sarah_lange1

Hi, I am photographing cakes and desserts for a local baker and we are looking for nice dishware to photograph them in. Some of the dishes we have found are identifiable as being made by specific companies. The companies' names would not be visible but they and their customers would know it's their dishes just by looking at them even though they are pretty generic-looking. In some cases the items are antiques but the company may still be in business. My question is, is it legal to use these dishes in the photos (which will appear on the business's website and marketing materials) without obtaining permission or a copyright release? In other words, would it be a violation of copyright to photograph these items, however incidental they may be to the picture? Thank you.

<p>Thanks again everyone. That is really interesting Bruno. I was aware that you could overpower the ambient but you put it in such a way that I really understood, killing the ambient with max sync speed and high aperture and testing by seeing if the frame is black. So, to be sure, if the frame is black, the overhead office lights are a non-issue? I also use Nikons.<br> Thanks David. I have been able to Band-Aid these photos with isolated color desaturations but it's all eyeballing it and far far from ideal or 'correct'.<br> Thanks Sarah. I do remember the foundation of the '70s! This woman may've been wearing a foundation with a tone that is causing this. But she'd have to be using it on her chest too (open blouse) so I don't know. That's a good guess. Thanks for the tips on I.D.ing the type of lights.<br> One things I keep forgetting to do it have subjects at beginning of shoot hold a gray card, I have a fancy one with different grays, wide stripes. Not sure why there is more than one gray but I should use that instead of trying to remember what color the walls really were. </p> <p> </p>

<p>It is interesting that of the eight or so people I shot during this session at their office only one has this overly warm green jaundiced look. (I know she did not look this way in real life.) I don't know how to explain this. Could be the reflector on one side with one flash and umbrella on other did not overpower the fluorescents enough but I used reflector with two or three people before switching to second flash with umbrella set-up. The color on everyone else isn't great and needs tweaking but none is as bad as this one woman. </p>

<p>Thanks Tim. That link looks helpful. I do have a lot to correct but I just want to correct the proofs enough so that the subjects don't really notice any color issues. Then when they choose which photos they'd like (one or two each) then I will need to really edit those correctly. <br> Thank you Sarah. This is very helpful too. Appreciate it. I have trouble grasping gelling. Hard to get beyond the (wrong) idea that adding to the ambient color temp (i.e. florescent or tungsten….) doubles up and worsens the color cast rather than balancing it out. <br> Another side questions is this. How to tell what type of office lighting you're facing. Is there a way to tell? There is of course never a sign on the lights that say 'florescent' or 'tungsten' etc...</p>

<p>Thanks very much everyone for these great ideas. Howard, I wonder if CS6 counts as a recent version and has the color temp adjustment brush. I will try to find out. <br> Thank you Sarah Fox. I probably should have gelled the flash. But, not sure they were florescent, I do think so now. Also, that would've affected the entire scene, including the portions of the photo lit more by the strobes…… right? Would I not still be left with the mixed lighting problem I'm having now? Or would adjusting properly for the office lights with the gel not affected the strobe lighting? </p>

Thank you for responding. I did bring lighting, sorry I wasn't clear on that. In the early shots I used one sb910 with translucent umbrella and one stand-up reflector. That seemed to work well but after a few people I decided to ditch the reflector and use a second flash and umbrella on the fill side for more light. That seemed to work well to. It could be that it's the reflector shots that most show this green skin, maybe the office lighting was more visible or problematic in those, not sure. The two photos sandwiched together sounds like a good idea. Thanks.

<p>This is a toughie. I shot a series of headshots in the conference room of an office. There were big spotlight-style lights overhead, probably florescent? I asked if some could be turned off. Found that I had to have all on or none on. No in between. I would have preferred none on but then the lens could not auto focus as it was dark. So I kept them all on. <br> I shot in RAW. But the problem is that the skin tones on some are yellowy-greenish. They looked jaundice. In order to fix that, the rest of the image becomes way way too blue/red. I used gray background paper and have been using that as a rough color guide (it's not the 18 percent gray Savage paper but a medium gray). <br> I am wondering if I can adjust various sections of a photo differently re color? In ACR. I don't think so but wanted to see if anyone has any suggestions. <br> Thank you!</p>

<p>Thanks everyone. <br> Yes, I am enlarging the area to 100 percent but the OOF foliage background is causing problems, looking natural after I've cloned hair. Even worse with healing brush since spiking hair is close to her head. The Content Aware just made it look like she had a big enormous growth coming off her head that was the same color as her red hair. UGH, must not have done that right. I watched a tutorial, maybe it wasn't a good one, it had someone removing a seagull from the sky so not same situation as I have. <br> Thanks for the photo add help. </p> <p> </p>

<p>OK thank you.</p>

<p>Hi, How do you add a photo to a post? Thank you. It is asking for a URL but there is no URL for the photo, it's just a photo in my computer. </p>

<p>So, content aware put a big second half-head on top of her head. Not so great. <br> How do you add a photo to a post here on Photo.net? <br> Thanks.</p>

<p>Hi, I'm having trouble removing these stray hairs. It looks simple at first but neither the healing brush or clone tool are working. Both are creating a big mess, probably due to the patterns in the foliage in back being pushed around and changed, resulting in a very artificial Photoshopped look. Even going hair by hair isn't working. Nor is going in the other direction -- wide sweeping wholesale changes. I am wondering if Content Aware, which I've never used, would work. Or doing something with layers so that I could use eraser tool to wipe away these spiky hairs. Thank you. <br> Hmmm. Not able to post a photo. What's up with that?</p>

Denny Manufacturing. dennymfg.com

Thanks everyone. Yes, $75 per hour is what I charge for this type of editing but of course only if I get it done right. I should add something about this in pre-shoot recommendations just like I do to void chipped nail polish. Thanks for the suggestions.

<p>What's the best way in Photoshop to fix roots that are showing about an inch or more before the part line? Young woman, wavy 'blond' long hair. Her dark and mildly gray roots were showing when we shot her portraits. She's asked me to fix them as though she'd just colored her hair and no roots showing. I tried with clone stamp but made a big mess. I can borrow from where her hair is nicely colored but there is no hair definition when I paste the copied sections down, just mush of the right color. Thanks.</p>

<p>If it's a nice sunny morning, 8 am is a little late. Why doesn't she want golden hour? I'd push for an hour to an hour and a half before sunset and sell her on golden hour, it's really only 'golden' for 10-15 minutes and that's if sun is out. It's THE time to shoot portraits. If you shoot at 8 am be prepared to find shade, have someone hold a shade or use the flash really well. </p>