AzDavid

<p>Given the conditions you described, I don't think the photo looks that bad. Does it have to be so large? Because it's in JPEG format, there's not a lot of tweaking you can do without making the photo look worse, in my opinion. Your camera should take RAW images. You don't mention whether or not that's what you worked with before uploading the current JPEG images to PN. RAW images can take adjustment much better than JPEGs. But, as Patrick points out, "blurry" is hard to fix. And you might have to learn to live with a certain amount of noise if you don't want the image to end up looking too soft/blurry.</p>

<p>I agree with all that's been said here but wanted to ask about printing. You don't mention whether or not that's your reason for worrying about calibration. If you want to calibrate to improve prints you make at home, I'd make things easier by sticking with one good monitor. And true calibration goes far beyond just adjusting the monitor ... you've also got to consider the type of printer you own, the ICC profile you use, light in the room and other factors. </p> <p>Here's a pretty good YouTube video that explains things: <p>Michael ... I'd be interested to know what's included with the iMac software. I just tried out the Windows 10 monitor calibration app and it's basically just a hand-holding while you adjust the gamma, brightness, contrast and color balance settings that come with your monitor. </p>

<p>I used to save magazines, much to the dismay of my wife. At one point, I had stacks of astronomy magazines dating back 20 years. Then the publisher came out with a nice, compact set of CDs that contained everything I'd been saving and a lot more. Suddenly I saw the light and got rid of the dusty, old pile that, quite frankly, I'd never looked through. I still keep magazines around for a few months but then they go. I do still prefer reading through printed magazines when they first come out. But there's so much available online now that it doesn't seem to make much sense to keep the physical copies around "just in case" I need to go back and look something up.</p>

<p>I know how we all managed ... we were all younger and had lots of energy! I remember back in high school I took photography as an elective and immediately fell in love. We shot with B&W film, of course, using a few Pentax 35mm cameras and 4x5s. Learned developing and printing. Saved my money and built a darkroom at home in my Dad's old storage room. The skills I learned helped me get my first newspaper job writing for the campus daily in college. As a trial, they had me go cover an evening carnival that student groups used to raise money. I took my Canon AE-1 along and shot a roll between interviews. I must have stayed up until 3 or 4 in the morning writing, developing and printing photos. The next morning, the editor was amazed to get not only a story but art to go with it. That started me along in my first career - journalism. I still have that old camera but today do my shooting with a Canon 5D Mark III. And, of course, there's no darkroom any more. Just a Dell desktop and a few Adobe products. But I'm still in love!</p>

<p>We've been treated recently to a rare visit of a tri-colored heron ... usually not seen in Arizona!</p><div></div>

<p>In my city, the situation seems dreary if you just look at the print side of newspapers. Over the past 10 years, the major daily newspaper has lost nearly half its circulation. A look at the staff directory now shows just seven photographers who work in a department labeled, "Visuals." The last decade has witnessed newsroom layoffs and a shrinking paper, both in the available news "hole" and in the physical dimensions of the product itself. Meanwhile, the paper's online site is filled with images and, I would bet, offers the best promise for photojournalism. It would be nice if a working photojournalist would weigh in and let us all know what it's really like on the inside.</p>

<p>Oops. Thanks for the correction, Dieter!</p>

<p>I would assume that it has something to do with last week's move to Photo.net 2.0, a redesign that met mixed reviews, and the subsequent move back to Photo.net 1.0.</p> <p>The functionality of forums in PN 2.0 was a particularly loud concern among many. Some threads, we were told, were deleted due to a malfunctioning spam filter. </p> <p>We've been told that the move back to PN 1.0 is temporary and should give site admins the time to retool things and address some of the issues raised by long-time users.</p>

<p>Oops. Sorry about that. You did mention video towards the end of your post. Have you considered green screen? There are many sources online including some videos about using the green screen technique to end up with a totally black background. Then, I guess, you would wear a high-neck shirt made from fabric that's the same shade of green. Wouldn't that leave you with the end result you seek? </p>

<p>I considered that it might be admins doing testing. But you'd think they would write stuff like, "This is a test message." Instead, there are actual postings about different topics. One person even wrote something like, "I can't figure out why nobody is commenting on this new design." So it seems as though some people are finding their ways into the PN 2.0 forum and don't know that the rest of us have all gone back to PN 1.0. </p>

<p>Seems to me that Photoshop would make this job pretty easy. Take a selfie. Import to Photoshop. Select entire head and copy. Create new blank image. Fill background with black. Paste your head in middle. Boom.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, there are still people creating new threads and posting comments to PN 2.0. And names seem to have disappeared so you can't tell who is doing the posting.</p> <p>The link to All Posts on 2.0: http://www.photo.net/forums/</p> <p>The link to Unified View on 1.0: http://www.photo.net/bboard/unified/</p>

<p>I'm not a lawyer, but here are my two cents on the matter: You don't mention your location and that can sometimes impact photography. Even if typical laws exist, sometimes local interpretation of such laws can differ and it sounds like you don't want trouble even if the law is on your side. People in a big city might not care who you are or what you are doing. Folks in a small town might think differently. You might start by posing your questions to the town attorney. You might also ask the town for a short note on letterhead that you could pull out to show people if anyone questions your purpose or motives for photographing. Generally, everything I've read and experienced indicates that anyone is open to being photographed in public places such as city streets or sidewalks. Restaurants and other businesses are trickier. While they may be open to the public, owners may still have a say as to what goes on inside their businesses. If I were you, I'd bring that note from the town and start by talking to the business owner/manager. I'd also ask permission of any patrons and make sure they understood what the photos might be used for before taking any shots. Make sure parents/guardians are Ok with photography if children are present. Again, I'm not a lawyer. But it seems like you might not need a model release. To be sure, though, check with the town attorney or at least a lawyer who is familiar with your local laws. If you do need a release, you might ask the town to provide the form since you are working for them and not doing this all on your own. They are the ones who would be publishing the final images, not you. </p>

<p>What have you done all the other times that this client changed dates on you? Your contract says, " ... even if date is changed ..."</p> <p>Whatever the case may be, I agree with William ... return the deposit and say goodbye to this client.</p>

<p>Norman, that worked for me. Thank you!</p>

<p>I'm not a lawyer. That said, a few things come to mind.</p> <p>First off, there has been some online discussion regarding the legality of retouching images that are copyrighted by someone else. It was even discussed in a Photo.net forum. (http://www.photo.net/business-photography-forum/00b2Zm) I would advise against retouching images that are copyrighted by someone else unless you have specific written permission to do so. But that does not appear to be what you are asking about.</p> <p>Secondly, it seems to me that retouching your own images - photographs of original subjects that you created with your own equipment and abilities - should be just fine. In fact, I would think that retouching would add to the strength of your copyright because you are increasing the unique creativity associated with the resulting image. The level of creativity has been a factor considered by courts when determining copyright questions.</p> <p>Lastly, are you talking about having one or more of your images retouched by someone else? In that case I think it would depend upon the permission you grant to the person doing the retouching and the amount of retouching that occurs. Generally, I wouldn't think that having someone alter contrast, remove a scratch or make other relatively simple changes would necessarily mean that the retoucher now owns some or all of your copyright.</p> <p>Once again, I'm not a lawyer. These are just my own thoughts. If this is a serious issue for you, I would recommend you seek qualified, professional advice and not depend upon what you read in online forums.</p>

<p>I agree with Tim. That color makes the font very difficult to read. And I've looked in Chrome, the browser I use, and do not see anything that could help with such a site-specific problem.</p>

<p>Oh! You are correct that the concert is both weekends. Sorry that I was not aware of that. It promises to be quite a time down in Indio and Coachella Valley. </p> <p>You do mention a wide variety of options for the rest of your trip. However, your original post made it sound as though you were limited to a week or so in and around the Indio area. </p>

<p>Well, barring any further information about your trip and desired outcomes, it's difficult to make recommendations not already mentioned by others here. A couple observations, though ...</p> <p>- Your trip begins as an historic rock concerts ends ... the Oct. 7-9 event in Coachella Valley featuring the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan and many others. (LA Times article: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/la-et--ms-mega-concert--coachella-20160502-snap-story.html) Not sure if there will be any issues with securing local accommodations a few days after the concert ends. But it's something to keep in mind.</p> <p>- Although you are open to flying into any city, you are a bit limited by having to be in Indio by Oct. 13. Everything out West is spread apart. And highways in that part of the country don't always go directly between places. So, travelling between locations may result in a bit more time spent driving than you'd expected.</p> <p>- As already suggested here, you might consider flying into Las Vegas. Even if you're not a gambler there are great shows and restaurants there and the amazing Hoover Dam is not too far away. You might also consider flying into Phoenix, which also offers visitors many fun and varied things to do. (The Grand Canyon would be an obvious destination but probably is too far to journey considering that be-in-Indio-by-the-13th deadline.)</p> <p>- Although it will be October when you visit, temperatures can still be an issue in desert areas. For example, high temperatures are expected in the mid 90s in both Phoenix and Indio at that time of year. Always travel with an adequate supply of water!</p> <p>Good luck! And have fun!</p> <p> </p>

<p>Just curious as to why you've selected Indio and Coachella Valley as your first trip west of the Mississippi. Any additional details you'd like to share? Specific things you'd like to see or do?</p>

<p>It's not really clear what level of astrophotography interests Chuck. While I agree with others here that most serious astrophotography is done with telescopes, equitorial mounts and other complex (and expensive) equipment, I think a great deal can be accomplished - including deep-sky photography - with simpler tools. Just visit flickr.com and search out images and/or groups with keywords "ioptron skytracker." Again, I don't own the device and have no stake in its success. But the fact is that ... yes ... you can take good deep-sky images with a camera and a telephoto lens. </p>

<p>Chuck:</p> <p>You might check out a device from Ioptron called the Skytracker. (See links below.) It's been out for a few years and currently retails for about $299. It can be polar-aligned and is built to track the Earth's rotation. It is supposed to support up to 7.7 pounds, so you'd want to figure the total weight of your camera setup before purchasing this device. You also would need a very sturdy tripod and proper hardware to mount the Skytracker to the tripod.</p> <p>I have not used the Skytracker because I already have a telescope and mount that can carry my camera when I'm photographing the night sky. But the Skytracker seems to get glowing reviews in places like Amazon and some of the astronomy online communities and publications. </p> <p>You would need to evaluate Skytracker's effectiveness for what you plan to do. It's a relatively low-cost way to start shooting the night sky. If this is a serious, long-term desire, you might explore purchasing a proper telescope and mount. You can always take photographs through the telescope, itself. And then there're CCD cameras that connect to telescopes and are built specifically for astrophotography. </p> <p>http://www.skynews.ca/review-ioptrons-skytracker-ultraportable-camera-mount/<br> https://www.amazon.com/iOptron-3302B-SkyTracker-Camera-Mount/dp/B00EFRN1GE</p>

<p>While only $18 doesn't sound adequate, it seems to me that $500 is way off the scale at the other end, especially considering that you've already spent "thousands" trying to recover the lost images. It sounds as though the family is reasonable and that you've so far dealt with them openly and with transparency. I would continue in that vein. Make it clear how much you've already spent trying to make things right for them. Show them receipts if necessary. Remind them of your offer to re-shoot the family photographs. Then ask them how much compensation they feel would be adequate. You might be surprised (in a pleasant way). Fair compensation to many people doesn't necessarily mean a ton of money. They know they did receive 99 percent of what they paid for. They might only seek $100 or $200 as a token amount. </p>

<p>I think you've already discovered that finding everything you want AND keeping the total bill near 600 euros might be a challenge. Personally, I believe the i5 offers enough power for most people, including those who do amateur photo editing. With all the "cloud computing" offered today, you might also get away with a smaller hard drive. Not sure where you are located, but it's always a good idea to "test drive" computers before you buy. Visit a retailer that carries a variety of machines. Also, check with friends and family. Borrow a laptop (or two) and try to edit some photos. </p>

<p>The problem doesn't appear to be Firefox. I posted a test message to Photo.net using version 45.0 and had no trouble. I then updated to Firefox 48.0 and again was able to post a message to this site without any issues.</p>