hectorroldan

Thank you all for the comments, I'm updating the thread with some results. The problem has been solved. As we can see on YT (some examples), some CPL work better than others, this one had weak effects regarding the Sony Camera, but the other (smaller) polarizing filter was working pretty well (but has diff diameter, that's why I couldn't keep using that one). Besides this particular CPL not being as strong (effective), there was an issue with the simple rotation of the lens inside the filter, that was it, as simple as that. I was scratching my head because there was a place where "it worked" at night around 30% of how it should work but it didn't work the same the next day (angle was different). It wasn't noticeable until I tried rotating the filter having the camera in front of me while having a fingerprint reflection barely rotating. Disassembled the filter, cleaned, etc put everything together again, free rotation now. Anyway... (in general) as mentioned there are some filters that don't show as strong effects as others. It's shown here: and even if that filter was backwards (sounds to me as if is), there is one comment stating lack of effects with another filter and camera. (The Vivitar comment), not being able to completely block the polarized light failing the test. I was curious about something like that (but I didn't know as much as you about the topic), all I knew is some materials like cellophane can have effects on light altering the polarization, but that doesn't mean if used directly it would polarize light having the same effect as a polarizing filter. I played around with that in the past when I read the news about it. Your comment was very informative. Thanks. The following is not exactly related to what caused the issue here but, as a bonus there is an interesting effect using 3 polarizing filters. Supposedly, one filter would cancel the light in some directions allowing only one, and then the second filter would cancel the other angle leaving a black result, yes, but when a third polarizing filter is used... something strange happens. This explanation of Polarizing filters and the Bell's Theorem is quite interesting: Nice, in my case I never imagined some would not be as effective as others (quality), or facing a rotation problem as I did, simple, easy to solve, but confusing until I realized what was happening. Regarding CPL, I never used them in the past due to a wide variety of reasons, but at some point faced situations when removing reflections was actually desirable. Yes, but solved, posted above. About the polarizing experiments, as mentioned there are very interesting effects depending different materials, the posted videos might bring some interesting light to the matter. At the end of the day: the filter was fixed, now rotating, working fine. Thanks for the help.

In some circles, clients have some sort of magical thinking (unrealistic arguments not related to the outcome). Music will always do a great job relaxing the stressful moments. And yes, history repeats itself. That's part of the interesting phenomenon, to some hype means quality or being able to deliver a project.

Thanks. Will keep researching.

Possibly 16g is too much for the camera. I can report that I have the DSC-HX1 with 8g, no problem, yet I'm unable to find specifics on maximum size accepted on the camera, sounds like this could be the case. I also have one adapter (Memory stick to Micro SD) but haven't tried a card that size (16g), BTW yes, you can use those adapters to use Micro SD cards instead of Memory Stick). BTW, just a question, will appreciate if you can give me some help. Do you happen to have a CPL (Polarizer) filter? does it work with your Sony Cybershot DSC-HX5?? My CPL filter and my Sony DSC-HX1 doesn't get along, it produces zero polarize effect. Already tried backwards. Situation described here: Polarizing filter not working - Sony Cybershot DSC-HX1

Ok this is weird, will appreciate any info or suggestions. I have two polarizing filters that do work pretty fine. I have tested them with my cameras and smartphones. So, if I take shots at windows or flat surfaces producing reflections, the use of those filters removes them given they are rotated to the right angle. Nice, no problem. Polarizing filters work one way and not the other, meaning you have to put then on the camera on some specific direction, otherwise it will not work. Well, the big filter doesn't do anything on my Cybershot DSC-HX1. It does it's magic on EVERY other device with a camera except the Sony Cybershot. Already tried using it backwards and nothing happens. That's weird, never seen anything like it. I disassembled a small calculator to remove the polarizing film in order to perform some tests, it's a little bit dark but it works. So this filter does work on EVERY device, including the Sony DSC-HX1. How can this camera be immune to the CPL filter built for cameras? I don't get it. Today I will visit some stores to see if I can find CPL filters that they let me actually TRY on that camera. Sadly in my region stores with that kind of filters are very rare and difficult to find. If anyone could contribute with an explanation I will appreciate it. Already searched the web but found no clue on why this is happening.

Cameras VS Smartphones, beyond the tech specs: the client perception. It's business. I will be brief, it's a long story and I didn't relate it to the thread until today, I will omit details to focus on what's related to the thread: a huge company in my country (actually a transnational) wanted to do X project and I was one of the invited due to my related portfolio. Their advertising agency was dealing with the hiring. Sadly the main company insisted on working with instagramers who mostly use Smartphones. And so they engaged on negotiations with them and me (while I'm on Instagram I'm not an "instagramer". The negotiating took weeks, then months until I just shoot my warning: tell me what you want and your budget, I will not be wasting time on sending quote after quote. The response was interesting: the creative director said he was already tired of the project because the instagramers were mostly very young folks asking for thousands of dollars for small sets of pictures (incomplete), and not a single one could offer the entire solution for the 25 requested pictures (I could solve that, in fact already had 50% of the task done in my catalog). The thing is, the person in charge at the company was fixated with instagrammers. At the end of the year while having a huge budget, the company refused to pay that absurd amount of money to several of them and abandoned the project. Today I connected the dots and related to this thread. Sometimes people want a nice picture BUT... shot with specific gear that you don't have. Go tell them about your classic old SLR camera. It's the same we experienced on the software and website realm, where suddenly you were creating huge projects but some clients wants an specific solution that you could o in a matter of 6 months from zero, but they wanted it on Wordpress, specifically, despite the warnings on security, stability on plugins, etc. That's the business side of business... not the tech side.

You are hitting the nail. There are amazing productions done on smartphones, mid and high end. Even on old not-the-best quality digital cameras but pro lenses, lights, etc not to mention professionals knowing how to do it. Some vids on what's behind the lens or what's in front of the camera are featured on Youtube with amazing real life results. In fact some point out those commercials are confusing because it is indeed a phone but with a whole pro crew and gear. About the transportation: exactly. There will be times where a client will leave the horse behind, others where people will choose the horse. However talking about business I don't think it's wise to say "I will keep using my old horse on this old town", unless it's about someone living on a touristic place with ancient buildings, or colonial style architecture (or pure tourism). My curiosity is pure in regard on clients, because US as photographers ARE NOT CLIENTS and so, anyone on a business SHOULD BE (not to say MUST BE) checking what the clients think, say and want. Other than that some responses come from the usual (useless) immature pride that only sells to students who believe everything the teacher says. Again, I reman curious, specially on anecdotes, the why and how it's been beaten to death. I will try to expose this question to clients (on forums) to see what I can find out.

I've been a forum member for about 20 years on a software and website developer forum with lots of experienced professionals (some of them appearing on international news, that big). Photography is how I started, then I expanded and diversified my experience on diff directions. The thing is... lots of technical details have been discussed there for years (along with other diff forums), but there is a time when older forum members discuss outside the technical aspect. Then it's not about sensors, coding, language, or efficiency up to milliseconds: it's just business and what business are all about, it means understanding the big or small factors that affect your clients and your client's decisions. SOMETIMES client discussions behave like this thread, talking about tech specs, sensors, etc and you might be right about your sensor or camera just as an older professional is right about code selection and efficiency. BUT... the client want's results + quality + service, etc. That's easy, in fact that obvious and evident. But not everyone knows or can deal with what in English I believe is called "perceived X" at least that the term used in psychology for let's say perceived threat (you might be in danger OR NOT but your brain sense the moment as a threat). So... sometimes professionals forget about this, you can do whatever the hell you want to and be right about it but... if you fail on the client perception you are fried, and then someone with a GoPro can take your client away just because THEY have the perception and understanding GoPro takes better video compared to some old/new, big and bulky camera whose name is XB-whatever-325. Many professionals failed in this when Wordpress "took over" on website building, yet many clients considered WP to be the best option and would reject any proposal not including it. That's... business. And NOT the technical part of business. It's not even about "sales", it's about understanding a weird part of clients decision. Again: the client is not always right, and no matter your portfolio, you can't always choose your clients, in fact the clients choose you. My years of experience on diff field teach me to diversify, yes, to stay specialized but also being able to diversify in order to choose flexible solutions. I have worked with digital gear being able to post pro and share and publish in no time making the client happy while I was happy too (even if that wasn't my perfect personal choice for the job) but in some way "it was the perfect choice". At some point it's like expecting clients to choose you and your horse for transportation because the low polluting footprint over a car. Oh yes you will get clients, but only the ones wanting to be transported on a horse. The thing is selling quality transportation, and if you can offer a car and a horse, you can make many clients happy. I fully understand how some people say things like "X blah blah instead of a freaking toy", I get it, but after many lessons learned in BUSINESS, they are missing a big part of the market, I know I did in the past, learned my lesson. It's been a fun thread, I know it will bring some more comments.

A couple asked for a FREE weeding photographic coverage in exchange of some "exposure" for the photographer on FB and among the guests. The email proposal went viral, you can read about it here: https://petapixel.com/2020/01/30/couple-asks-photographer-to-shoot-free-wedding-for-exposure-to-117-unmarried-guests/ Some bad stories: I remember being offered amazing deals of doing some free work in exchange of "having the benefit and luxury of getting involved with some brand". Amazing, offending? yes, silly? yes. Funny? sometimes hilarious. Same happened with some open heart offers to cover a wedding because I was a trusted close loved friend and they didn't want anyone else to do it. Oh yes, sounds lovely but while everybody would be eating and dancing I would be working for free, sounds amazing huh? I refused wedding photo invitations and business proposals that were this absurd. Some positive stories: had interesting invitations to document and get to know some private touristic or historic locations for free (exclusive places you can't just walk in, even paying), or places where -no photos are allowed-. I would take the pictures for free and had my stay at the place fully paid enjoying a privileged kind treatment, oh yes that's fun and very much appreciated. There are times where doing work for free isn't exactly free because you can get some positive benefits that you just can't buy. But anyway the article brought some memories.

Each product has diff vulnerabilities. BTW dust on lens (mentioned above, not by me) is something way different than dust on the sensor, very diff illness. Yes inspecting the product (to buy) is a good idea, but if the model is vulnerable to specific damage... it's only a matter of time for this to fail. Regarding the specific topic I opened, I didn't mention my findings on people sending the cameras for cleaning only to have dust on the sensor again, that doesn't sound right to me. As said things changed quickly and received a great discount on a Sony camera of my liking with the features I was looking for, so there will no need for future inspection or acquisition. Any comment about this, from here on... sorry will not receive replies from me as the issue has been solved. I usually keep two cameras for diff battles, one the one I'm willing to sacrifice under certain circumstances.

Thanks 2Oceans, yes those are old models. I don't like the idea of opening a digital camera and try to clean it, and sending it for cleaning sounds more expensive, specially today being just old models, easier to find a better one on the cheap. I was mostly concerned on the design of those cameras being vulnerable to dust. Finding those comments was accidental but sadly those comments appeared on several web searches. Thanks Ed_Ingold, I've seen some dirty lenses and the problem wasn't that big (except the fungi on a coworker's camera) and humidity (condensation), other than that the sensor being dirty sure is a problem. Thanks for the advice for cleaning too. Things can sometimes be surprisingly funny, today I got a call for a new price on another camera (a Sony) so the search is over. I bought the camera so I will be staying OFF Nikon for some time again.

Is that a common issue? Hi photographers, I would appreciate some guidance because I never have owned a Nikon camera, only Sony, Canon and Samsung, all of them for years and constantly used them on indoor photos and traveling (including dusty places, rainy areas, humid locations, etc). Not a single problem. Based on what OTHER photographers (ex coworkers) experienced I can only mention some of them having issues with fungi inside Canon camera lenses, but me? never, not a single time. But Nikon... I'm currently interested on buying a 2nd hand Nikon camera for some specific uses risk included, I don't need a professional model, a bridge camera would be awesome. The problem is while researching the models that got my attention I'm finding a few comments on forums regarding dirty sensor, dust on the sensor and being unable to clean it because the lens it's non removable. I find this quite interesting but intriguing. Almost sounds as a common problem with Nikon, but understanding the "common issues" others experienced with other brands, but that I never experienced: I'm open to learning and reading opinions. Been reading about: - Nikon Coolpix L120 - Nikon Coolpix L810 - Nikon Coolpix P90 And some others but I think only those above would be considered at the end. Thanks in advance.

HA Ha so true. Yes, that's also part of what I'm seeing in the big picture. Thanks everyone for the comments.

You are welcome. A max size print sounds to me like the best option. I wouldn't include any text on the same download page about sharpness and detail being lost if enlarged, instead I would just write a detailed terms of use page (it's impressive how some people react negatively to those words on the same page or are unable to understand what that means in that context). Your idea sounds fine as a disclaimer "you can enlarge up to 10% but we don't recommend it". I sold photos in the past as images on a CD/DVD and also as digital downloads. My personal approach was including the table with the sizes given the resolution in every case (high res print on fine paper 300dpi, multiple uses 200dpi, digital documents and web 72dpi). Some websites use "posters/fine paper/magazine .... regular paper .... web" but that's their choice, to me it seemed confusing. And I also included a link to the terms of use and technical aspects page. In the long run people would often ask me direct questions by email and the direct answer was enough (I take it they consider that direct answer as a safe line). Good luck on your business

Kinda complex and technical question and so is the answer. People can enlarge or downsize pictures as they will, there are no limits BUT there are technical limits to produce a good or acceptable result. As a reference I worked in the printing industry, basically you DON'T want to enlarge anything. You can use simple math. Let's say you pick a picture in full good quality, it will be usually at 72 or 96 DPI, you can use photoshop and then build your simple math table to calculate the size in inches based on 200DPI or 300DPI, a simple table for the client should be enough. You can get away with 200DPI for mostly everything, but high quality printing starts at 300DPI. You ask "without loosing quality", well saving anything on JPG means quality loss, from there you shouldn't enlarge anything, but... practical everyday experiences in real life production reveal you could... get away with 10% enlarging but I don't recommend it. The enlarging and the quality loss by the JPG affect every image differently, that's a factor to take in count. If you don't want to use a simple table, you can display a "max printable size: X" and so people can see a limit, while anything below would be great. I would recommend a nice and long terms of use. We had mixed experiences with clients using full res pictures but instead of delivering a great final art, they just exported a PDF file with whatever settings and so, the images where recompressed using diff JPG settings and then they still wondered why max res wasn't taking place. It's technical but writing something like that inside the terms of use can save you some pains.

In short terms, my curiosity goes for the new challenges of competitors using small equipment and the clients getting used to this, accepting it's a possibility and it doesn't mean the photographer is "cheap" or just a hobby player. Things are changing, but I'm not sure we are "there yet" in order to use (ME) an expensive portable device for work at a clients location. There was an annual event where you could see photographers moving from cameras to smartphones. They all looked funny (ridiculous if you ask me) but then I joined. My friend used a big camera, I used a smartphone. The result was interesting because she couldn't use those images right away while I could upload them to social media immediately (but the images were not as large as using a formal camera), interesting experience. Anyway people still look at you surprised and kind of what the hell... when you use smartphones. I can see some people not thinking you are actually a professional. So I came up with a clever solution. During a trip to X place found an interesting iPhone case for my iPhone 4s (yes, I know) and while bulky, that was the positive side of things. Having some old camera lens around, I glued it to the case, the result is quite interesting: It's an iPhone 4s, not a professional camera but it looks interesting, it doesn't look like some smartphone anymore. The central lens is only for decoration purposes, the real one is the wide angle located at the corner. It does an amazing job and people look at it with the same effect of having some expensive gear, it solves the issue and allows me to use social media right away for the pictures. There are some more elaborated devices and rigs out there.

Religion was mentioned, but it's not the only (or best) angle. There are tons of discussions on the web where some people point out that ethics and morals ONLY derive from religion or God, from where I'm standing that's a separate off topic discussion. Where I live one newspaper disliking (openly) a president, decided to post pictures where he was in the middle of blinking, opening or closing his mouth, etc. The result was an absolute parody and lack of respect: it was on purpose. It is not ethical or professional (regardless of whether they like or not the president or anyone else). Sure, we could do the same to the owners and they would not like it and will consider that to be unprofessional. Lots of "professional" photographers won't doubt on capturing any moment where people show being hurt, emotionally vulnerable or something alike, they want to treat everything as war photography. What about Magazines? a place where I used to work produced a magazine for women. The cover photos featured really white and blond models while including the slogan "just like you" WTF, most of the local public didn't resemble those pictures not even with 5x 100Watt bulbs. Later there was an intensive communication course provided by a local psychologist who happens to manage big brands online, she immediately complained about the hypocrisy of featuring absolutely out of this world women and pretending to sell the slogan "just like you". Her speech was long but precise, she hit the nail on how most women magazines are actually negative to the self esteem and promote absolutely unreal expectations, including the promotion of intense white skin. Living on a region with lots of indigenous people, there are photographers who try to use them for "amazing pictures" that later they sell without asking permission or giving them some money out of it. x2, one of the photographers on that company I described had a dark and aggressive sense of humor, I guess that's "fine", but then we made an article about X place and he fell sleep. Dude was absolutely upset that I shot a picture of him sleeping on the back seat, humiliating? I don't think so, his jokes to the coworkers were too spicy compared to just having him on a picture... asleep with open mouth. I guess he was afraid of others doing what he usually did: making fun of people. I believe things being in public places (including people) doesn't make them public or in the public domain.

I'm on the same page as @eb_kidd and @John Seaman. @Gary Naka hits the nail. I don't believe to have the personality or interest to deal with those situations, yet I'm very curious about it and IF there was a way to deal with this. When I started didn't want to do wedding photos mostly because I felt insecure (I was too young and inexperienced), people I know would want me to do the job because they felt my pictures were good, anyway I didn't do it. @jochen: great, but based on what I have seen in my region I seriously doubt any kind of collaboration (direct or indirect) could take place, there is no team and people often get in the way ruining the chances of doing a great job, more details below. (And I've been mostly convinced it's a local situation, in my region related to culture). @William Michael yes I'm afraid it's a common local situation. Guatemala is known by lack of formality, example: it is very common that any event (including weddings) can be set to 10:00am but begins at 10:30 or 11:00am, same happens with most agreements you make "ok the deal is exclusive photographer - OH YES SURE!!!" and then you find only half of the discussed arrangements were taken care of. Exclusivity... contracts... that can happen but here it's mostly "just paper". Most of the places where weddings take place are open spaces with no access control. The administration or priests can tell you "yes, only you" but anyway there will be people walking around trying to make a buck or two, in fact there are permanent freelance photographers trying to get a piece of the job anyway they can (and they will be as polite as annoying salesmen, kind but really annoying). I'm exactly on the spot you describe, I'm happy not to do weddings. I've been curious because I never discussed this with photographers from other parts of the world, yet I had the feeling things are like this here where I live, being a common situation. @conrad_hoffman I used to think the same. Worked on a place along with other photographers (media company) and tried to discuss this matter a few years ago. They were annoyed by what I describe because they experienced it too, but 9 out of 10 offered wedding photography. Why? they wouldn't tell you "because I love it" but also the same 9 out of 10 were in huge debt, it's the kind of thing that comes out over years of working together. @samstevens yes, I think that's the best conclusion. I used to consider another option that you didn't include: those people asking for pictures can be potential clients. Oh boy I was wrong, they assume every photo taken during the wedding is already paid and free for them to abuse the photographer. Perhaps having an assistant every interruption could be forwarded to the assistant telling them the price and deal. So it seems I will stay away from weddings :)