jaydann_walker

<p>For his sake, let us hope he has the documentation for these cameras. And knows a good lawyer.</p> <p>He seemed to waffle a bit about that. And now appears to be MIA. </p> <p>JDW's data is well worth reading. </p> <p>I never did like those gold plated Leicas... Give me a nice Luxus any day. </p>

<p>Sorry to learn of your trials and tribulations with Thornton's two bath. I've used this developer for many years. My preference is for the Ansel Adams mix, which gives me more contrasty negatives than the actual Thornton mix, which I thought was too close to classic D23, an old Kodak lower contrast brew.</p> <p>It's odd that you had no images at all. I suspect the developer. You may have done one of three things, (1) used B before A - I've never done this, so I cannot really say what the results would be, (2) you somehow mixed together A into B, which I was told long ago is disastrous, or (3) you mixed up the developer wrongly. Metol and hydroquinone are entirely different chemicals, but either will still give you an image of some sort. </p> <p>I suggest you dispose of the original batch and mix up a new batch, following the instructions closely. Are you using scales? Are your chemicals fresh? What chemical did you use as the activator in bath B? Did you mark your bottles properly with A and B designations? Did you keepthe two baths separate? Did you somehow mix B into A (or A into B)?</p> <p>I've been to my notes and copied the following for you - my own preferred mixes. I used the Stockler mix for a few years but then switched to the Ansel Adams mix, which gives me the contrast I prefer. I haven't used the Thornton bath, friends do and say it's excellent for negatives you want to scan but it produces somewhat iffier contrast for enlargements.</p> <p>The Stockler formula<br /> Bath A (grams) Metol - 5 grams, sodium sulfite - 100 grams, water to one liter <br /> Bath B (grams) Borax - 10 grams, water to one liter<br /> <br /> The Ansel Adams D23 formula<br /> Bath A (grams) Metol - 7.5 grams, sodium sulfite - 100 grams, water to one liter<br /> Bath B (grams) Sodium metaborate - 10 grams, water to one liter<br /> <br /> The Barry Thornton higher definition formula<br /> Bath A (grams) Metol - 6.25 grams, sodium sulfite - 85 grams, water to one liter<br /> Bath B (grams) Sodium metaborate - 12 grams, water to one liter</p> <p>Hope this helps.</p>

<p>I've traveled in African countries in my time. Some (brief) advice.</p> <p>Take extra cards. Buy reliable brand cards. Pack everything securely in padded camera bags. Insure it all. Take small money (in US$) to handout as "gifts"to customs officials who will try to cause you headaches at the airport. The latter are endemic to all those third world countries. A $20 in the palm may save you many problems. It happens to me in Asia. It will probably happen to you in Africa.</p> <p>There are many wonderful opportunities for photography of every sort in African and Asian countries, but you will do well to avoid "friendly" locals who take onelook at your equipment and want to befriend you, even carry your bags for you. At the end of the day they will then demand payment in generous amounts and some can turn nasty if this is declined. Traveling in tour groups can (but doesn't always) avoid such unpleasantness. The trick here is to carry small bags with only the gear you use on the day, and not your entire arsenal. Less is best. </p> <p>Otherwise, you sound as if you have carefully planned and intend to enjoy the journey. As you will. Those sunsets are truly outstanding and the colors in the late part of the day have to be seen to be believed. I shot (and sold) all that in the 1970s. Not sure there is a market for it or most pretty scenery now, but I don't recall you said you were shooting for profit anyway. Amateur is good!</p>

<p>Scanning? Don't get me started...</p> <p>I'm not a technical type. I do research and read OL before I buy anything for my photo work. Quality is a must, but price is also important. I own and use two scanners: a Plustek 7600i purchased secondhand in 2011 from a trusted seller who had bought it new and found he couldn't stand working with it, and an Epson V600, bought new in 2012. I have no plans to upgrade either for now.</p> <p>Both do the jobs I expect from them,with some fiddling and tweaking. The Plustek is for 35mm only, and I use it mostly for B&W. It does what I want it to, slowly, and so I get by with it, and get fairly acceptable first time scans with B&W. Color work can be unpredictable. Often several scans are required with no end of fiddling with the controls before I get colors and contrast I'm happy with. Color negatives are fairly fast to scan. Slides can take an endless time. The Plustek has a calibrating slide which I used one time and then put away (I've now forgotten where it is). The Auto function usually works best. I then sweat out the rest in post processing. Endless amounts of time go into my 35mm work, but that's how it is and I live with it, as I have to.</p> <p>The V600 produces acceptable first time scans with MF B&W and color negatives and slides. A little post processing is often needed after the scan, but usually not a lot. I did try 35mm scanning with the V600 but decided the quality wasn't up to the Plustek, 'tho I found the first time scans on Auto function were often not as good as subsequent scans. Again, a lot of fiddling and testing is required.</p> <p>My scanned photos are for web use (I put them in folders for clients to see) and are low res scans) and prints up to 11x14. My best large prints come from MF negatives scanned with the Epson. The Plustek gives me OK prints to 8x10 but is often iffy in larger sizes. The negative is everything. A good sharp neg will scan faster and produce better results on the first scan. Unfortunately, most of my negs don't always fall into this category, tho' in the end result they print up well.</p> <p>Lest anyone thinks my photo techniques and processing are at fault here, let me say I often get big enlargements custom printed for sale to clients. They are always fine.</p> <p>I also go with Viewscan, it's a gift from the gods to us. Nothing else comes close to it for my work.</p> <p>Recently I had to scan some very old (1960s-1970s) Kodacolor negatives I had lost for many years but then found in my mother's house, hidden in a document folder. As a test run, I put them thru' the two scanners to compare the results. The Plustek did a good job but the multiple scans took an endless amount of time. The V600 was much faster. Results were mostly the same. Even the oldest negs with only faint markings visible came up reasonably well, which I consider as nothing short of a major miracle. Colors were amazingly good, even skin tones. Softening was visible from 5x7 prints but geez, we're talking old Kocacolor here. Lest we forget... A lot of 20 Kodacolor negs I shot in New Mexico in 1970 came up with a pattern like marble in the skies, interesting! and each image took up to 30 minutes to clean up, sharpen (especially sharpen) and fix up the colors and contrast. I particularly wanted these for an album for my then partner, so I did the work. That's 15 hours of my life now gone forever. Oh, well.</p> <p>I hope all this is useful. If you want web images, either scanner will do the basic work well. For prints, the Plustek outdoes all its competition in the same price and quality range, but limits you to 35mm. The V600 is OK+ for MF but I wouldn't do most of my 35mm on it.</p> <p>Trying to do scans with a DSLR and a tripod on a laptop is a recipe for madness, I think. Some swear by it, others swear at it. Me, I would need Diazepam after one session with this rig. </p> <p>In summing up, I would say go with an old Plustek and Vuescan for 35mm work. You will save a lot of time (and likely your sanity).</p>

<p>David, we share many of the same problems (I'm sure this will be a consolation to you!) and I will be following this thread with great interest, as I believe many others also will. </p> <p>The very best laptop I had for post processing my color images was an old Compaq I bought in 2009, which alas! had SDS (sudden death syndrome) a few weeks ago, from multiple causes as it turned out. Cat hair being one. Fortunately I back up everything I do as I go and also do weekly downloads to two standalone hard disks, so I didn't lose anything. The Compaq hard disk was as it turned out, salvageable, and now lives on in a self-contained generic external HD box. So nothing was lost. </p> <p>In Indonesia where I stay, laptops are not expensive, but there is a limited choice available in the local retail shops. As well, much of the information I've been getting from so-called "experts" seems dubious and mostly based on selling me the most expensive model of any brand I look at. The Lenovos are very popular, and the most reliable source I know has recommended that I buy a gaming model for super fast processing. I did look into this, but as you discovered, here is the catch: the image colors on all the Lenovos I've seen are simply awful. This may be due to bad editing, as most of the local photographers I've met here go for expensive equipment but, to be bluntly honest, are terrible photographers and much of their work isn't worth looking at.</p> <p>Anyway, I did a sample batch of 20 images on someone's Lenovo, as a test, and sent these to a publisher client in Singapore,who evaluated them on his office computer setup (unsurprisingly, Mac) and rejected the lot as unacceptable due to color and contrast disparities. My lack-and-white conversions also had contrast problems. I had NONE of these problems on the late and lamented Compaq. </p> <p>At this time, of your two choices, I favor (2) and (1) in that order. Unfortunately, buying a Mac will require a trip back to Australia, where they are cheaper than those available at local prices, even at the devalued Indonesian rupiah exchange I get for my Aussie dollars. The difference in price will pay for almost all my return airfare, and I don't fly with any of the renowned bucket airlines, so we're talking quite serious money here. </p> <p>So Lenovos are, I think, out. Dell has been recommended. Also Acers, but almost all the Acer laptops Ive checked out are in the lower price range and have terrible keyboards. HPs are being flogged off cheaply but even the locals all say to avoid HPs are difficult and expensive to repair. Now and then I find other brands, which I've not yet explored in depth. A big learning curve lies ahead. </p> <p>I want to go laptop. If I'm successful in getting a new book contrast I'm currently preparing to bid on, I would seriously consider buying two of the same brand (altho' perhaps not the same models), so I can have an on the road laptop to do daily downloads and one securely on my desk at home for the post processing work. (The house fur bags will no longer be allowed to sleep on the desk or even in my work studio.)</p> <p>This isn't very technical as I'm not a techno type. In the past I've tended to do a little research but then just buy for dollar value, often at retail outlet end of line sales, sometimes OL or privately. Until now this has served me just fine. In all this I am, I think, one of the majority. </p> <p>As I said, I will be watching this post with great interest. Like the cat who ate cheese to peer down the mouse hole with baited breath... </p>

<p>Like the rest of you, I have way too many cameras. For a few years I kept to a rule of shooting one roll of film in each camera every year, but I eventually gave up. I had too many rolls of boring B&W test negs of the paddocks, hills, cactus, sheep and cows in the Australian countryside. </p> <p>Like Brad, after many years of careful buying I too have the camera kits I intend to keep. The problem is I have too many of them, as well as other cameras and photo gear I no longer used or haven't looked at for ages. I have to start selling the surplus gear I now keep imprisoned in cartons, and take out, dust off, and check once a year. Please let's not talk about the films in one freezer, and the ageing paper (mostly FB, so good forever and a day) in the other freezer. My spouse often think about divorce, but says I'm too good a cook to be let go, that is when I'm home and not somewhere on the road, out shooting. </p> <p>Nowadays I most a Nikon D700 and three lenses for color work and an old D90 with a 28 f/2 lens for street shooting and esoterica, the fun stuff. The rest just sits. </p> <p>In my heart of hearts there is a camera I have always wanted, lusted after, in my life - a Hasselblad SWC. Many years ago I briefly used one on loan with an A16 back, and it changed my life. The best film shots I have ever taken were donewith this SWC. It quite ruined my life. I have never been the same since. </p> <p>I suppose I could offload all my cameras except a fave few, and clean out my savings, and maybe buy an SWC. The last affordable one I saw was eight years ago in a used shop in Melbourne, a consignment sale, for A$990. I was even offered 10% off for cash. I stupidly, yes, stupidly, passed it up. I've kicked myself since. That was one beautiful babe of a camera. My dream camera. </p> <p>I have a 500CM kit with four lenses and lots of bits and pieces. It mostly sits on a shelf at home. Do I use it? No. My MF bug is catered for by my two Rolleiflex Ts, a Voigtlander Perkeo 1 (the best folder I've ever owned, and I've had them all), or my GA645. </p> <p>With (Australian) Ebay prices at rock bottom now, if I sell, I will be giving my cameras away to resellers who will just keep them for a year and then sell at a profit. I want that profit, darn it! So that option is unlikely. </p> <p>With an SWC, an A12 and an A16 back, my Gossen LunaPro meter, and a good supply of Ilford HP5+ and Kodak Ektar film, I would be as happy as a pig in mud for the rest of my life.</p> <p>So why don't I...? Indeed, why don't I! It would be GDS (Gear Deacquisition Syndrome) and going the opposite way from everyone else, which would suit me. Wo hoo to that!</p> <p>The original question was, if I won the lottery, what would I buy? An SWC for film, a Leica for digital, and a trip around the world with unlimited stops. I would then go away for a year or 18 months and shoot, shoot, shoot, promiscuously! On my return, I would happily spend the rest of my life (70 next year) post processing and setting up online folders for people to enjoy. </p> <p>I have no debts, but I would also buy a restored 1960s Morgan four seat roadster, a Rolex Oyster from the 1950s,all the old fountain pens I see and want, lots of color inks to fill up the pens, and drink good wine in quantities I've always wanted to, but resisted due to not having the dosh. </p> <p>There is much to be said for excess in moderation.</p>

<p>Landrum, good click bait! Are you being paid for this? Hah!</p> <p>I go with JDW. The literal (aka real world) issues appeal more to me than the philosophical, just as I would rather be out shooting than intellectualising about dictionary definitions of "what is a photographer?"</p> <p>In my extensive travels I entirely too often am subjected to the too common "I've just bought a (name your favorite DSLR prosumer camera) with a 28-105 kit lens, and I'm a professional photographer now, and I want to sell my photos", usually from would-be's-wanna be's out recording pretty landscapes, lovely close-ups of floral tonsils, smiling babes, cute pussy cats, puppy dogs, hamsters and ferrets, or whatever they have seen and are consciously or unconsciously copying from the latest photo magazine(s). All this of course is the profit making flotsam of 21st century snap-snapping and cannon fodder for the camera manufacturers and retail shops, whose little darlings all these happy people are. PT Barnum again comes to mind. </p> <p>I of course am likely of the same ilk, 'tho I make do with a now elderly and well used Nikon D700 and a small bag of D prime lenses. No zooms. A small Gitzo tripod. All except for the camera, acquired secondhand after careful OL research and shopping. All of which surely must make ME a photo snob as well, 'tho of a different (and more limited) type: The cheap used pro gear buyer brigade. </p> <p>Generally I'm OK with all this - the old saying, "different strokes for different folks" comes to mind - but I do draw the line when these well-meaning folk invite me toper use their Crappy-Happy Snaps on one or another of the more notorious instant friend web sites. Now and then I actually go forth and look at the work - only to find 160 folders with 13,298 images. </p> <p>Lest I be branded as a total cynic, let me say, now and then I come upon a winner. I haven't yet so far this year, but like the mattress salesman used to say, hope springs eternal. </p> <p>The (very few) ones who often as not catch my eye, however, are those rare beings out shooting usually B&W with ancient Nikons or Nikkormats or Rollei TLRs. A 80+ year old Italian gentleman I encountered a few weeks ago at Angkor Wat in Cambodia, happily snapping all the temple scenes with a 1950s Voigtlander Vito and a small Linhof tripod of the same vintage, was someone I found myself admiring most of all. </p> <p>But yes, as JDW said, we are all photographers, as long as we are out there photographing. OK? </p> <p>Just my thoughts en passant. Landrum, of course you are NOT click baiting...!</p> <p> </p>

<p>Here I am again. Came back to read all the posts. Some very interesting ones. A bit of relevant info to stimulate the old brain cells, and make me think about dusting off and polishing up the Nikkormats at home.</p> <p>One camera one lens is fine if you are an amateur playing at photography. Superb results have been attained with the good old fifty. </p> <p>If you have to produce and deliver the goods, however, a kit is essential. Three lenses will usually suffice - one wide, one close to standard (ideally macro), one reasonable tele. </p> <p>In the 1960s when I first cut my teeth at commercial photography, as a callow youth in a Canadian country town, everybody used either Speed graphics (the pros) or Yashica TLRs (the amateur would-be's with a little money). I shot everything in sight for pay and eventually saved up enough to buy a Rolleiflex TLR - THE camera everybody wanted then. It served its purpose for 15 years til I eventually moved on to 35mm (Nikons). I still own it and I still use it, occasionally, to remind myself how limited we were in those days. </p> <p>One lens work is good for Personal Expression work or snapshots. Pretty scenery. Kids frolicking in the wading pool. Lovely close-ups or orchids' tonsils. None of it saleable, and sadly yet inevitably, almost all of it (excepting the kids, who are usually family) quickly forgotten. But it does the work. It's just not very, well - exciting. And for me, too limiting. </p> <p>I remember the day I had enough cash in hand (a new credit card, if truth be told) to go out and buy two new Nikkor lenses for my Nikkormat. 28mm and 85mm, to complement my 50mm f/2. The freedom I suddenly felt was incomparable to anything I had ever experienced before (well, almost anything, and in this I am sure you know what I mean, enough said). My photo imagery expanded by leaps and bounds, and suddenly I found I was shooting and selling more color photos than ever. I had crossed the bridge, so to say. </p> <p>Another question, going by the many posts on this point, would be, which lens suits you best. I'm not a 50mm boy. 28mm is my eye. 85mm for better close ups of people and things. I still own the 50 f/2, but long ago bought a 55mm Micro Nikkor, which gets used 99 times out of 100. The 50 is almost pristine, but then it mostly stays safely snuggled with film and filters in my bag. </p> <p>The bottom line to all this, I suppose, is that in photography as well as in life, we are fortunately free to do whatever rocks are boats. If the 50mm, 35mm or 28mm viewpoint suits your vision, so be it. Shoot and enjoy. <br> </p> <p> </p>

<p>Obviously, I could not resist returning to this post, to check the comments... </p> <p>Bill, you are obviously very keen on this. Well and good. </p> <p>I still suggest, back to the drawing board.</p> <p>Also still suggest, detailed business and marketing plans. </p> <p>The way to bo. Business does it. And your posts sound like pure business to me.</p> <p>Email? Mate, along with the mobile phone, the scourges of the late 20th century... Think Facebook! I rest my case. </p> <p>As stated in my earlier post, the best of luck to you with all this. </p> <p>JD</p> <p>Spouse Two said on reading all this, "you don't need to get involved with artificial intelligence. You were married to it for 10 years before you met me."</p>

<p>(Update) The camera has arrived. Absolutely pristine! If anything, the seller in Japan understated its condition. It looks 9/10 new. Shutter and other mechanics work well. Two rolls of B&W test film shot already, to be processed this weekend after I set up my home darkroom and get fresh processing chemicals. </p> <p>This little baby has the potential to really rejig my interest in medium format photography. The GA645 is fine but functions too much like an oversize P*S for my liking. But the GS- huh! </p>

<p>Double posting. Comments deleted. </p>

<p>Uppdate time now. I went and I did! Had a truly wonderful time, stayed longer than I had planned, and discovered TWO superb photo ops, both likely to result in sales for me. </p> <p>However, as no-one cared enough to comment, I will say no more. So go to Kuta, peasants! </p>

<p>I agree with Michael. Clickbait,mate, clickbait. But good images overall. </p> <p>I usually avoid this sort of thing like the proverbial plague, but this time I nibbled at the cheese. Good one! No likely business from me. I gave up on weddings ages ago, too much competition undercutting the prices and nobody wants quality any more. Just cliche'd shots. Now and then I shoot a divorce party for the fun of it. Much better alcohol on offer. </p> <p>Nice try. Keep shooting! </p>

<p>Download and read the manual. It's all explained in there for you, in black-and-white letters, perhaps even with an illustration. </p> <p>Yours is, I believe, the prewar camera. Fun cameras, the optics are generally iffy, and the bellows often leak light like a sieve and water. Unless it has been serviced, which is possible but will likely be expensive (I had one CLA'd in 1999 and ended up paying three times the original price of the camera, with the shutter speeds still zonky afterwards), the resulting may disappoint you. Avoid shooting color! After two rolls and lousy results I gave up and sold mine to a collector. Not worth the bother or the effort, I decided. </p> <p>BTW, Kent Staubus and Seaman had the closest to correct explanations about what happened to your roll. </p>

<p>Agree with Starvy. Forty degree © plus temperatures this year, in many parts of India. Unlikely to do your finely tuned electronic camera much good. Definitely a killer for film. Digital is the way. Travel light. Reduce your photo equipment to the basics. As Starvy wrote, a mirrorless and one or two lenses would be idea for that sort of travel.</p> <p>Going at a cooler (northern autumn, October-November) time would be better. Rethink and replan if at all possible. </p> <p>Take a lot of water and salt tablets. Wear a hat. Splurge on +50 sunscreen. Remember the Novel Coward 1950s song about mad dogs and the rest, and stay out of the sun at midday, shoot early or late, better light anyway. The English colonials lived on their gin and tonic, and you can and should enjoy the excellent Indian beer, Mandalay Pale Ale with ice (made from boiled water) and slices of lime or lemon can be a life saver. </p> <p>As well, if you are thinking of travel-hopping about with a bag full of gear and snap-snapping potential stock images as you go, you will do well to rethink and plan very carefully. Most would-be stock shooters end up with thousands of (usually digital) travel images, almost none of which are saleable. Ditto the usual people shots of small children smiling at the camera or old people flashing toothless grins. Steve McCurry did it a few decades ago (see his books), but even then it was becoming a tad, well, cliche. At least he did it well. Most of the others just copy him. </p> <p>All this said, if you must, then go and enjoy India. Wit'h the right mindset it's a unique experience. Good images are possible in India, but do your research carefully AND thoroughly. Google a lot for starters. Read the posts in the travel forums of this and other photo web sites. Look at stock agencies' web sites and carefully note their requirements and want lists. Travel images are often a no-no. Check Flickr. Your eyes will open wide at this last one. </p> <p>I say all the above with some experience. Since the 1990s I've done quite specialised photography for clients. I'm not about to give away my business secrets, but I can tell you that in all cases my work is contracted before I leave home. From a shipload of past experience I can also tell you two things.</p> <p>One, in my travels I meet many photographers with heaps of expensive gear who all say (and may even believe) they are new professionals (the camera manufacturers with their dubious marketing tactics have a lot to answer for in this area) and are shooting wonderful stuff for sale with obsolete film cameras or inadequate amateur quality DSLRs and cheap zoom lenses. Two, the fees I get for my images rarely even cover my travel expenses. I shoot with a careful eye to multiple usage and even then I often end the year offsetting my photo income and some of my travel expenses on tax from other income. </p>

<p>I believe there are already hundreds or more sites such as this already open and functioning. They are called "stock photo agencies".</p> <p>Nick, if you check, you'll also find that many stock agencies have facilities already set up for would-be buyers to contact photographers to shoot to specification for them.</p> <p>Good basic idea, but some aspects of it are already in use. As Starvy said, as Nick visualises it, of very little interest. Potential buyers will see no need to register (and pay) to meet one of the zillions of photographers out there who will work on assignment for pay and who would also register (and pay) to be exposed to said potential buyers. Already taken care of, at both ends.</p> <p>So Nick, back you go to the drawing board. Apply a little more critical thinking and see what you come up with. </p>

<p>I try to avoid click bait, and that's what all this sounds like to me. So I am, after reading what you wrote, entirely disinclined to go into your site and check out or read anything. It just doesn't grab me at all. </p> <p>My apologies if I am wrong about the click bait. However, this said, to me your postings are so vague, and you seem to be floundering about without really saying much of anything , that I had initially suggested you do business and marketing plans so you could then identify some sort of direction as to what you are doing, or trying to do, and then perhaps decide if your "project" has any validity or, to be blunt, any usefulness at all. Artificial intelligence? Are you using this term to try to get other photographers to post photos to your site? </p> <p>As well, I agree that it seems there is little or almost no interest in your site or what you are trying to do, from other members of this forum. </p> <p>At this point, I have said more than enough, and I prefer to just drop out entirely. Good luck to you with your project, whatever it is. </p> <p>Please consider all I have written entirely as "constructive criticism". </p>

<p>Eureka! I've bought a GS645W, from a reputable seller in Japan, via Ebay. At an excellent price. It's on the way to me now.</p> <p>The seller in Malaysia played all the predictable sillyb*gger games with pricing, ran hot/cold about whether or not he really wanted to sell, then became all precious when I (politely) drew his attention to his Ebay "competition" offering comparable cameras at half his asking price or even less. Eventually after fielding several hurt emails from him, I suggested he Go Jump and then blocked him. A classic time waster.</p> <p>In my experience the Japan Ebay sellers are courteous and responsive and offer service I would love to have in camera shops in the West. We have much to learn from them, about sales, service, and good manners.</p> <p>I will be picking up the GS in Australia next week, and then returning to resume my architectural shooting in Southeast Asia. </p> <p>To all who took the time to respond to my query, many thanks. </p>

<p>You need detailed business and marketing plans. Without these, you will go on floundering in the dark, as you appear to be doing now. </p> <p>To my mind, you have not really shared enough information in your post for us to engage with you. I have read what you wrote no less than three times, and I must admit I am still at somewhat of a loss to figure out exactly what you are doing, or want to do. </p> <p>You need to go back to your drawing board, or desk, or laptop, and redo your project summaries. Then share more with us. In other words, you must help us so we can try to help you. </p>

<p>Before we got together my partner worked for a few years for one of a leading stock photo agencies - one of the big ones. Their stock files included material such as you seem to be shooting. </p> <p>David is spot-on. Get model releases for EVERYTHING. Make sure the release has been prepared and/or vetted by a good legal advisor, to cover you for every situation. According to my partner, whenever the agency managed to place any "nude" material (not often), the models inevitably contacted to demand money, insisting the releases they had signed did not cover the (whatever situation the photos were published). On each and every occasion the agency sent a proforma return letter, saying in effect, "it's between you and the photographer, so call them and discuss." In many cases, the photographer soon afterwards contacted the agency, pleading for the photos to be removed from their portfolio. Some lawyers will work cheap. Lawsuits are always expensive. </p> <p>Model photography, whether clothed, nude or "boudoir" as I believe it's now called, is a hard and often harsh game. The fashions are fickle and everyone wants in on the fun and games of shooting the stuff. Try not to have any illusions about it in all its aspects. The competition for this sort of material is very keen. Everyone with a garage or home studio in the suburbs who shoots"'nudies" fancies themselves another Andre De Diennes. As my partner recalls, the rejection factor was about 98%. Be prepared for knock-backs and persevere. Your work will eventually find its place. Whether or not it sells in an already saturated market, is another matter. </p> <p>And to be sure, the very best of luck. </p>

<p>I have a sometimes maddening urge to record what I see in my life's wanderings. I am also a retired architect, and I think in grids. Everything I see is linear. When I look at a beautiful 1800s colonial building, I find I'm sketching it in my mind. So photographing it is only an extension of what I am thinking. </p> <p>As an occasional photographer for publication, I shoot what my publisher clients want me to, for the books they are producing. With architecture, this is easier than it sounds, because most of the old buildings I photographs are approached and shot according to set formulas. Compose the scene, set up, put the camera on a tripod, check all the settings, verify there is film in the bloody thing (or power in the batteries if I'm shooting with my D700), then shot shoot shoot - long shots, medium shots, close ups, detail shots. Lastly, a panoramic super long shot to show the palm trees or the ricefields or the kangaroos in the paddock. </p> <p>Other scenes evoke long cherished memories. Old barns remind me of my late grandfather's barn in Eastern canada in the 1970s. Limestone hills take me back to my university and young adult years in New Mexico. Australian bush scenes with that wonderful Antipodean light set a spark alight in my heart. I shoot the streets everywhee I go to evoke the busyness of city life. I photograph markets all over the world because I love food. Above all, I take photographs of people because I like people, and enjoy the conversations I often have with them after the photos have been taken (with their permission of course). </p> <p>I photograph family members and friends and our three beloved cats because I want lasting memories of all of them. </p> <p>There is nothing "arty" in my photography, although on occasion I have been accused of being an artist. </p> <p>I worked all this out in my mind and to my lasting satisfaction, many decades ago. The cameras I carry with me (and they come everywhere, every day) are an extension to my eye, my hand, and my mind. </p> <p>My life often feels like I'm on a wheel, forever revolving, always inevitably returning to the same position, time and again. My camera records the memories for me of the many interesting things I see along the way. </p> <p>Simple as anything, really. Nothing complex about it, nothing at all. Maybe. </p> <p>JD</p>

<p>I've not owned a G2, but have and still use several G1s. This is a common problem with the those older Contax G cameras.One of mine went bad like this, some years ago. It continued to function for a while, but then seized up entirely.</p> <p>It may indicate future electrical problems. </p> <p>I believe it can no longer be repaired as apparently Contax no longer service or repair the Gs and even local repair shops can't access parts. In Melbourne, Australia, the leading camera repair center absolutely refuses to touch Contax Gs even to CLA them, which ordinarily would be a simple task.</p> <p>I would recommend that, if at all possible, you should return the camera to the seller for a refund. If it was as you describe when you purchased it, then it was faulty.</p> <p>Sorry for the bad news, but. Otherwise, wonderful cameras with superb lenses, while they work. </p> <p>JD</p>

<p>Many thanks, Bernard.</p> <p>Your first photo clearly illustrates the sort of "distortion" (or "convergence of parallel lines" as you wrote) I have to avoid in my photos. This sort of photo is best done by putting the GS645W on a tripod and leveling it with a spirit level. Can be done easily.</p> <p>Your second photo shows almost no distortion and as such would be acceptable to my publisher client.</p> <p>Your two fine images illustrate that I would be able to achieve the photography I do with a GS645W. So you have reassured me on this, and I thank you.</p> <p> Excellent photography, BTW. Good mid tones and blacks throughout. Ideal!</p>

<p>I will try to be brief with what could be (and is) a long story.</p> <p>I have used a Fuji GA645i and a GA645wi to shoot architecture, with generally excellent results, given some effort and bearing in mind the potential for annoying distortion in the verticals. (Anyone who photographs architecture will understand my last comment.)</p> <p>Two weeks ago my GA645wi broke down on a shoot in Sarawak (Malaysia). Apparently it can't be repaired. I don't have easy access to my GA645 in Australia, and I can't find any Fuji GA cameras for sale in Singapore or Malaysia.</p> <p>Someone in Kuala Lumpur wants to sell me a GS645W, an older camera, at an acceptable (but not cheap) price. I have stocks of 120 film with me. The Fuji 120 is an essential part of my kit, and is used for B&W. The GS models are manual focus without rangefinders, so scale focusing. They are much older than the GA645i models. I haven't seen or handled a GS645W before.</p> <p>Has anyone here used a Fuji GS645W for architecture, and how did it handle? I shoot almost entirely old colonial buildings which are one or two storeys, also detail shots. I need negatives good enough for book publication and internet use.</p> <p>How is the metering on the GS? As well - and this is very important to me - what about distortion in vertical shots of buildings, corner walls, columns and pillars?</p> <p>Any advice you are able to share on this camera and how I can use it, will be welcome and I will be very grateful for it.</p> <p>Many thanks in advance.</p>

<p>Vijay, bluntly but honestly put, your "very rare footage" seems to me to be as 'exciting' as the current federal election campaign in Australia. </p> <p>If you ever visit the Healesville, Victoria animal sanctuary, you will see endless versions of Australian animals doing exactly what you have (very briefly) described. Kangaroos are territorial, and often indulge in duvh Let's Pretend aggression to repel newcomers to what they see as their areas.</p> <p>The ABC may be interested in your images as as they often use photography their viewers. Doubtful they will pay you anything much for it, tho. Most submit to them for the exposure. They will publish your name and give you a credit, at least.</p> <p>Yahoo news may also be interested. One of their editorial hacks can add a provocative heading and copy to it and post it OL as today's latest cosmic event for their audience of suburban 18 year olds to excite themselves over. Again, don't expect payment. At best, maybe a credit. Kangaroos would be a novel departure from the usual endless Yahoo news diet of Kims and Kanyes.</p> <p>If what I've written seems harsh, well, much of the big bad world of visual media out there, is a very harsh and hard place, even in a laid back culture like Australia.</p> <p>I wish you success in your new photographic career, but you should seriously consider taking a short course in small business management and marketing before you nail up your shingle as a photographer in Canberra. Your own web site would also seem to me to be a basic requirement of going pro. </p> <p>Anyway, best of luck. </p>