zelph_young

One major problem is Google and others strip all Metadata from images they put up for folks to find on their search engines. Without the information someone who wants to make contact can't do so - they don't know who the Photographer/Owner/Poster is. Google has been to court and won the right to use the images in their search programs. They need to be taken to court again for stripping metadata - as US Copyright laws do take away defenses when one removes Copyright information. The only way they will change their operation is if someone hits them in the bank account.

A verbal agreement is not worth the paper it is printed on. Start getting written releases as part of the shoot. Will make it much easier moving forward. As far as the book project you are probably OK. Check with an IP attorney to be somewhat safe. That said Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia - Wikipedia is worth checking out. Image of a gentleman in public used in a book. No release at all. Judge found for the Photographer as it is Art/Editorial. Be safe and get a release signed in the future.

The panoramic cameras and circuit cameras are still in use today. Know film photographers using circuit cameras that do large group photos and make a living with it. They still set up the risers in a semi-circle to match the curvature of the swing lens and then contact print the 3-5 foot wide negative. Sharpness that digital can't touch. Look at the work of Michael A. Smith ( www.michaelandpaula.com) who works with the 8x20 film camera regularly. Other formats such as 4x10, 5x12, 7x17, 12x20 and the wider curcuit film sizes are all viable and still being done.

Take a look at work done by Dick Arentz, Tillman Crane, Bob Herbst and Sandy King. All use digitally made enlarged negatives for excellent images for many print processes. Some use film and scan, some use digital and enlarge from there. Have seen Platinum/Palladium 16x20's from a Fuji X-Pro1 digital body that are excellent. Have seen hand poured Carbon prints that size from 6x7 film negatives that are excellent. Bob Herbst wrote the section on digital negatives when Dick Arentz re-did his book on Platinum printing. Doesn't get any better than that.

"I totally agree that large formats are completely unsuitable for macro work." If you know what you are doing this is wrong. Limiting factors come into play compared to smaller formats but an 8x10 can be used for macro and even photomicroscopy work. 8x10 at 100 times lifesize for stress patterns in metals has been used for decades successfully. The larger the camera the more you have to concentrate. It is not easy compared to smaller formats but can be done. A lot depends on the "look" you are after. 4x5 is easier to work with for close and macro images due to size differences. It all depends on what you are after for the finished print or chrome.

"645 is the minimum film format that can challenge the image quality of digital. 35mm can't. It's just not big enough." Unless you are talking Kodak Technical Pan film in B&W.

Is there a digital back I can mount on the Bronica SQa? One that would give the the full 6x6 frame size would be preferred but I know many don't go that big. (think Hasselblad where God personally blessed them with the square format and they pissed it away with 645 digital) I like the square frame and would like it with a digital back using the full capability of the camera, if possible.

Given your familiarity with Canon I would go with a 6D. If you have many Canon lenses it makes it easier on the wallet as well as having a body style you are used to. Great low light image quality.

Nope, 20 frames per second does not guarentee you capture peak action. It can up the odds, but only that. Many of us shot wildlife and sports on various levels with manual focus gear for decades and did peak action well. Knowing the subject matter and its behavior helped a lot. Being able to anticipate that peak action is a key attribute for success. The current reliance on "spray and pray" without honing the skills needed to anticipate peak action is OK but results in hundreds of frames to dump and a success rate lower than careful shooting with controlled use of the 'motor drive'. I look at older work and still marvel at fight shots with the old Speed Graphics with bulb flash. Most work now is nowhere as good. Technology is good in many respects but experience coupled with technology increases you chances of success.

Be aware that at slower shutter speeds sharpness of a moving moon won't be all is can be. On shooting with big lenses the general rule of thumb is that the moon will be 1mm for each 100mm focal length on a 35mm or equivalent film size.

Some of us have work computers for our images that do not, never ever - connect to the Internet. Has been a few years since I had a problem with CS6 but last time I just deleted and re-loaded and entered in my serial numbers and all worked fine. Am looking at other programs for when I finally make a change from Photoshop. I know it will happen one of these days. I don't and won't use any subscription services for various reasons. Just one being that the work computer never, ever goes online for anything.

It is a computer, you can't expect it to work right all the time. New software - you are the test monkey. Why would the makers waste their time making sure all worked right when they know you can do it for them. They lose nothing if you lose everything - then they can sell you more software.

There is one thing that made Photography possible. The ability to fix and image so it would not fade away. For centuries people were able to make "photographs" of sorts. Problem was - the images would fade away. From sunburns on skin to silver to whatever - the images were not permanent. The discovery of a way to keep them from fading away is what made the difference. You friend and his great discovery is going to bite you big time if you try using it. Buy and use photographic fixer if you want the images to last.

If you mean FILM, say FILM. You have never in your life gone into the store and bought a roll of Analogue.

One thing that will help is to get a few prints from excellent printers as reference images. You will have them for your walls but best of all you will have a direct reference as to what Quality looks like. If your efforts don't approach and eventually match the quality of these fine prints you will have to learn how to do it. As far as gear goes we have seen top quality work from photographers using film/developer/paper/enlarger/lens combinations many say just can't do it. You learn to work with what you have. Some technical limitations may arise but you can work with them. Using the gear as an excuse for poor quality just does not wash. Once you get the workflow so it is comfortable you will be able to produce fine work that will show well, will last and will give your years/decades of satisfaction. Best of all you won't be one computer glitch away from losing it all. A print lasts if you give it basic care. Good luck.

Do you use a Tripod or monopod? Do you brace the camera against something so it won't move? Do you have and use a cable release to trip the shutter? If not, do you gently squeeze the shutter release or jerk it? Most likely blurred images are your fault.

"My No. 1 criterion is quality," Then why are you looking at these guys?

This new layout looks like a 7th grade graphic arts dropout created it. WHY the change from something that worked well, was easy to work in and enjoyable to use? This new format is dumber than a mormon...

Having owned a number of 8x10 cameras I'll stay with the Deardorff. Canham would be my second choice. We're talking field cameras, not metal work and commercial stuff such as Sinar. I enjoy the Deardorffs in 5x7 and 8x10 both. The Deardorffs work and keep on working. They are familiar and well built. Newer stuff is very good as well. There are many reasons Deardorff cameras command high prices. They are a solid tool that keeps on working. My first was built in 1926. My latest in 1950. Both still tight and work well in the field or studio. If you are not sure, buy a Deardorff and and know you won't lose much if you decide to sell it. Used Sinar and other gear has lost so much it is almost worthless on the used market. Used Deardorffs hold their value. To quote one excellent Large Format photographer & Pt/Pd priinter Tillman Crane: "You can never own too many Deardorffs". http://www.tillmancrane.com/ Reality is that almost any camera that shoots the size film you like will do the job. When I first started with 8x10 I got a Kodak Master View because a friend whose work I admire used one. I hated the thing and nearly gave up on 8x10 because of it. Got rid of it and use a friends Deardorff - and loved it. Both are good cameras and both will do the job. One was a pain in the ass for ME, the other was comfortable. It is simple as that. If you like something else, use it.

No electronic finder matches a good optical finder on dark nights or dim jazz clubs. Not just an easier time viewing in very dark conditions but you are not spotlighted by a bright electronic finder which ruins your night vision. If you like the Nikon - use it.

Try the 12mm Zeiss. At the wide end the two mm does make a difference. 18-55 zoom. 90mm. This will give a good basic kit that will cover a lot of shooting situations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia Nussenzweig v DiCorcia Key concepts: Right of Privacy/Publicity Philip-Lorca DiCorcia photographed Hasidic Jew Ermo Nussenzweig walking on a public street in New York without his knowledge or consent. DiCorcia sold 10 prints of the image for between $20,000 – $30,000 through the Pace/McGill gallery. Nussenzweig sued DiCorcia and the gallery for privacy and religious reasons. The court ruled that the photograph was art, not commerce, and protected by the First Amendment. ------------------------------------------ https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/appeals-court-allows-artist-sell-painting-tiger-woods No less that Pro Golfer Tiger Woods found that Art is protected. Woods sued the painter for selling images of Woods - and Tiger lost. In the US Editorial and Art are protected. You can still be sued but generally will be OK. Commercial use is a whole different animal.

"Yes indeed, pixel-size can limit dynamic range relative to the competition with much larger sensor areas, but, when the light is good and the dynamic range is not too challenging, then I competes". You have just posted major limitations you will accept and why the camera is not a medium format tool.

<p>News shooters used them for decades without problems. Why do you think they won't work now?<br> Where do you think "f/8 and be there" came from?</p>

<p>Can you recognize and tell the difference in negatives that are under or over exposed compared to under or over developed?<br> If not you better learn. Until then you are spitting into the wind.</p>