployed? I wrote about this issue recently on one of my blogs . . . glacier park photographer dot com .

. .

It sounds like knowing more about the output would be helpful. . . I will put any one of you up to a

challenge with your "slower" glass, against the faster glass . . . There is not one consumer, slower

lens readily available today that can outperform the faster primes in the same focal range. You shoot

the slower lenses, I'll shoot the faster ones, in the same focal length (max aperture) same subject

same cameras and there is no question it will be easy to spot the differences . . . It wont even be

difficult.

The point is you get what you pay for and when you sit down and actually do real life comparisons

between slower - middle to lower priced lenses, vs the higher prices faster ones, it's rather remarkable

their differences, as good as things have gotten these days. . .

Now, the truth is, you only have to be as good as you have to be. That's not a judgement, it's a fact. If

youre producing small to medium prints for your house, you might be able to get by with the slower mid

range lenses and if you improve you skills and use a tripod you'll get great results. If your producing covers or

advertising images for the nations top agencies or publishers, you will need to leave the slower lenses

in the bag.

Everyone will cite examples of "I know this guy who," and "I saw . . . I've done, I've read . . . " and so

on, that people do x y and z with slow lenses, it's true. However, as a rule, most professional use the

larger faster glass because they have too, including myself. . . Trust me, if i could get away with even 5

lbs less gear I would! And as for saving money, I'm all about that. But the truth is, we dont buy

expensive equipment just to drain the bank account and lug junk around. . .

So, the challenge is on. I live in glacier national park, head on up and we'll give it a run! photo.net

mods or admin can judge if anyone would have a question after we bring the shots up on my computer

in my office.

Not saying you cant get similar results, I'm saying the faster primes are obviously better at the

extremes and therefore it is reasonable to say that they are better lenses. . . Finally, if you dont need

the best, you dont need the best, that's great! Save your money and take yourself on a photography

safari or a vacation and capture more photos . . . in fact more practice might be more important that

better glass anyhow! Cheers . . .

BTW, for this challenge we'll look at the following from field photos:

sharpness, distortion, color, light fall off, and flair . . . or add your own we could do more . . .

true enough, but anyone buying that camera for the right reasons is not primarily using it to print postage

stamps . . . Lets not get this into the weeds of printer quality, drivers, color calibration, profiles and so on, it's about the lens . . .

BTW, Popular Photography Magazine use to publish great test charts of various lenses thought the

range and in most cases, the middle aperture ranges compared well when printed at 8x10 and 11x14.

Again, it's all about the extremes and when you get to the edges of the limits of the lens, you cant beat

the "fast glass," over the slower glass. . . Again i assume we are talking about 35 mm dslr or the like,

and not other formats . . .

There's more to "fast glass" than speed. . . Generally, with wider lens's for landscapes, if we are

talking about dslr photography, with "fast glass" youre also buying, quality in the raw products, but

more importantly you're buying better coatings, better vignetting control, better build, better color,

better (less distortion), better aperture blades, etc. On the other hand if youre shooting a nikon or

cannon etc., a 24-70 2.8 (faster glass, not supper fast, but on the pro end of things) youre going to be

okay with a consumer grade of the same producer if you shoot it at f8 or f11 in the normal to beyond

normal - past 50mm range, as compared to the "faster glass." So more directly to your question,

using the lenses at their extremes say wide open, or stopped down, or at the ends of the range of the

lens (excluding fixed lenses of course) you will see a significant difference between the "slower,

consumer lenses" than you will see with the "fast glass." You get what you pay for with this issue. One

more thing, if you have a higher end dslr, meaning lager sensor, say for example the d800, you wont

be able to fully appreciate the quality of the sensor in your final product (meaning you wont get the full capacity of the quality of the sensor) unless you use the best

optics available. I hope this helps . . .

@ don, i would NEVER make those assumptions . .. I would however, based on the how the question

was asked, assume the photographer has a photo that the university wants or needs and that since

nothing was said about the relationship between the photographer and the university, the likelihood was

that it was a shot the university did not already own . . . I just dont like the idea, from a business

perspective, of putting them in the position to find another photo because there's not release. In this

case, i think the university will have the permission necessary to publish the photo in whatever way it

wants. As the story unfolded, it become clear that she was not a freelancer but instead a staffer . . . Why

the college would be asking a staffer how much they would sell the rights to a photo that they already own

is beyond me . . . (again, the reason for the contract comment - we still dont know what agreements they

had defining their relationship,) in any event, I think the poster has a good sense of what to do and everyone knows that it's best to get model releases if possible . . . cheers!

"So I think the model release discussion is a huge diversion in the context of the question as asked,"

along with the other assumptions you made, were not clear when the question was asked . . . While ©

should not have become the focus, the person asking the question did not give enough information about

the situation . . I opened up the release question, or should I say brought it up, because it was unclear of

any contract obligations . . . So, please go back and re read the question if you have any doubts . . .

jeff, is technically correct . . . however, if you are building your business, dont leave it to chance, get a

release. From a business standpoint it will make your life easier and give you more options in the long

run if you have a release! Back to this subject and the post. If youre shooting for the school, you'll likely

not have to muddle though the release issue . . . if you ever want to sell stock, or sell your own images,

and you dont have a release, you may as well not have the photograph . . .

if she was shooting for the university a release may not be an issue. As other's have said, and I

completely agree, I'v never ever sent a photo to a publisher and told them to get their own release. The

truth is, if you shot it and are not for hire, you better have the release if you ever want to use the photos.

Editorial is different, this is not an editorial discussion. Moreover, if the school really does own the photo,

and it was shot by a contract or employee, more thank likely the subjects are have already given their

permission for the school to publish the photo for promotional purposes (again this is contract issue

between the photographer and the university) . . . I too am not a lawyer, but i do know that when i'm

shooting for hire, i'm not chasing down releases and i also know that if im free lancing and i plan to try to

sell the photo for non editorial purposes i better have a release. Even if it's going to be for editorial i try

to obtain a release just to cover myself . . . cheers . . . BTW, this is a business issue, business is about making money, if you dont have a release at the time you shot it, it's very hard to go back and get one later. I'm talking about making money with your photos, not just throwing them out there for free . . . A release gives you more options, period . . . if you were for hire or an employee this may not even matter . . .

@ bob unless we are missing some information, he was not shooting for hire, he owns the photos and

therefor releases are his responsibility . . . as per canada, yes, laws are different canada generally has

more protective rules . . Nontheless, if this is a personal photograph, not a paid photographer shoot, it is

up to the photographer to obtain releases . . .

How much does it cost to run your business, what lifestyle do you want to live? Charge as much as

possible without charging more than youre worth. . .

okay, so it is, and so it is also the place to put the post. I was mainly trying to focus the thinking on the

issue and not the bigger subject of business. In other words, it's not a business issue per say, it's an

issue of as you put it, attribution... All three attribution, copyright, and business, in this example are

connected. . . Is that better?

what dose this have to do with business? You entered a contest. Get the rules of the contest, re read

them, and i'll bet you will find that by entering you gave up your rights to that photo. Just my guess. It's

uncommon for anyone to use photos without credit, even in contests, but i'm sure it happens. Contact

them and ask them what's up. . . At the very least you should have been given a cutline . . . But, again,

you have to read the rules of the contest first. . . This is not about business, it's about copyright. . .

the truth, this sounds like a project i would leave completely in the dust . . . refund the down payment, let

the whole project go. If you choose to stick with it, you are in for more trouble and i'll bet youre not getting

paid enough to handle what is potentially in store for you. This is the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. I'd

just politely say, "I've decided that after working with your mother-n-law," or whomever she is, "I'd like to

invoke my right to sever this contract." Return the down payment if there was one, and move on. This

situation youre in will get worse . . .

not sure how to help you with this, but i would encourage you to use natural light - not artificial strobes -

for infants . . . their eyes cant handle the power of the lights . . . also, watch your white balance your

colors look a little off . . . but that could just be the processing and colors of rgb and resizing for the web.

. .