peggybair

Okay. Thanks. I'll look at the dates more closely.

Thanks. Here's my sign: STUPID

It doesn't matter if you purchased a ticket. It matters if you had any agreement with the performer when you photographed the event. Please read about copyright laws in your country - if it's the U.S., yes, you own the copyright but the performer has publicity rights. Getting an agreement from those big names is going to be tough. They - or their record labels, etc. - are going to want a cut. I've seen some photographers get permission to sell images IF the images are going to a charity, for instance. But for the photographer to personally profit - not without some money changing hands.

Did you want some feedback or ???

Can you go scout the location and shoot test shots?

I think being honest is always the best approach. Saying what you have said here is completely honest. Full disclosure. On the website question - just be aware that dipping your toe into the professional arena...the water is deep. There is: Website Software Peripheral equipment (media cards, cases, equipment cases, etc.) Computer Media Storage Insurance (equipment - don't count on your homeowners policy anymore - liability - indemnity insurance policies in case something goes wrong and the couple has to re-stage part of the wedding for pictures.) Membership dues (PPA - a place where you get indemnity insurance) Schedule C tax filing to the IRS Paying state sales tax LLC - if you want to keep your personal finances safe and separate from anything that could happen to you (getting sued) as a result of doing business Office fees or equipment Forms and file cabinets for storing any bridal information should couples want something from you in the future Pricing and discounts Cost of time and media for delivery of images (unless you have a posting site that allows for downloading files) - How long will they stay posted? Will you repost them for free? In a month, in 6 months, in a year? Copyright notice information Emergency back up photographer community in case something happens and you can't cover the event and someone else needs to step in. Bank account for keeping your business funds separate from your personal funds. Set aside funds for equipment needed throughout the time of your endeavor - extra equipment, media cards, flashes, etc., in case something breaks and you need backup equipment on site.) Creating parameters and contracts between you and the clients It's a slippery slope to get into wedding photography *lightly* - I've seen a LOT of things go wrong and the pros have devised ways to protect themselves and their clients. Without protection, IF things go south, there are risks for both the photographer and the clients that they will end up devastated or in court. Weddings really ARE fun. But they are also non-repeatable, stressful, fast-pace, multiple location, shape-shifting events. Liability is a major consideration. And this isn't said to discourage you at all - it's to raise awareness.

Actually, you are both right. An old-school rule of thumb is that a professional photographer is a photographer who charges money for their services and derives most of their income from that. Otherwise, one would be referred to as a "part time" professional photographer. It's all just splitting hairs, I suppose - but there are plenty of people who call themselves professional photographers because they charge money but they don't have any of the other attributes you suggested (which are highly valuable).

I encourage photographers who are not the official wedding photographer to leave their cameras at home. I'm a wedding photographer. If I'm a guest at a wedding, I take my own advice.

Take in some interesting information from Neil Van Niekerk. Google him. Flash is something that requires mastering - it is necessary and worth it.

A 300mm f2.8 is a pretty standard soccer action lens that would give you more reach, especially when combined with a 1.4 and a crop sensor camera body. As for when action gets closer, use a second body/lens combination and one-hand the closer shots. It's common at first to worry about what you aren't getting instead of getting what comes close enough for you to shoot. Nobody can get everything, especially with soccer that moves so quickly and somewhat unpredictably around the field (there's some caveats to that statement). There's sort of a sports sense that one develops that really helps anticipating the direction of play - but that's another topic.

I think with today's useable high ISOs, one could get by with F4 lenses but, traditionally, we shot night football with f2.8 lenses so we could put a 1.4X on it - then we'd be maxed out. Depends on how tight you want your shots to be. And, yeah, a crop body would really help otherwise.

I was shooting night football in 1969 and yes, flash was necessary - a big powerful flash. I used a Braun strobe.

Oh, I forgot about the OM1 - yes! I shot with the OM kit for a couple of years at one of the newspapers I staffed back in the early '90s. Dang, those things are just tanks and so lightweight. Sweet setup.

If it was ME, I would stop talking about photography with him and stop doing photography at work events off the clock. I agree with that part of your decision. That takes the whole issue off the table. A possible argument could be made that the Images taken at work and at work events might be considered as work-for-hire, thereby conveying copyrights to the company. Amateurs have it rough when it comes to copyright for the very reason you are describing. They just try to be nice, generous people and give stuff away but then people come along and do stuff with the images that were not the original intent and then there's problems. Copyright isn't just about money. Copyright is also about controlling the distribution and use of the images. So many times and so many people feel like if they have the images, they own the images and can do what they want with the images - especially if it's the subject who has the images. There are musicians I've photographed who feel they have a right to do whatever they want with photographs I've taken because THEY ARE THE SUBJECT. This is NOT true. Unless they have paid for specific usage rights to use the images, they cannot use the images any way they want. There are also copyright rules about what I can do with the images. Mostly, photographers really should control the use of their images if for no other reason than to protect themselves the subjects from misuse by other parties. What would you do if one of your photographs given to the supervisor was used to defame, discipline or ridicule one of the photo subjects? What would be your liability? What would be your recourse? I don't mind a photo subject having a snappy-snap (non-professional) that I've taken - but giving photos to a supervisor not knowing what he was going to use them for - NO.

I prefer - in most instances for what I shoot - back button focus. There are instances where shutter release/focus would probably work better (tracking a bird in the sky where there are no other obstacles to throw off the focus) but for ultimate non-manual focus control, back button works. It's an acquired taste. As for IBIS or IS/VR, it's only good for camera shake. It doesn't control subject movement.

Exactly. When I saw this image, the first thing I saw was camera shake because you can see nothing is in focus. Dead give away. Glad you got the EXIF data to provide insight, Steve. Probably the first education a photographer needs to get is the exposure triangle - aperture, shutter speed, ISO. A full understanding of this isn't an option, it's required, if a photographer truly wants a full enjoyment of photography even as a hobbyist. And let's face it: we all started there. With the advent of automatic cameras, it's really easy to fall into the auto modes, which is shortly thereafter followed by disappointment and puzzlement why they aren't working. Couple that with the brain-twisting camera manuals and lack of basic photographic training and people trying to just have some fun shooting end up frustrated when things don't work. There's a guy on Creative Live - John Greengo - who is just an awesome educator. If I get a new camera, I go straight there and sign on for the Quick Start class on the camera, even though I've been actively shooting since 1969. Greengo very patiently goes through all the controls and explains how to set up the camera so one can confidently start using it successfully. On that same site, there are terrific beginner photography classes. All beginning photographers or self-taught photographers will benefit from either learning things right from the start or filling in some gaps in their knowledge. There's absolutely 100% benefit from viewing oneself as a perpetual student also. There's always new stuff to learn, which is what makes photography fun and challenging. I don't work for or have an affiliation with Creative Live so this isn't a sales pitch. I'm just a happy customer of theirs - the classes are reasonably priced and always helpful in some big or small way.

There's a lot of different flash modifiers that slip over the front of the flash and do some good jobs softening the light output. But they do cut down on the power a bit so you might want to upgrade the flash to at least an 800 or 900. That said, there's a whole technique to using flashes and it's worthwhile to invest in some education on the subject. Google: Neil van Niekerk - he's the flash king/wizard teacher. I can't recommend him enough.

Love the Nikon FM also.

You don't need a battery except for the meter with the Minolta. I have the SRT 101. If you buy a handheld light meter, don't worry about the camera battery. You just meter with your handheld. Easy-squeezy. I have the Minolta and a bank of their lenses. There is a huge selection of Minolta mount lenses. HUGE. There are primes, zooms, ultra wides to extremely long lenses and even long zooms. They are excellent quality equipment. Which two lenses depends on what you like to shoot. A 50mm or 55mm (Minolta actually made a 53mm, which I have, lol) is considered a sort of "normal" view, if you will. Minolta has a 35-70mm zoom that is highly prized, so that might be a nice walk around lens for you.

Charming young lady beginners are often smart enough to learn about lighting methods.

I would think that most film photographers would like to carry a handheld light meter. There's some tricks to using handheld meters and it's actually a lot of fun to use them. I think you learn a lot about light variations within scenes by getting skilled with a light meter and just generally learning about lighting ratios. Like, what's the meter read in the shadows? What's the meter read in the highlights? Which reading do you choose for your exposure? And so forth.

I'd get the Fujinon 100-400. Love the X-T2 and the lenses are fantastic.

You actually need separation of focus between subject and background, which is why people are suggesting a longer lens. The compression that comes with the longer lens creates a shorter depth of focus (well, it's ONE thing that does that.) Also...lighting plays into this...also, aperture plays into this.

I beat two of these up shooting for newspapers back in the day. They are quite rugged. But, every camera has to be serviced from time to time.

There's two of them on Ebay right now.【Top Mint】TOKINA AT-X SD 300mm f/2.8 Lens OM Mount for Olympus w/Hood from JAPAN | eBay I've bought lenses from Japan several times via Ebay. They are always in the condition describes or better.