j._scott_schrader

I just recently picked up a Olympus SP 550UZ. I have only taken it out for a test drive twice

thus far, but for the money it is pretty versatile. ISO's from 50 - 5000. It has an 18x optical

zoom which means nothing to me ...but in terms of photography the way that I know it, ...it

goes from 28mm - 504mm (Optical) f2.8 - f4.5 maximum aperature. The disappointing

thing for me is that the minimum aperature is only f8.0. So far, I'd have to say that I'm happy

with it for the money (I paid $450.00). It's probably worth your time at least looking at this

one.

If you need that kind of speed, it is worth it. I purchased one to photograph the Aurora

Borealis on a trip to the Canadian Arctic. I used it...determined I couldn't have gotten away

with the 2.8 and sold it on e-bay when I returned home. I sold it for $125.00 less than I

paid. So basically, I rented the lens for three weeks for $125.00. (I have not had a use for a

1.4 since I returned from that trip.)

Actually, another phenomenon that I have noticed is that shooting digital actually adds

weight to the photographer as well as the subject. Since I went digital I have put on about

10lbs per year because all I do anymore is sit on my ass and process digital images.

BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year is one that comes to mind as legitimate. Most are

simply ways to put your hard earned money in somebody elses pocket.

The swan still exists whether you were there or not. The question really is did beauty exist

if you weren't there to see it.

If another person had happened upon this scene but that person was starving and all he

saw was a meal (the swan), ... was the scene still beautiful?

He wouldn't have noticed the sunset...his hunger would have seen to that. Was it still

beautiful? I can't argue that the scene (swan & sunset) doesn't exist if no one is there to

witness it...my mind does not function that way. But I can say that I am able to see how it

may not have been beautiful to someone else. Instead of being beautiful it simply may just

be.

Generally speaking parents aren't interested in getting "The Shot". Most parents aren't

even familiar with "the photographic moment". As long as their kid is in the shot it's a

keeper. Eyes closed ...it doesn't matter, seen from the back...it doesn't matter...blurry...it

doesn't matter, kid is only a tiny spot in the overall picture...it doesn't matter, blown

highlights...it doesn't matter, underexposed...it doesn't matter. All parents are capable of

taking these types of pictures and do. Many are happy enough with the quality of a still

video frame capture. Give them something remarkable of their kid and they won't be able

to walk away. Give them something ordinary and they won't look twice. (They themselves

are very capable of taking ordinary shots of their kids.)

I'd suggest working on your technique and your style. Take sharp images...don't even

show the out of focus ones. (Both that you posted in this thread were out of focus.) I

suspect this is largely an impulse buy. You will need to sell the pictures at the event

itself...as the parents are congratulating their kids and going home/out to celebrate. The

next morning is too late ...it is simply a missed opportunity. Of course selling at the event

is purely speculative and will cost you some up front money for prints that may or may not

sell.

Everybody today thinks they are a photographer...with the continuous improvement of

camera technology and simple editing software anyone today can take a bad shot of their

kid and make it mediocre. With 10 megapixel point and shoot cameras on the market they

can crop up close and end up with mediocrity which they will think is great. ...and thats all

they want ...just a reasonably decent shot of their kid. They don't want a professional

quality image of their kid. ...and even if they did, you are not offering them a professional

quality image.

Also, people today don't have photo albums any more. They keep all of their images

electronically...and as already mentioned these certainly aren't the type of images that

people would be hanging on their walls.

It's certainly not a sure thing in the lower 48 like it would be at a place like Katmai. I've seen

Grizzlies in both Yellowstone and Glacier...but it is very hit or miss...and in neither of those

places was my 400 with 1.4x attached even close to being a reasonable length. A 600 with

the extender would have fallen seriously short. Maybe you'll get lucky and end up within 40

or 50 yards of one....but you certainly shouldn't make a trip expecting that to happen.

I actually saw an exhibit by a guy whose name I can't recall. Every print had serious

scratches. As it turned out...he was in the darkroom trying to print an image ...dropped

the negative and accidentally stepped on it and walked a step or two until he realized that

it was on the bottom of his shoe. He printed it anyway and then decided to put together a

whole exhibit of scratched negatives(prints). He put each one on the floor before he

printed it and stepped on it with his shoe...dragged it a bit and then printed the negative.

His images left a lot to be desired in my opinion, but he was hailed as a photographic

genius by the local art critic for his "creativity"... when in actuality he was an idiot who

walked around with his negative on his shoe before realizing he had stepped on it....and

then decided to print it anyway.

If you want real scratches...it doesn't get any more real than that. It's a heck of a lot easier

and quicker than the photoshop route.

....and ultimately who knows....you too may end up being hailed as a photographic

innovator too.

Deet and Permethrin are a great combination. Kent knows what he is talking

about! I use 100% deet on all exposed skin (except palms of my hands) and

use the Permethrin on my clothing. It keeps me comfortable in mosquito/

insect infested places and no traces of any damage to cameras. I don't doubt

that some have experienced damage to cameras and lenses....but, that has

certainly not been my experience. I have been using the Deet for many years,

and the same cameras for many years.

In my experience they will have virtually no effect on image quality. I have had a lens or two

over the years that had the coating "problems" that you described. Both were purchased new.

One was a large format aspherical lens, and one was a 35mm lens L series lens. Neither had

any perceptible degradation of quality. I looked long and hard and ran many tests to make

sure the image quality did not suffer as a result of these "blemishes" it simply didn't degrade

the image quality. Also, it in no way affected the resale price when I sold one on e-bay.

You'd be amazed at what markups are for everyday products...the one that comes to mind is ink for inkjet printers...the mark-up is far more than what you are talking about for glass. I met a guy who worked for Dow chemicals as a developer of inks for inkjets. The actual cost of some of the inks we discussed are well under one dollar per cartridge...retail price $28.00 - $40.00. Talk about a mark-up! And yet we flock to the store in droves to purchase these for our printers.

People are willing to pay a premium for quality and even for perceived quality. The retailers will always charge what the market will bear. If collectively we all stopped purchasing gasoline for 1 week...the price would drop like a rock. Of course that will never happen because people don't want to be inconvenienced by taking public transportation or missing a ball game/party in the evening. If it is inconvenient...we are not interested. (At least that is the case in the U.S.)

Can anyone tell me how to change the activation of the autofocus from the shutter button to either the AE

lock button of AF point selection button and back to the shutter button.

Thanks,

Scott

I still use filters...why? ....because I hate sitting at a computer and screwing around with

images ...which I do more and more these days. It's time for a career change.

Were you hired by the show to shoot it? Are they paying you for photography services? If

so...I hope the contract didn't have in it that part of the deal was that you do the marketing

for them. If it did you are out of luck and must live up to your agreement...if it didn't, you

can make another contract with them as a marketing agent.

I do agree with you that it is an unusual request...and you are not bound by it unless you

agreed to do it in a contract. You are the rightful owner of the copyright...if you choose to do

some marketing for them that would fall under a separate contract and they would pay you x

amount per month based on the number of hits your site gets.

If you look at the suggested retail price list from a place like Albums Inc. it is generally in the

neighborhood of 100% - 125% mark-up. Of course that is not to say that you have to stick

to that. I know shooters who mark-up 200% - 300% and even more.

I agree with the others about e-mail web-site addresses. I also agree that you need an

actual address even if it is a P.O. Box.

Your colors well enough for me.

Your photo does not work for me...it doesn't look enough like a photograph for me to

want to pick up the phone and call you. It looks more like a graphic arts image...but not a

very appealing one at that...certainly not one that I would call you if I needed some graphic

arts work.

Ok, I'll play...I have been a full time working professional running a successful business for

the past 19 years. (I have never worked in a lab, camera store or any other photography

related work)...I have been a shooter. I have supported my family, purchased a home 9

years ago (for which the mortgage is nearly paid off) have two vehicles that are paid in full,

no credit card debt...in fact no debt at all with the exception of what is left on the

mortgage, provided insurance for the family,built up a fairly significant nest egg for

retirement/emergencies ...

I am in the process of shutting down my business. The work is harder to come by...clients

that I have had for over a decade are purchasing their own digital cameras and a copy of

adobe photoshop and doing the work themselves now. Everybody is calling themselves a

professional now and taking "weekend/evening jobs". And ultimately, people in need of

photography services are less demanding as far as quality goes. I have heard numerous

times over the past year that at the wedding..."uncle Bob's" pictures were better than the

hired "professional". Today the term professional photographer has lost all of its

meaning. It used to be that if you were a professional you had a certain skill set that the

general population could not emulate and you treated your clients in a professional

manner. Today you are a professional if you have a digital camera and a copy of

Photoshop or some other photo editing software. The 12 year old kid down the street can

take a crappy photo and throw it into photoshop and make something out of it that has

mass appeal.

Additionally, I have found that I just don't like the direction that the industry has moved.

Where I used to be out shooting and being active...I may have spent an hour at my desk

each day....I now spend close to 8 hours a day at my desk processing digital images. I no

longer enjoy it and my health has suffered from it. Since I "went digital" and purchased my

1st digital camera and the computer and software to be able to use the thing (4 years ago)

I have put on 30lbs. from sitting at a desk all day instead of being up and about on shoots

and in the darkroom. The modern advances have changed the industry and my life

significantly and I no longer enjoy what I do....so, by the end of September my business

will be closed and I will be moving on to my second career leaving the photography

industry behind...and hopefully getting my health back as a direct result of the change.

I don't have any marketing advise for you other than the fact that you now have to

compete with the weekend warrior for jobs...which means you will have to price yourself

accordingly.

When I step back and look at it objectively I just don't see much of a future in the

photography industry....there will be less and less people able to make a living as

photographers and more and more people able to make a little money with their hobby.

There will continue to be a market for high-end weddings and high-end portraits and of

course advertising photography. The mid-low range work will continue to dry up. I will

not make a judgement if this trend is good or bad....in fact it is both...it is bad if you are a

full time professional photographer who has been working successfully in the low and

mid-range markets and it is good if you are a weekend warrior/hobbiest who wants to

make a little extra money every now and then.

Now I could be wrong ...and it wouldn't be the 1st time...but my guess is that the

technology doesn't exist to create something like you are talking about.

Over the last couple of decades they should have been pouring money into R&D of battery

technology to make our country less oil dependent. Of course this did not happen and we

are paying the price (gas prices) today. Of course the oil companies don't want any

significant breakthroughs with battery technology...and it seems what the oil companies

want, the oil companies get. Battery technology is way behind the times... and will

continue to be as long as the oil companies have anything to say about the funding of

such an endeavor that would ultimately cut into their profits.

In my experience 1/32 power would have absolutely no effect in an outdoor setting as the

original poster describes. He is shooting action...so he cannot be in their face...he will

have to be shooting from a distance... to balance the light of a strobe fired into a shaded

area with the light of a sunlit (even if the light is low) area you are going to need a

relatively high GN and a relatively long recycle time. Without using mutiple cameras with

strobes for each one and an automatic trigger that basically lets the athlete take

his own picture when he crosses an infrared beam, I suspect that what you are wanting to

do can't be done with ordinary gear. The closer you can get to your subject, ...the better

the chance of having your fill flash be effective at a lower power and the less recycle time

it will need.

If this is a set up...shoot late in the day or early in the day in an area where the light is the

same on your subject as it is in the background....or the background a stop or two darker

than your subject then you will not need strobes at all. There is not a strobe out there that

is capable of the kind of power that you are talking about coupled with the almost

instant recycle times that you will need.

The process has to become second nature to you...after the set up...you should never have to

think about the process...you should be in sync with your subject. This comes from many

years of continual practice and knowing your gear like you know the back of your hand. It

just takes time.

You and half the world's population want to do what you are suggesting. It is good that

you are not planning on stocking and monitoring an inventory. In the world today no

matter how good your work is everybody thinks they can do it. I have been successfully

selling my wildlife/landscape work for the past 20 years...Sales have gotten to the point

where it is no longer profitable enough to continue doing it. I am in the process of closing

my wildlife/landscape business...although I will continue to do the commercial stuff

(mostly product work).

My dop in sales coincided with the masses purchasing digital cameras and computers to

work over the images. That does not interest me so I am shutting down the business.

I would bet my last dollar that the lemonade stand would be more profitable.

One of the important things that will zoom you to the top almost immediately is to

photograph in a different and visually interesting style. You won't make it if you just

immitate everything that is already out there. I hear it often said "my pictures are just as

good as the ones in this magazine or that magazine". Those photographers have standing

relationships with the editors of those publications. Why would the editors take a chance

on another photog who is offering the same style, vision, look and feel as a person who

they have grown to trust and found reliable over the past decade or more. The answer is

they don't have a reason to change and as a result....they won't. Give them a reason to

give you a try. Show them a style that they have never seen before and that is intriguing.

A tall order to be sure.