paulie_smith1

<p>The image is one of twins. Two big jug eared white guys who are, I believe, South African.<br>

Sorry 'bout offending the censors. Some of us don't spend our spare time reading terms and conditions on social sites.<br>

Without posting a photo - how is one supposed to get commentary?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.php/discussions/viewthread/33235/">http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.php/discussions/viewthread/33235/</a><br>

Above is the link a friend sent when he asked me about the photo. He was wondering if it is a racist photo with so many uses apparently making fun of these two men - Africans, tho not black. Some kind of backward racism coupled with morbid fascination of those who are different.</p>

<p>The image is one of twins. Two big jug eared white guys who are, I believe, South African.<br>

Sorry 'bout offending the censors. Some of us don't spend our spare time reading terms and conditions on social sites.<br>

Without posting a photo - how is one supposed to get commentary?</p>

<p>Tried editing to add if anyone knows who owns the copyright? For some reason the computer doesn't want to let me add that. if anyone knows, thanks.</p>

<p>I have seen this photograph a number of places and did a tineye.com search trying to find the photographer who took it.<br /> Anyone know who took the photo?<br /> I have seen it a number of places but can't find who he/she is.<br /> I was going to post in the off topic section but it looks like that may not be the right place.</p><p><B>DO NOT POST PHOTOS THAT YOU DID NOT TAKE. The Terms of Use are very clear on this.</b></p>

<p>Paulie Smith wrote something about:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"... ultimate image quality..."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Utimate" image quality? Really?<br>

Dan<br>

-------------------<br>

Dan, shoot a dozen or so images with each camera side by side in the same conditions with similar ISO and whatnot. Then make 16x20 or so prints of each. Set them up side by side and let any number of people view them to compare and see if either body consistently gets picked out as 'finest quality'. That is what I mean by "ultinate image quality' - the best you can get from each. Not a mythical standard but the finest print where you can see, not imagine, the difference.<br>

My standard is 8x10 contact prints and I am admittedly a stick in the mud in many ways. If I can't see the result in the final image I don't change things. That difference does include how one makes the image - if the equipment itself makes it more likely to get the result compared to another body. We know both Canon and Nikon make some very good gear. Nikon metering and Nikon strobe control beats canon like a red headed stepchild. The only real question for me these days is whether the images the body can produce are images I can live with. Given the choice I would pick the body that gave me higher quality - however you define it - and images where I can actually see that higher quality.<br>

I understand well that 'ultimate image quality' is at times not needed nor is it wanted. You shoot and print what is wanted, not a technical chart of comparison lines. You choose lenses and settings specifically for the 'feel' rather than ultimate sharpness or whatever. That is interpretation and artistic license. But failing to use the best gear, technique or materials you can and trying to excuse it for 'art' is stupid. Most of our cameras and lenses are capable of a lot better work than we often produce. I would choose the body that gave me the best chance of creating my vision any day - within the limits of bank account and real world usability.<br>

The sensor in one body is superior while the Af and frame rate in the other is superior. Horses for courses and we are lucky to have a choice -and Sony and others pushing more and better development every day.</p>

<p>The fact is that Canon has been losing market share to Nikon for several years now.<br>

In watching sporting events compare sideline photos that show the photographers now with those of 6-10 years ago. Way fewer white lenses on the sidelines these days.<br>

Canon really screwed the pooch in pushing away too many shooters with the 1DMKIII auto focus problems. A number of friends who shoot sports switched to Nikon as the result of ongoing AF problems with those bodies. You guy a camera, you expect it to work. The sad fact was they did not work, Canon denied it and Nikon welcomed the pissed off shooters with open arms.<br>

The D800 and 5DMkIII - shoot a dozen images in varying light conditions, print 16x20's of each full frame and see if you can pick one over the other consistently. If you can, go with that body - knowing in 1-4 years the other guys will come out with something to match or beat it. An expensive game.</p>

<p>In the 1980's I lived in Marin County, CA and shot high end real estate for limited use by the listing brokers. Shot it using 4x5 chromes and then worked with their printer to produce brochures usually numbering less than 150. The Real Estate broker paid for the design and printing as well as the separations. They paid me by the job and the smallest amount was in the $5000 range plus expenses. All work was one of a kind and the home prices started at well over $2,000,000. The distribution of the brochure was limited to pre-qualified interested buyers. I know that now they are using DVD productions in conjunction with limited custom prints and a friend who worked for me is doing the digital work for them. The homes have only gotten more expensive and his charges are much higher than we did 25 or so years ago. He still uses custom lighting to show the locations to best advantage - think Architectural Digest style work in and around San Francisco Bay. The images sell the homes as they show them at their best while at the same time not lying about them. The prospective buyer should be able to walk in when they view it feeling they are coming home - all from the images. That is what we were paid for.<br>

You charge what your time and talent is worth and what you bring to the table in quality and dependability. That is what the client pays for. Any fool with a camera and a basic editing program can do a walk through presentation these days. Are you selling the lowest common denominator or your professional services?</p>

<p>Thanks guys, I am pretty familiar with strobe gear, just not the Speedotron stuff. I don't use it much and told him value is way low - matching the RB Pro-S system I am going to sell for a friend. I get the feeling he is trying to find the value himself. He knows what it cost and doesn't want to face the reality is is nearly worthless for resale these days.<br>

A pity in many ways that good gear is more valuable as paperweight curios than working camera equipment.</p>

 

<p>Forgive the lack of knowledge, but what is "The LV issue"?<br>

I see any improvement in image quality overall as good. The Nikon obviously as it all over the Canon in normal ISO ranges for most of us.<br>

I shoot a lot of 8x10 because I like to contact print the negatives. Same with 5x7 though I do enlarge some of the negs for much bigger prints.<br>

Bigger is alway better - except when it is not.<br>

If I could shoot the 8x10 or even 12x20 with the ease of the 1DMkII's I would do so in a heartbeat. The overall image quality is so much better for what I do it is not funny. And yes, I do miss shooting press work with a 4x5, especially boxing action. A "look" I have yet to see duplicated with the current cameras even as we get better and better and more images from an event.<br>

A lot more to the finished print than technical considerations but using the finest gear possible is never a mistake, just a choice. One often dictated by the bank account more than esthetics.<br>

Digital keeps getting better, cleaner, sharper, faster and making images that show well. Still, just a tool that produces junk in the hands of a fool or someone who won't take the time to really learn the tool.<br>

I would not turn down either camera but given the choice and bank account to handle it would pick the one that gave me an edge, even a small one - all else being equal. But... all things are not equal so we compromise and choose what works for us now knowing something new will be out before long that may or may not be 'better' for what we do. (I'm looking forward to a hands'on with the Fuji Xpro1 as a carry around in the future)<br>

Years ago it was the equipment lust that kept me looking at what came out. Eventually it was actually looking at results that drove choices - if I could not see a visible improvement in the final image(or greatly improved workflow) I did not change what worked.<br>

Technical improvements are fine but if it does not make images I can see are better - why would I change? That said, there is something to pride in what one uses and comfort in its handling. Those help us improve while bringing joy to the process.</p>

<p>Your sizing information is US Centered.<br>

Ilford offers papers in 7x9 1/2, 9 1/2 x 12 and 12x16 which seem to work well for the 35mm frame in my printing.<br>

If you want other proportions in your camera then build one, modify the opening in one you have or shoot larger formate where you can easily modify film holders for whatever format you like.<br>

If you are like most who shoot and print your crop relatively often. Why not just make an easel opening of the size you like to print, use paper larger so you have clear and clean edges with the image centered/wighted and centered and live with that?</p>

<p>With two bodies you have one for establishing shots and overall images and the longer lens for FACES. Get close and fill the frame.<br>

Shot put? How about a close in of just part of the facial grimace with part of the round ball cradled against the cheek/head? Close, tight and focused on expression.<br>

Work on individuals if possible while getting the overall shots you know will help tell the story.<br>

Don't forget coaches and officials either.</p>

<p>If you like 2 1/4 square, do you want to stay with it or go a bit bigger, or a bit smaller with your negatives?<br>

I would not want to go smaller. 6x7 is the next size up and would work well. Otherwise, stay with the same size negatives.<br>

On Hasselblad, older bodies and lenses are available for low prices these days. They work and are a decent option.<br>

If you can, get some hands on time with the bodies you are thinking of. That will tell you more than we can. All can produce fine work so what is more comfortable to you should help you decide.</p>

<p>You do understand some galleries take up to 60% of any sale, right? Others require that their own people do the matting and framing - a sure way for them to make money and you to spend yours.<br>

Ask one question of yourself before approaching any galleries: Why would someone buy my photographs in this gallery compared to the artists they already show? If you can't come up with a good answer you need to work til you have one.<br>

Many are opting to sell their own work and only use galleries for specific shows and reasons. Main one for many is simple. Printing, matting, mounting, framing and transport is expensive. If this is really to be a business decision you have to treat it as such. Not a commodity, it is art - but as an artistic pursuit that has to pay. Only you know how long you can go on losing money at it before the return has to break even and then make a profit. At that most photographers don't even know how to tell if they are making a profit.<br>

Basic business information filtered through your plans makes sense. Most businesses fail. Planning and preparation give you a better chance but the odds are still against you.<br>

If I ask to see 50 finished images right now - to judge whether we want to host a showing of your work - could you supply them? Would they be a cohesive theme or project or just a hodge-podge of 'greatest hits'? Would they all be carefully considered, well printed, well presented(at least mounted and matted - not necessarily framed) and show your finest work? Would there be weak images in the bunch?<br>

The Kingsmen sang Louie-Louie, have you ever heard anything else they recorded?<br>

One hit wonders are a dime a dozen. Don't be one. A solid plan for presentation and contact will pay dividends. Even Thomas Kinkade made money and his stuff was certainly not "art", but kitsch. Marketing was the difference. You can make it off one fabulous image but if that is all you have you won't have many one man shows.<br>

Steady production and steady, directed marketing will do it but only if you put in the time and effort. If you want to be successful you have to work at it. Good luck.</p>

 

<p>Have someone trying to convince me I need a Speedotron D1204 3 light kit. Has the stands and all in a case.<br>

Have been looking and this seems to work OK but I can't find much on it in searching. I know the pack is still sold even though this is an older product.<br>

Anyone know real world value of this stuff used these days? I tried looking on KEH but they aren't handling this and my search for ads did not turn up anything current.</p>

<p><a href="http://studioq.com/">http://studioq.com/</a><br>

Take a look at Quinn Jacobsons site. He has an excellent book CHEMICAL PICTURES that is worthe getting. His workshops are well done and worth both the time and money. I know you do every step of the process from preparing the glass to pouring plates to shooting and processing to the finished image.<br>

Watch some of the videos he has as well as online for wet plate videos of other. One interesting process with its own look.</p>

<p>Per the gentleman I spoke with at Roberts Camera the EOS 1DMkIV is discontinued. No more to be made. So, good bye to the 1.3 crop bodies that were great for sports, wildlife and action work. Looks like is the 1Dx if they ever really get it going.</p>

<p>Editorial use and commercial use are much different. Check with ASMP for a lot more on it. No advertising use without solid model releases is the rule here. Magazine and newspapers have a lot more leeway.</p>

<p>Copyright Registration requirements in Australia? Check first and make sure you are protected there before anything else. A visit to an Intellectual Property solicitor may be in order as well.<br>

Do check as said above. Is it possible two photographers shot virtually the same image from similar vantage points at nearly the same time? Yes. Did they do it? That is what you need to know before anything else.<br>

If your checking shows this is actually your image the legal knowledge can only help your case. So, what remedy do you want?</p>

<p>"So does my 1978 Chevy Chevette, my 8-track tape player and my Betamax video recorder."<br>

I can't find anyone to repair the 8 track player in my 74 Saab Sonnet.</p>

<p>On the other hand, for ultimate image quality the D800 is a better deal.<br>

I still like 8x10 contact prints from the 50's vintage Deardorffs I use - tho the glass is much newer.<br>

And I still sell prints taken with a Canon G3 from time to time. </p>

<p>Do you understand how to work with paper grades or multi-contrast paper to control the normal vagaries of exposure and development?<br>

If you consistently over expose negatives, rate the film a bit higher ISO and this will cut it for you. I shoot a lot of 5x7 & 8x10 and many looking at my negatives would say they are overexposed. I print Pt/Pd and they work fine for the intended use. With silver paper Amidol and a water bath control the contrast just fine.<br>

Check out the books mentioned and learn the basics. With a commercial lab doing your processing you will always be at their mercy. Most of all, remember that this stuff is not pinpoint accurate much of the time with camera shutters, lens variations, film emulsion batches, chemistry variations, even water quality and temperature variations. Adams called his method "The Zone System", not "The Pinpoint System".<br>

Control what you can - such as finessing your ISO settings(like learning when the fuel guage of a new to you vehicle is really empty and just reads empty) and learning to do your own darkroom work. If you are working digitally then monitor calibration and the rest is important.<br>

In the end, how do the fine prints look? Not the work prints along the way, the final print you will show. Great images have come from negatives many would have thrown away through the years. Obsess over teh final print and only change things when you are not getting what you want in the final prints.</p>

<p>The X10 can't compare at 24mm wide view at all.<br>

If you need faster frame rate the X10 has it.<br>

I'll repeat what Derek asked: Is there anything the X10 can do that the Lx5 can't?<br>

Are you looking for higher quality images or just a different camera?<br>

If you want higher quality why not save up for a bit and get the newer Fuji Xpro1? Seems like it will be a good system for some time to come.</p>

<p>Yes, she can demand. She can request. She can hold her breath til she turns blue and passes out.<br>

You own copyright, plain and simple.<br>

You are never going to make anything from these photos as you realize only too well now. So, tell her she can own full copyright and the images for $5,000 and then don't contact her again. She will complain to her friends and those sympathetic to her won't be bothering you for photo work like she did.<br>

If asked by anyone else - "It's business and I don't discuss that with anyone but the client".</p>

<p>"I looked at a lot of images today and I am consistent -- I consistently overexpose."<br>

You have enough experience and knowledge to tell overexposure from overdevelopment?<br>

I am NOT the person to look at for the digital part of this with scanning and histograms. I do have experience in the darkroom from shooting, teaching and running a custom printing lab over the years.<br>

In my experience, learning to tell under and overexposure from under and over development helps a lot in working with negatives. It is surprising how many photographers can't do it.</p>

<p>Rodinal with sodium ascorbate tames the grain a bit. Dektol is for paper. D76 is the tried and true old favorite of many but does gain in activity on sitting.<br>

Take a serious look at Xtol. A good match for this film in its current iteration.<br>

Tri-X today is not the same as it was a few years ago. Many of us who have been shooting for a long time find it good but almost unrecognizable compared to Tri-X of a decade and more ago.<br>

As with any film and developer out there I will give a standard recommendation. Try a combination or even a few. Pick the one that looks best to you and stick with it for at least a year of shooting - unless you have a specific reason to change. Make prints and look at them, fine tuning along the way. After a year, if you shoot a fair amount and make good prints - you will have a baseline for comparison if you change something in the workflow. Now you can try something else and if you can actually SEE a difference in the finished prints and that difference is an actual improvement - then you make a change.<br>

Almost any combination will work if you learn to use it. There is no magic answer and no 'one, best way' to shoot and print. Consistent working methods polished with experience is worth more than any new product on the market.<br>

I know many who absolutely hate certain films and film/developer combinations yet others get excellent exhibition work using that formula. Personal taste and long experience, coupled with an ability to learn and make critical judgments, makes for better images. Just don't scrimp on the one major darkroom/printing accessory that is critical to producing excellent work. A big trash can - and the will to use it.</p>

<p>No matter what else you do make sure to formally register copyright of the images. Basic protection should you ever need to do anything in the future relating to unauthorized use of the images.<br>

You can make the cost of registration part of the agreement. That way they see at least some value attached to the otherwise 'free work'.<br>

If you are not sure on this ask yourself one question. Do all those involved with the non-profit donate all their time, effort, talent and work product for free?</p>