danmarchant

<p>1. As mentioned by Jochen "focus tracking" is not the same thing as focus and recompose. In fact it is almost the opposite as it requires the camera to constantly adjust the focus in order to keep a moving subject in focus. <br> 2. Your focus problem is almost certainly due to a number of issues. First you locked focus using One Shot mode and then moved the camera to recompose. Second the subject moved slightly due to wind and third you were shooting with very narrow depth of field due to wide aperture. Even tiny amounts of movement will throw focus off when shooting close up with a wide aperture.<br> <br />Solution<br> Don't focus and recompose. The 7DII has Canon's latest and greatest AF system. There are plenty of AF points so you should be able to position one over whichever part of the scene you want to focus on and just take the shot, without needing to focus/recompose. If the subject is moving due to wind use AI Servo AF mode so that the camera keeps re-focusing to keep the subject in focus.</p>

<p>I remember seeing the first video game I made on the shelves in shops. Got the same buzz when I started selling prints recently (and someone actually bought one).</p>

<p>Not familiar with the 6D but some Canon cameras has focus tracking, which will automatically swap to a new focus point to try and keep a moving subject in focus. That isn't really what you want for close up portraits or when you are trying to focus (lock) and recompose. Check the AF menu to see if you have tracking enabled. Also check the manual for Focus Lock.</p>

<p>Definitely agree that the usage has clearly included advertising which would appear, from what you say, to be excluded by the license.</p>

<blockquote> <p><em>Wow! All that horsepower and yet we have tiny little digital cameras that can rattle off a succession of processed Raw or jpeg files within seconds using tiny batteries, very little RAM and a CF card as a hard drive.</em></p> </blockquote> <p><em><br /></em>Wish my camera was as powerful as yours and could do content aware fill, multiple layers, process multiple images at the same time and all the many many other features that PP software has that your camera can't do.... <br> Just offering a perspective on reality. </p>

<p>Even if they did it would be worthless. No one is going to look at a photo credit and decide they must find that photographer and hire them.<br> The right way to benefit from publication is to tear the item out as a tear sheet and add it to your portfolio. You can also scan a copy and write a behind the scenes/how I shot this article for your web site/blog. </p>

<blockquote> <p><em>do you need to continue to hold down the AF-ON button to focus track, or can you let it go?</em></p> </blockquote> <p><em><br /></em>Depends if you have removed AF-ON from your shutter button or not. My shutter button is set the Meter on only so to continue tracking a subject I have to press the back button.</p>

<p>Look like fungus to me. I wouldn't store that lens with the rest of your camera equipment.</p>

<p>John check out http://www.colbybrownphotography.com/social-media-for-photographers/ It is the first in a series of articles that discuss social media use and the different platforms available. Don't waste your time going onto every platform. Pic the ones that best suit your work/target audience.</p>

<blockquote> <p><em>How about, "Let's talk and I'll give you a price quote."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>+1 Short, sweet and too the point.<em><br /></em></p>

<p>I was rather amused by this comment the blog author made</p> <blockquote> <p><em>There was even a photo that was almost identical to <a href="http://www.lik.com/news/newsarticle57/" target="_blank">Peter Lik’s Phantom</a>,</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Which I think says a lot about the quality of Lik's work and echoes what others have said. many of these images are unoriginal in their execution. In addition most of them appear to be overly sentimental representations of the location produced using excessive pp. They are desktop pictures, inspirational poster images with no hard edges and nothing meaningful to say.<br> So I wonder, what will future historians call this school of photography? The mediocrests? </p>

<p>Gary,<br> There are two problems at play here.<br> 1. RAW is not a single format. While the files that come out of various cameras may all be called RAW and may have the same suffix (.cr2 in the case of Canon EOS DSLRs) they are not the same. New cameras introduce new features that result in the files they output being different. The RAW files from your 6D aren't the same as those from your 40D and as the 6D didn't exist when PSE10 was published it doesn't know how to read/process those files.<br> 2. Adobe have taken the decision that it is uneconomical/too time consuming to issue updates to all the old versions of their software every time one of the camera makers launches a new camera. The latest versions of PSE, Lightroom and Photoshop will get updates that can read the new files but for older versions they provide a piece of software that will convert the new RAW files into DNG files that the older software can read. <br> So you have two choices. First is to upgrade to the latest version of PSE (or buy Lightroom if you are interested in getting properly into RAW processing), second is to download the free DNG converter<br> Windows - <a href="http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=106&platform=Windows">http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=106&platform=Windows</a><br> Mac - <a href="http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=106&platform=Windows">http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=106&platform=Macintosh</a></p>

<p><em><br /></em>1. Your book. It seems you have come up with an interesting and focused topic and then done everything you could to hide it from people.</p> <blockquote> <p><em>I recently self-published (via createspace) a book of my photos on Amazon.com, but the number of sales has been, to say the least, dismal.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Your book didn't sell because your marketing was non existent (or just unsuccessful). I Googled the book/artist and didn't find a single photography/book related website or blog that mentioned/reviewed it. Either you didn't send out any press releases or else you did and absolutely everyone decided not to publish it. People wont buy something if they don't know it exists. Just listing it on Amazon won't get people to buy it..... especially when the listing doesn't say anything about the book. Your Amazon listing currently says.... <em><br /></em></p> <blockquote> <p><em>New interior has been uploaded and is UrbanDadaR12_F.pdf and new cover is UrbanDadaR5_F.pdf</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Even your own website doesn't have any meaningful coverage of your own book (or your photography). It is all hidden away behind obscure links amongst a mass of non-photography related material. Photography isn't even mentioned anywhere on your sites front page.<br> <br />I also couldn't find any photo/creative communities (flickr, 500px etc etc) featuring your photographic work. It is as if you woke up one day and just decided to publish a book, then set out to hide all traces of its existence. It is by far the most post-anarcho-neodadastentialist anti-marketing campaign I have ever seen. :)</p> <p>2. Publishers - Given the choice they are generally going to prefer to publish works by people that someone has heard of. Yes, they may publish works by unheard of authors/artists but, if they do, the numbers are strictly limited. The majority of publishing slots will go to works/authors for which there is an established market/fan base. So, if you submit your book now you are going to be competing with all the other unheard of first time authors/artists (of which there are many) for one of only a tiny handful of publishing slots.<br> You are going to have a much greater chance of getting published if you invest some time into marketing yourself and your work. Submit shots to photography magazines, send press releases about your work, build a proper photo focused website, get onto Facebook and Google+ etc etc.</p>

<p>There are 300,001 reasons why a photographer shouldn't give out all the images they took.<br> 1. Reputation. No matter how much we might like to think it isn't so, human beings average out their opinions. In fact many people will more than average out, they will bias towards the negative. One bad experience at a previously good establishment and it ceases to be good. <br> If a photographer shows 100 great images and 100 OK images that have some problems then the opinion of those people that view the images will be that the photographer is OK (not great). It doesn't matter how much you say you wont judge them based on the bad images, you will. Even if you managed to separate them in your mind the same won't be true for all those people who are one step away from the transaction (your guests and their friends). <br> No photographer who aspires to run a successful business is going to succeed if they have a reputation for producing work that is just OK. What is a matter of disappointment to you is a matter of a damaged reputation for the photographer that can be the difference between being in business or not 5 years from now.<br> 300,000. As for the other 300,000 reasons - http://petapixel.com/2014/11/23/revisiting-case-wedding-photographer-threatened-300000-lawsuit/ - this photographer did what you want and was threatened with a $300,000 law suit for it. </p>

<blockquote> <p><em>Contact an attorney. Some states have statutory protections against the commercial use of images without permission.</em></p> </blockquote> <p><em><br /></em>Except that the OP gave permission as stated in the first post.<br> <br />Having spent 20+ years dealing with IP licensing contracts I'm afraid I agree with the earlier posters. The OP doesn't have a legal claim - contracts can most certainly continue "in perpetuity" unless there is a specific termination date. <br> I would phone, not email, and ask if the tog will remove it. If they refuse offer a reasonable sum of money (a few hundred $) and if the still refuse ask if they will at least do you the courtesy of removing the incorrect employer details, which aren't relevant to the wedding anyway, and amend your name to given name only. <br> If they still refuse then talk to a lawyer. A lawyers letter may work but I doubt it. </p>

<p>Friend of mine also has the Canon Pro 100. He does all my B&W prints (and many of those for our recent camera club exhibition). Really lovely prints.<br> On the issue of colour cast that is often a profile issue. My pal had some issues when he first got the new printer but once he got the right profiles for the paper he was using it was all sorted.</p>

<p>It is my understanding that DPP 4.x is only for Canon's newer EOS cameras. When it was first released it only supported Canon's full frame cameras and has recently been updated to support some of the newer crop frame cameras as well. According to Canon's site DPP4.x support EOS-1D C, EOS-1D X, EOS-1D Mark IV, EOS 5D Mark III, EOS 6D, EOS 7D Mark II, EOS 70D, EOS 7D, EOS 5D Mark II, EOS Kiss X7i / EOS Rebel T5i / EOS 700D, EOS Kiss X7 / EOS Rebel SL1 / EOS 100D.<br> Not to clear on the various Tx cameras but I think I am right that the T2i is also known as the 550D in which case it isn't on the list of supported cameras.<br /></p>

<p>OP - as mentioned above we would need to know, as a minimum, where you live and where the company is that infringed your copyright. Other issues that may have an impact - does the site allow user submitted content (as in, are you sure it was the site themselves that posted your image) and, if you are in the US, did you register copyright?<br> <br />Small claims? Only if you are based in the UK. They now have a new small claims court for IP - The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) which makes small scale claims much easier and more affordable. I don't know of any other countries that have this. In most countries you will need to hire an expensive IP lawyer and go to big boy court (county/high/federal whatever depending on your location).<br> Of course legal action doesn't need to be your first action. You can pursue the matter directly with the company first.<br> 1. Document the infringement (take screenshots of the site). <br> 2. Write or call the company offering to settle the matter if they license the image for $X. That amount shouldn't be the normal price for licensing an image because they broke the law. <br> 3. If they won't settle then you can opt to go the legal route but how/what you do will depend on where you are.</p>

<p>+1 to Jeff's suggestion. Creating additional files to save crops is a waste of drive space. I have multiple different versions of an image (colour/B&W/assorted different processing options) and multiple different crops - all done as Virtual Copies in Lightroom.<br> You can then set up collections or smart collections to display images cropped to a particular aspect ratio or with a particular keyword(s). </p>

<p>There is nothing wrong with the photo because this is an artistic decision and there is no right or wrong. The above posters all like the image as is.<br> I also like it but, would prefer it if it were more punchy, with stronger whites. All the images on my website (www.danmarchant.com) are black and white and almost all have a lot of contrast, with white whites and black blacks. I am not a fan of, nor do I feel the need to, pull as much detail from every shadow as Lightroom will allow. In fact the opposite.<br> Just on a general note the image has the look/feel of a still from a 1960s British "angry young man/kitchen sink" movie. Like that feel a lot.</p>

<p>+1 to what David said, but don't just try. Insist on knowing how many units they intend to make and license the image for use on that number of shirts (if there estimate is small feel free to be generous and allow them a greater number). Also include a clause to the effect that they can license the image for an additional X units for an additional fee. What you want to avoid is the shirt taking off and selling millions and you only getting $100.</p>

<p>Been s big fan of Salgado's work for some years. Saw the Genesis exhibition in London and a couple of other smaller exhibitions of various works here in Hong Kong. In fact he was at a gallery event here last week where he was asked a couple of interesting questions. First was would he consider using film again (no) and second would he be undertaking another project on the scale of Genesis (sadly another no - due to his advancing age). :(</p>

<p>I also use almost all the tools. Especially when working on black and white images, lots of clarity, blacks, whites, dodging and burning with the adjustment brush, adjusting colour channels. If shooting low light then NR, sharpening and sharpening masking get used.</p>

<p>OP I agree with the above posters. Even if you spend a huge amount on better kit there still won't be enough light and your images will still be noisy. I have a full frame 5DIII and when I shoot in pubs and restaurants my images are also noisy. Improving them in post however is trivial. Shoot in RAW, load into ACR/Lightroom, move the noise reduction sliders until happy, then apply a basic preset and you are done. two minutes tops.</p>

<p>+1 to what Bob said. Contracts cut both ways. You have obligations that must be met but so does the other party. If they fail to meet their obligations and by their actions or inactions they make it impossible for you to fully meet your obligations (and provided you can show that you made a reasonable effort to do so) then you can't be held responsible for the failure.</p>