AzDavid

Bob and Wayne ... thank you guys for your comments. I think this discussion underscores how something that seems simple and straight forward might actually be more complex. And that's why I posted the question. The situation turned out to be even more complicated. In addition to city streets, the festival included a handful of indoor private business spaces as well as a museum with a courtyard and classroom spaces. I felt as though photographing people on city streets for documentary purposes was fairly simple as far as releases go ... not necessary. But inside a private business? A museum? And then there're the possible commercial uses that I alluded to in the original post.

I don't see any reason why Photo.net would deny any category as long as it's photo-related and not illegal in some way. There definitely should be a digital alterations category. If somebody isn't interested in it they can simply not engage with it. As already noted here, limiting categories of participation can send otherwise happy PN members elsewhere.

I've volunteered to provide photography services for a non-profit organization that sponsors an annual outdoor festival with exhibits and demonstrations. It's all set in and along a few downtown city streets. I imagine my job is part documentary. But it's also likely the organization will use images I supply to promote themselves and future events. So ... what say you regarding photo releases? Do I need releases or no?

Welcome! I'm a bit like you ... I checked in with Photo.net for years but didn't officially join until last year. I've found it to be welcoming and constructive as I elevate my skills. I hope you find the same. Good luck!

A couple additional thoughts: First, I always appreciated having both a critique forum and a ratings system. I don't know how others feel, but personally I don't always feel qualified to tell someone why their image succeeds or fails - especially when the photographer in question has loads more experience than I. Second ... the simple ratings system made it easy for PN members to get basic feedback on their work and allowed those giving the ratings a way to participate and feel like a part of the community. Regarding identification of participants ... upon further reflection I think those doing critiques should identify themselves but I don't see a problem with those giving simple ratings remaining anonymous.

I vote for simple. I appreciate Leslie's trial balloon and it may, in fact, win support of many. However, it's my experience that the more complex a system the more likely it is to fail or not live up to its original billing. The panel in particular strikes me as something that would work for a while but might become a burden for PN staff to maintain. I believe most PNers who sought ratings in the old format simply wanted constructive feedback on their work. It's helpful to know whether an image is as good as you think or is, as my millennial sons would say, "Meh." It's probably a good idea that images be submitted for ratings anonymously. But I believe raters should be identified. A gallery of "top rated" images would be fine but probably should not count towards prizes or other rewards. I'd reserve the complicated panel idea for PN contests that offer actual prizes for winners. To reiterate: I vote for a simple rating system so members can get constructive feedback on images. Any problems with abuse or unfairness could be addressed if they materialize.

How recent was this purchase? If it's returnable you might consider that option. I'd certainly not want to start messing with a new camera that isn't working properly right out of the box. If returning isn't an option, I'd start with a simple cleaning as suggested by Robin. Be careful not to make things worse. Google proper cleaning of DSLR cameras. The other option is to take it to a camera store that offers professional cleaning services. The latter might also be able to diagnose the problem if it's due to something other than dust.

In a previous life I worked as a newspaper reporter. Interviewing family, friends or others familiar was a no-no unless it was newsworthy and all personal connections with the subject were disclosed. Reasons for this are obvious. I was lucky enough to work for publications that sought fair and accurate reporting by, among other things, ensuring that reporters avoided conflicts of interest. When I use my camera now I am still guided by similar thinking. Certainly I shoot family and holidays and vacations. But what I love to do is capture naturally occurring emotion in people. I prefer unfamiliar subjects because they can surprise me. They choose their emotions much like interview subjects chose their own words. Familiar subjects may also choose their own emotions. But we are all changed by our familiarity. They might try to act certain ways to please (or displease) me. Likewise, I might avoid certain shots knowing they could cause embarrassment. Unfamiliar subjects release me from such constraints. While strangers might still alter their behavior in front of a lens, I believe the chances for honest emotions can be improved.

I agree with rconey regarding Canon vs Nikon. Seems to me it makes sense to stick with Canon since you already have lenses that can transfer to a new body. Your urge to upgrade also is impacted by two things: Budget and purpose. By "purpose" I mean, why do you want to upgrade? Do you want to improve image quality? Do you want to turn pro some day? Do you want to be able to take video? Of the camera body options you list, I like the 80D. If you want to jump to a full-frame sensor, the 5D Mark III is a great choice and is being discounted now due to the arrival of the 5D Mark IV.

Thanks again, Sandy! And kdghantous ... I'm going to check out DxO. Thanks for the tip!

Thanks! I can change white balance on the fly as suggested. But that only corrects if I'm shooting the stage by itself or shooting the ballroom floor by itself. The problem I was asking about is what do you do if you want both the floor and stage in the same shot? Leslie confirms what I thought ... that the only way to deal with the dual lighting situation is through post processing.

Ran into a situation on Valentine's Day and wondered if anybody had any thoughts/suggestions/tips/etc ... I was asked to shoot a luncheon fundraiser for a large non profit organization. Typical ballroom with terrible lighting. Some 300+ attending. Up on the stage they had guest speakers and live entertainment. What drove me nuts was that the crowd eating around large round tables in the ballroom were lit one way (mostly fluorescent lighting inside covered fixtures) while everyone on stage was lit with ceiling-mounted spotlights. I had no problems shooting one or the other. But when I tried to capture the wide view of the audience watching a speaker or performer, everybody sitting down looked fine but everyone on stage was a shade of orange. I'm sure this isn't a new situation for many. But it was for me. Anything that might help me next time would be appreciated!

Played around with changing screen name but forum posts continue to display old version at bottom. Is there a way to make them the same?

Perhaps you could at least ask your contact in South Africa to attempt another photo with a better camera that is capable of "RAW" images and heeds the suggestions made previously here regarding reflections, lighting, etc ... Once you obtain another shot, find someone with Photoshop skills. If the bad reflections shown here are minimized (the carpet, the cell phone, etc ...) then they should be able to provide you with a basic copy of your grandfather. It will never be perfect but at least you will have something to remember him by.

Hate to pile on, but ... - When you write a reply in a forum, your first words automatically appear over the "Write your reply ..." and because the default font is so light colored it just looks like a jumble of mixed up characters. I suppose there is a way to change your font? I've tried a few things without luck. - In "Trending" gallery, why does one have to scroll to the bottom to see latest entries? First off, it takes forever to get to the bottom. There is little scrolling allowed before you have to click "Show More." I clicked four or five times and still didn't hit bottom. It's very frustrating especially since the site is so slow. Also ... this is not how "Editor's Picks" gallery works. There, you can choose "Newest" to bring all the latest photos to the top. Why don't all galleries operate like that? - Buttons labeled "Cate" make no sense. I believe you are attempting to abbreviate "category." I can not find any reference to "cate" being an appropriate abbreviation for the word "category." Instead, Photo.net should be using "Cat" or the less utilized "Categ." I believe calling it "Cate" is confusing especially to new users. - In forum posts, what happened to the little colored icons that appeared with poster's names ... the ones that indicated years of membership, helpfulness, etc.?

<p>I own a Surface Book and find the screen crisp and accurate. I use it for a variety of tasks including photo editing while on the road. I've also found it more able to handle video editing (I have the version that comes with a stand-alone graphics card) than my trusty Dell desktop. A couple points to make in all honesty: First, reliability is always in the back of my mind. My first Surface Book quit after a month. Luckily, Microsoft gave me a new one and it's now been eight months without issues. Secondly, while the screen resolution is great, I sometimes dock the Surface Book so that I can use the "real estate" offered by my much larger, although lower resolution, Samsung monitor that normally connects to my desktop.</p>

<p>I just use Google Drive to share photos and have never had a problem like you describe. Simply make a folder, fill it with photos to share and then share it with one or more people. There may be features provided in Google Photos that my way lacks, but I've found the Google Drive route pretty simple and problem-free.</p>

<p>Any suggested guidance is going to be more helpful and accurate if you provide more details such as the make and model of the printer in question.</p>

<p>Check out the link below. I was surprised to find such a deal. But it looks like an entirely different - and relatively affordable - option that you might consider.</p> <p>http://www.telescope.com/Gift-Center/Save-Kits-Bundles/Astrophotography-Kits/Orion-Adventures-in-Astrophotography-Bundle/pc/7/c/395/sc/1782/p/27154.uts</p>

<p>I'm going to vote "environmental portrait" because the main subject (teacher) is in her place of work, her environment. It might also be classified as a type of candid portrait.</p> <p>BTW ... did you have any difficulty obtaining model releases since this is intended for commercial/marketing purposes? </p>

<p>I still think tripods are best carried as checked luggage. However ... here's an image just posted today of a tripod that was not only carried on but also USED IN FLIGHT aboard a passenger aircraft.</p> <p>https://petapixel.com/2017/01/17/capturing-aurora-borealis-window-seat-35000ft/</p> <p> </p>

<p>This question has been considered before on various online sites. (Ex: http://www.photo.net/travel-photography-forum/00bjPB) Most comments encourage transporting your tripod as checked luggage. That said, the searchable TSA site says that a "tripod" is permitted as a carry-on item or in checked luggage. (Ex: https://apps.tsa.dhs.gov/mytsa/cib_results.aspx?search=tripod) I know checking luggage isn't what you planned on doing, but you might reconsider. Airport security screening could be much tighter given the fact that you're headed to the inauguration.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Mark ... I wouldn't hesitate to try it out. I recently made the switch on my Canon 5D MIII and I believe it has made an improvement to the level of focus in most of my images. I shoot a lot of moving subjects, many of them children, and this seemingly small tweak has helped me produce more in-focus shots. As Dieter noted, you might need a couple days to train your thumb to hit the right button but it's not a huge deal. At the beginning, I kept overreaching and my thumb would activate the Live View/Start/Stop button by mistake. But I got over that quickly. I don't think you have anything to lose. If you hate it, you can quickly switch it back to the way it was ... even in mid-shoot if necessary. BTW ... here's another Web site that talks about back button focus: http://www.colesclassroom.com/back-button-focus-explained/?utm_campaign=social-lead-gen&utm_medium=post&utm_source=facebook&utm_content=back-button-focus&utm_term=facebook-fans </p>

<p>Any lens purchase I make always includes a B+W UV filter. It gets put on immediately and doesn't come off unless I'm using other filters or I'm photographing something (like the full Moon) that can cause flares. I see such protection filters as an insurance policy for my lenses. In a way, they are more valuable than camera bodies. When I retire a body, the lenses migrate to the new camera. Just two days ago I was looking at used lenses at a local camera shop. I uncapped an 85mm (being sold without a protective filter) and immediately noticed a significant scratch on the front lens element. Not sure why the store accepted it for resale in that condition! But it reminded me once again of the value of protective filters.</p>

<p>How did you "update" your computer? Did you upgrade to Windows 10? It would be helpful to know.</p> <p>Meanwhile, as previously noted, an external card reader is a simple workaround for this issue and should be considered if you only seek to transfer image files from your camera to the computer.</p> <p>Also, have you tried a new/different USB cable? It's possible the existing cable is no longer working properly.</p>