peggybair

It depends completely on which country you're in and whether you purchased a ticket for the event where you photographed the performer. Each country is different in how they handle this.

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.

Hello people, at the risk of annoying some of you with my continuance of questions regarding the use of flash for an event I will be shooting next month, I beg of you, your indulgence as I sort this out, which leads me to yet another question regarding using flash photography in a rather large banquet room. I was just informed by the director of the facility I will be shooting at that the lights, instead of being up in the ceiling, will in fact be coming up from the floor, and, that they will not be all that bright leading me to believe the room will have a somewhat subdued dim look. So that being said, my plan was, with my Canon 5 D Mark II, flash, 600 EX-RT, lens, Tamron 24-70 f 2.8, shoot manually, shutter speed 1/40 of a second, ISO 400, and aperture 4.0, (perhaps even dropping to 3.5?). Of course if I find 400 is too low, I would then boost it higher, perhaps say to 600 or even 800 if necessary. Am I missing anything here? There also will be warming lights at the various food stations that will need to be accounted for likewise. I sincerely apologize if I sound redundant and annoying, but, am merely attempting to ensure I know what I am doing, or at best, am armed with appropriate correct settings that will allow me to successfully pull this off. Thank you for your patience with my questions.

Can you go scout the location and shoot test shots?

I am soliciting advice.

 

I am a hobbyist photographer who enjoys shooting small weddings. I understand the technical aspects of photography and I know how to use a camera. I do not want to be a full time, professional photographer; I have a full time job, but I enjoy the extra money that I can earn shooting on a part time basis. My questions are:

How do I convey to potential customers that I am not a professional? Do I state this on my website/portfolio?

Should I invest in a website or simply display my photos on a gallery site, like Smugmug, Pixieset, etc?

 

Thanks in advance for your help.

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.

Do you listen to what you are saying? A semi retired person is obviously not going to make what they made when they were full time. Even though their income is now 25% of what they used to make full time they are still making 100% income from their semi retired earnings. The dollar amount of money made is irrelevant. Responsibly, reliability, good business practices, insurance coverage, and decency all contribute to being a professional by all means.

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).

Nope . . . Not true in the least . . .

I am going to disagree here.

 

I suspect that there are plenty of people who can't afford a professional photographer, but who would still like wedding pictures.

The ones who have their friends do as much of the work as possible, maybe including cooking some food for a reception.

 

When I am invited to a wedding as guest, I always bring a camera, and I suspect many other guests do, also.

So, I do have some practice, though no professional experience.

 

You might start out doing a few for free. Assuming you already have enough equipment, or can afford to buy some, the only cost to you is supplies (and time).

 

The you can do some for just the cost of supplies, or a little more.

 

But yes, don't promise what you can't be reasonably sure of delivering.

 

Professionals will have back-up cameras, another shooter or two, and some other expensive equipment you don't have.

They get paid to use that equipment, and to cover its cost.

 

People who can't afford that, still have a right to reasonable photographs, at a reasonable price.

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.

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.

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.

The image's EXIF data says that it was shot at 1/40 second, at f22, with a 150mm lens. I think it looks more like camera shake, which is hardly surprising with those settings.

 

Open the aperture up (it says you were in aperture priority mode), there's not much sense going beyond f8 on micro 4/3 unless you really need the depth of field.

 

If need be, raise the ISO.

 

You really need to get the shutter speed up into the 1/200 range for that photo, get rid of the camera shake, the focus might be fine.

 

 

99% manual focus myself, only autofocus lens I have is the kit zoom, I just find it gets in the way, then again, I treat my digital cameras the same as my classic film cameras, full manual or aperture priority, adjust the ISO to suit the conditions and that's it.

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.

I'm going to stick my oar in and suggest that the OP is overthinking this and in danger of tying him/herself in knots. Go out and find a working Nikon FM with a 50mm F/1.8, take plenty of pictures with it it and decide whether you need to go more telephoto or wide, or whether 50mm is fine - it has been for a vast number of people. You can't lose with an FM, tough, reliable, simple and it holds its value well. A 2X teleconverter will cheaply give you a 100mm lens.

Love the Nikon FM also.

Hi everyone! I am going to buy my first ever film camera which I would like to be a Japanese vintage from around end of 70s or early 80s. I have narrowed down my search to the following models which seem to be quite good based on the reviews and forums I have read: Pentax MX, Olympus OM2, Minolta SRT. 102. I will buy the best option available (price, condition, case, lens).

 

I have however no idea about how to choose lens and what lens is the best, most practical and universal solution. I would like it to be quite light to carry. I would like to have 1 or max 2 lenses in the set, so I am looking for sort of best option for long and short distances. I have zero understanding of lenses and parameters e.g. mm and ft, so please someone help me! :)

 

On the other note, does someone know, do the cameras that I listed above require some sort of power charging or battery? if so, could you please tell me what? Ideally I would like something with zero maintenance. Is battery a sustainable choice long term?

 

Thank you in advance!

Alisa

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.

It looks like this charming young lady is a pure beginner. So better not bother her with different lightning methods...

 

As mentioned before, the camera is not important at all. The lens is. A cheap lens is like dirty glasses, one cannot see properly! Traditional portrait lenses are 50 mm and 85 mm lenses but you may also a 35 mm lenses to include the environment or a close up with 135 mm lenses.

 

I think you better start with choosing what type of portrait you would like to see on your photos. Then buy the lens whatever the brand to match your camera.

 

As a beginner, go for any camera but get a proper lens of the same brand if possible. After a few years, not weeks, you will start understanding portraiture and then you go for professional material because YOU will see and enjoy the difference .

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

Hi

 

I'm selecting a lens for shooting wildlife. from my research the following lenses are on my list:

 

(1) Fujinon XF100-400mm F4.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR with XF1.4X TC WR converter

 

(2) Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM with EF 2x Extender III Lens Teleconverter

 

(3) Canon EF 100-400mm ƒ/4.5-5.6L IS II USM

 

(4) Canon EF 200-400mm ƒ/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x

 

(my current gears: Fuji X-T2 with 10-24, 16, 23, 35, 90, 55-200mm), Canon 5D Mark III with 50 F1.2L)

 

I prefer to bring the Fuji XT2 out during a travel or for street shooting because its light weight and smaller size. My first dslr is a Canon 5d Mark III. Its lens (new) are pricey and just too bulky to take around. say, I can easily put 3-4 Fuji lens and XT2 into a Thinktank 6, but I definitely need a Large backpack to carry the Canon Full Frame gears. But I'm reluctant to sell my 5d for cash because its current market value is much lower than my expectation, and in the future I can buy some used Canon L lens for shooting, considering Canon lens community is large for deals.

 

If I buy the Fujinon XF100-400, I just need to add it to my Fuji should bag and ready. Or should I build on my Canon 5d and invest in some Full Frame power? Is it a common practice to bring two camera bodies out in a travel? The advantage is to save the interchange time. But who would carry two cameras to climb a mountain trail?

 

what would you do in my case? just sell the 5d because it's out of dated even though it used to be perfect? or buy a FF tele lens to make it a dedicated wildlife system for crisp pictures?

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

It handles beautifully, but I have found it fragile. The advance lever flew off of it a couple of times, and the original shutter went out completely. The meter is still superb.

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.