Now ye're talking - to a professional photographer

Donald Trump · 08-11-2018 12:29pm

I'm a Professional Photographer, AMA wrote: »

All of them. Maybe. Probably. Possibly none of them.

You could as easily ask 'how many of these 'young wans' are attention seekers, stripping off for lads with cameras'?

It's rare that anyone has a gun put to their head, so I'd be confident that almost all of these shoots are agreed upon by all involved, and no one is being forced into it.

You calling them sleazeballs means you're probably not into it, or anything overly sexual in nature? Like dogging, swinging, having key parties etc. (and I have never done any of those things, either) but if people want to engage in that then let them at it. What harm? Nudity isn't a bad thing, and I often admire the bodies of people I'm photographing, and would be open with them and complimentary about their body (would never say anything bad, of course).

It's natural to be attracted to people.

I do know a few gentlemen that would be older, that do glamour photography. They're generally pretty good at it though.

For the most part, however, the photographers that I know that do nude shoots are mid-20s or that general age group. Could well be that they're just looking for someone to ride, and using the camera as an ice-breaker, but regardless, if someone is doing a 'glamour' photo session, chances are they're voluntarily involved, and they haven't been trafficked in from another country and forced into it.

I've noticed that women photographers get the most paid work doing nude or sexy stuff. Presumably women feel safer with another woman.

Nobody is saying anything about guns being held to heads. But they do prey on naive 18/19 year olds with dreams of becoming a model. Get them in for a "TFP" shoot. And then convince them that they need certain types of shots for their portfolio if they want to make it.

The girls usually don't even know that the photos aren't good quality and that the cameras/lighting are crap.

I know of a group of them, all old fellas, who used to do it and post the photos of the naked or topless girls to their facebook friends.....needless to say, none of the girls involved ever got those magical modelling contracts. Getting another one to take her kit off for them was considered a "win".

Boards.ie: Niamh · 08-11-2018 12:35pm

Donald Trump, I understand that the situation you are describing is pretty crappy (and may deserve a thread elsewhere) but a reminder - OP is not here to represent any photographers other than himself and answer questions based on his own personal experience.

Donald Trump · 08-11-2018 12:40pm

Boards.ie: Niamh wrote: »

Donald Trump, I understand that the situation you are describing is pretty crappy (and may deserve a thread elsewhere) but a reminder - OP is not here to represent any photographers other than himself and answer questions based on his own personal experience.

Well I asked in the context that because those people exist, they give the industry a bad name and I was just asking what he thought about them, given that it is his livelihood

I am sure that he knows people like that.

beauf · 08-11-2018 1:02pm

I'm a Professional Photographer, AMA wrote: »

....
You'd likely not benefit greatly from a dedicated compact (unless you buy a decent one, and are a real photography enthusiast) so I'd imagine a compact camera would quickly gather dust and end up being resented after a few weeks....

We have a compact and a DSLR and yet 95% of all our family photos are on smart phones. because thats always with us. Also because when going many activities you want to be free of bags etc. Still we make an effort to frame correctly and make more interest in the photos. I expect because we both did Photography courses in the past and just are interested in it. We'd both love to do more classroom courses in the future. Just as a hobby.

angeleyes · 08-11-2018 3:45pm

Hi there - delighted see you are a Canon user.

Would you be tempted to sell all your gear and use the new mirrorless cameras. I know a good few that have and its main selling point to them is the weight especially when photographing weddings and you might be using two different cameras.

victor8600 · 08-11-2018 5:49pm

Who owns the pictures that you take for a paying client? And who owns the copyright?

I'm a Professional Photographer, AMA · 08-11-2018 7:40pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

Nobody is saying anything about guns being held to heads. But they do prey on naive 18/19 year olds with dreams of becoming a model. Get them in for a "TFP" shoot. And then convince them that they need certain types of shots for their portfolio if they want to make it.

The girls usually don't even know that the photos aren't good quality and that the cameras/lighting are crap.

I know of a group of them, all old fellas, who used to do it and post the photos of the naked or topless girls to their facebook friends.....needless to say, none of the girls involved ever got those magical modelling contracts. Getting another one to take her kit off for them was considered a "win".

In all honesty, the situation you're suggesting sounds so ludicrous, that I simply don't believe it happens like that, at all.

All these old fellas that are doing these shoots and posting on Facebook, where are their wives/children/relatives when this is going on?

The girls that are being photographed must surely see some photos before going to the photographer? Or, assuming the group of old men aren't moving around the country, they must know of other girls that have had their photos taken by them in their area?

Don't get me wrong, there are some gullible girls out there, and there are some photographers that will act seedy or push their luck, but an organised effort like you're describing sounds like something that I wouldn't believe happens in real life. I'm confident you'd be found out pretty swiftly.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well I asked in the context that because those people exist, they give the industry a bad name and I was just asking what he thought about them, given that it is his livelihood

I am sure that he knows people like that.

Genuinely, the first I've ever heard of anything like you've described, is in your post. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. It could be rampant across the country, but I can only comment from my perspective, and I've simply never heard of such a thing in my life.

It's a good question all the same, though. It could well have been a situation where i knew of it, and was involved in it, which would have perhaps made for some interesting reading, but unfortunately not the case.

I'm a Professional Photographer, AMA · 08-11-2018 7:50pm

beauf wrote: »

We have a compact and a DSLR and yet 95% of all our family photos are on smart phones. because thats always with us. Also because when going many activities you want to be free of bags etc. Still we make an effort to frame correctly and make more interest in the photos. I expect because we both did Photography courses in the past and just are interested in it. We'd both love to do more classroom courses in the future. Just as a hobby.

I'd be the same. If I'm not working, I wouldn't generally opt for the DSLR, unless I know I'll need it.

Don't get me wrong, for serious photography, the DSLR is the way to go. Dedicated buttons for the quick changing of settings, the image quality, shooting RAW (though I realise some phones can do this), hotshoe, etc. make it superior to a smartphone in many ways (but only if you actually need these for whatever you're shooting).

It's also an image thing (I'd rather attend an event with a crappy DSLR than an amazing smartphone. You get taken much more seriously when you have the right gear with you).

As i mentioned before about bringing a big lens to events when it won't even be needed.

For convenience, a smartphone will always win.

I was a teacher of classroom photography before (did both kids classes and a more serious class for adults). I found most of the people attending were practically dumbfounded when it came to how to use a DSLR properly, and how the different settings interact with each other, but almost all who attended had the ability to frame a decent picture, which is what helped them along a lot.

Knowing small, simple things like the Rule of Thirds can help so much.

I'm a Professional Photographer, AMA · 08-11-2018 8:03pm

angeleyes wrote: »

Hi there - delighted see you are a Canon user.

We do seem to be a rare breed. Almost everyone I know shoots Nikon.

angeleyes wrote: »

Would you be tempted to sell all your gear and use the new mirrorless cameras. I know a good few that have and its main selling point to them is the weight especially when photographing weddings and you might be using two different cameras.

While there are likely great benefits to switching to mirrorless, until it's practically forced on me, I don't think I'd be interested in changing.

For many years my camera bag was a series of items I wanted to change, or improve upon. Nowadays, I'm very content with the camera bodies and lenses I have. Although I'm sure I'll be using mirrorless sometime soon, when my cameras break or die off and mirrorless is being touted as the best thing since sliced bread, and it's much more common and tried-and-tested.

I'd never have any interest in voluntarily selling my gear to replace them with a new system. I know photographers that have done it to change brand (why, I do not know - must be a sign of insanity).

For the time being, I'm really happy with all that I have.

angeleyes wrote: »

especially when photographing weddings and you might be using two different cameras.

Just in relation to that - I don't use two cameras anymore. I just change lenses. I find it's a bit more annoying during the wedding itself having to change lenses, but I was always fiddling with two cameras and changing lens on both. I could never settle.

So I just use the one camera nowadays (though I always have a second camera, incase the main one breaks or gets damaged). That said, I did get used to the weight of two cameras, I never found them particularly heavy (though people who hold them always comment on the weight of them).

I used two cameras for my first couple of weddings, because that's what everyone seems to do, but I swiftly enough moved back to just a single camera (and a carry bag of lenses).

I'm a Professional Photographer, AMA · 08-11-2018 8:16pm

victor8600 wrote: »

Who owns the pictures that you take for a paying client? And who owns the copyright?

Copyright is something I never voluntarily mention to a client. I usually charge enough that I don't really care if they use the photos for purposes we didn't specifically agree.

There are photographers that will go out of their way to see if a client has misused an image, so they can invoice accordingly, but they never get hired again. Whereas the companies that use me tend to keep coming back.

But to answer your question. I worked for a large photo agency in the past, and they owned all the copyright to every photograph I took. I used their cameras, I used their lenses, I got jobs that were booked by them. It was very similar to just having a normal job (without the decent wage, I wasn't making much from it, at all).

Nowadays I'm out on my own, as my own business. I own copyright to everything I take, regardless of who I'm working for. The only time that will change is if I'm specifically asked about copyright, at which point I'll invent a modest fee to sign copyright of the images over to the company. So far the amount of money I've made by signing over copyright is €0.

I have no issue with photographers that chase copyright, when it's been done in a way that the photographer could or should have been paid for it.

For example, I wouldn't have issue with a photographer doing a photo for a gym for a small fee, because the gym want to put it on their facebook page for the local customers to see, but then it actually turns out that the photo is being used in a nationwide advertising campaign with newspapers, billboards, etc.

In a situation like that, where the photographer has possibly been cheated a bit out of an income, then I'd have no issue with them pursuing it.

Just a tip for anyone in that situation, though. If you're gonna chase after a misuse of your photo like that, make sure you invoice for a realistic amount, but a very, very high-end of the realistic amount. There's no point invoicing for €50, because if they say no, you're not going to be able to chase them legally. No solicitor will cost less than €50.

So you invoice a high amount, and haggle backwards from there (keeping in mind you'll be expected to justify the amount you're invoicing for).

Thankfully, I've never been in a situation like this, but a chap I know was, with a company not too long ago. I don't actually know how it ended for them, but I never heard of it being in the newspapers so I guess they sorted it, or he stopped pursuing it.

davedanon · 09-11-2018 12:34am

I'm a Professional Photographer, AMA wrote: »

We do seem to be a rare breed. Almost everyone I know shoots Nikon.

Funny, I'd have thought the complete opposite. The Irish (and international) press corps are overwhelmingly Canon-dominated.

I'm a Professional Photographer, AMA · 09-11-2018 4:07am

davedanon wrote: »

Funny, I'd have thought the complete opposite. The Irish (and international) press corps are overwhelmingly Canon-dominated.

They may well be the dominant brand alright. When I'm on a job I rarely ever look at what anyone else is using. Unless it's obvious (like a white Canon lens) I'm generally unaware.

Of the photographers I know personally, Nikon certainly rules the roost.

RabbleRouser2k · 09-11-2018 5:45am

With regards to photographing people and nude modelling, do you have to bring in a makeup artist or stylist on these kinds of shoots?

And in relation to some of the jobs you describe, have you ever turned down a job? I know you mentioned photographing a stillborn child for one couple (much respect and admiration to you for doing so-I can't imagine how difficult that situation was for the parents, in that you provided them with evidence of their only child). But have you ever had someone try and hire you for a job you distinctly felt was in poor taste, or not to your liking?

Effects · 09-11-2018 5:48am

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

you provided them with evidence of their only child

It's not evidence of a child. It's a photograph of a memory.

RabbleRouser2k · 09-11-2018 5:50am

Effects wrote: »

It's not evidence of a child. It's a photograph of a memory.

Yeah, apologies for that-tried to word it right and then worded it all wrong.

Effects · 09-11-2018 6:00am

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Yeah, apologies for that-tried to word it right and then worded it all wrong.

No problem. I've been through it so just took it a bit personally.

RabbleRouser2k · 09-11-2018 7:09am

Effects wrote: »

No problem. I've been through it so just took it a bit personally.

Yeah-I can understand that. No malice intended on my part. I'd amend the original post, but I think it would be a disservice to both of us to do so.

Just noting there was no malice intended on my part-I just flunked on the wording.

LimeFruitGum · 09-11-2018 8:11pm

To follow from your example about a gym recycling pics for a campaign. What’s your opinion/advice on newspapers lifting pics from somebody’s social media? I have seen some tweets where someone refused the Daily Mail permission to use their photo, but the paper published it anyway.

I'm a Professional Photographer, AMA · 10-11-2018 1:35am

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

With regards to photographing people and nude modelling, do you have to bring in a makeup artist or stylist on these kinds of shoots?

It can very much depend on what the photos are for. If someone contacts me and wants to book a session, I will always give the option of a makeup artist or hairdresser. Very rarely would it be taken up, though.

Very few of my portrait shoots (nude or not) have had make-up or hair done professionally (in many cases the girls will have gotten their hair done by their regular hairdresser, but nothing special or specific for, or during, the shoot itself).

I did team up with a makeup studio before and we offered a valentines package, but it didn't sell too well. I knew it wouldn't though. They included silly amounts of stuff (tried to make it into an event; hair, makeup, champagne, sexy photos, limo to take you from the photo session to a local club, with X amount of free drinks, etc.) so it ended up costing a fortune. Was a real 'celtic tiger' idea, but it was being pitched at the lowest curve of the recession. The minute I heard what it entailed, I rolled my eyes and knew I'd never see that limo (and I never did).

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

And in relation to some of the jobs you describe, have you ever turned down a job? I know you mentioned photographing a stillborn child for one couple (much respect and admiration to you for doing so-I can't imagine how difficult that situation was for the parents, in that you provided them with evidence of their only child). But have you ever had someone try and hire you for a job you distinctly felt was in poor taste, or not to your liking?

I might come back to this question. I'm sure there have been, but nothing specifically is springing to mind. A lot of jobs I do, even if I reckon they might be a tad questionable, I'd be very much of the opinion that if I'm not doing it, someone else will be, so I might aswell be the one that pockets the few Euro for doing it.

For example, I've stood at the roadside, photographing a fatal car accident. The body was being removed from the car and into the ambulance. I'd a clear shot of the person being taken from the car. I deliberately missed it, and instead snapped more generic imagery. On one hand, you could argue that this is someone's dying moments and it's completely disrespectful to turn it into a media circus. On the other hand, I wasn't the only one standing there, and if I wasn't the one taking the photos someone else would have them into the paper the next day, anyway.

So you can take miniature moral victories, but at the end of the day, I still took the photos and sold them. Many people would call me a scumbag, but the same people would buy the paper that has those photos on the cover.

I'm a Professional Photographer, AMA · 10-11-2018 1:48am

LimeFruitGum wrote: »

To follow from your example about a gym recycling pics for a campaign. What’s your opinion/advice on newspapers lifting pics from somebody’s social media? I have seen some tweets where someone refused the Daily Mail permission to use their photo, but the paper published it anyway.

I don't really know how up to date my knowledge is in regards to this. So take my advice with the grain of salt it so truly deserves. Also keep in mind, I can't give legal advice on Boards (nor would I be qualified to).

From what I recall, Facebook terms stated that anything you uploaded to their platform became their material and it was allowed to be used any which way anyone wanted to (effectively, became a public image, with you accepting, by uploading to facebook, that Facebook took the copyright).

I think this was challenged (not necessarily in court, but by the user base in general) and I believe that Facebook rescinded and took the stance that although you allow Facebook permission to use your images, likenesses, etc. the uploader/creator of the content maintains copyright of the image.

I've not actually sat down and read through the terms and conditions of Facebook properly (I'm assuming the newspaper editors have), but my understanding is that it's a bit of a grey area, although if you have taken a photo, and permission has been sought to use it, and you decline, but it was used anyway, I'd imagine you have a case for chasing them for payment (payment could include a hefty fee for improper use, to make it worthwhile pursuing).

In your specific story, I would imagine that whoever took the photograph retains copyright, and the newspaper have demonstrated that they are aware of this (why would they ask for permission, otherwise?). If they never asked, they could possibly claim ignorance, but asking has put them in a bit of a hole, possibly.

But again, I can't stress enough just how out of the loop I am with regards to who can use Facebook photos. I see them used the whole time, all over the media, from TV broadcast to Print, so I am presuming they're allowed to do it (or they'd all be getting invoiced left, right and centre, and there'd be ads on the radio saying "did the news use your photo? You could be due compensation" and so forth, but I can't say for sure.

I realise this is a bit of a nonsense 'sitting on the fence' post from me, but I really can't advise one way or the other as I simply don't know the factual answer.

Darren 83 · 10-11-2018 8:47am

Have you ever been challenged about taking photos in public from parents? While I was never challenged I got some dirty looks from people while shooting running road races.

The J Stands for Jay · 10-11-2018 10:11am

I'm a Professional Photographer, AMA wrote: »

I don't really know how up to date my knowledge is in regards to this. So take my advice with the grain of salt it so truly deserves. Also keep in mind, I can't give legal advice on Boards (nor would I be qualified to).

From what I recall, Facebook terms stated that anything you uploaded to their platform became their material and it was allowed to be used any which way anyone wanted to (effectively, became a public image, with you accepting, by uploading to facebook, that Facebook took the copyright).

I think this was challenged (not necessarily in court, but by the user base in general) and I believe that Facebook rescinded and took the stance that although you allow Facebook permission to use your images, likenesses, etc. the uploader/creator of the content maintains copyright of the image.

I've not actually sat down and read through the terms and conditions of Facebook properly (I'm assuming the newspaper editors have), but my understanding is that it's a bit of a grey area, although if you have taken a photo, and permission has been sought to use it, and you decline, but it was used anyway, I'd imagine you have a case for chasing them for payment (payment could include a hefty fee for improper use, to make it worthwhile pursuing).

It always annoys me when I read or watch news reports about someone who's died or been injured and they use their Facebook picture. So much so that I idly think about putting it in my will that my estate should persue any news outlets that use my pictures if I die in a newsworthy manner.

The J Stands for Jay · 10-11-2018 10:15am

Do you visit photography forum online like boards or Reddit? Do you use Flickr and/or Instagram? (Not looking for links, just wondering if a pro bothers with these).

A lot of online photography websites just focus on gear, but you seem to be pretty settled on your kit.

I'm a Professional Photographer, AMA · 10-11-2018 5:40pm

Darren 83 wrote: »

Have you ever been challenged about taking photos in public from parents? While I was never challenged I got some dirty looks from people while shooting running road races.

I've heard of people calling the Gardai on people taking photos of their kids, but I've never actually seen it happen, or heard of it happening to anyone I know personally.

Perhaps it's because I'm a photographer, but I expect people to be aware that any road race or public event will likely have photographers attending.

You might perhaps get approached if you look like you're trying to hide what you're doing, but during a children's road race, I'd be standing in front of them in the middle of the road at the start line and would have a big DSLR, a camera bag, etc. so I'd be very 'obvious' in the way I approach it.

If I'm at a road race, and I'm taking photos of people before or after, and I see a group of kids, I'll take the photo, but when I'm talking to the kids, I'll get them to point out who their parent/guardian is, and I'll say hello and make sure they're happy enough to have the photos published.

(I know I touched on it earlier, but for clarity, the reason I'd be asking isn't because I'm not allowed to take the photo. In a public place, everyone's fair game. The reason to get permission in this case is to avoid a situation of parents ringing up the paper giving out. Especially if it's a smaller/local paper, they simply don't want the negative image or hassle, which is understandable).

When I approach people saying "I am here for X newspaper, do you mind if I take a photo", the vast majority of people are delighted at the prospect, and will volunteer themselves and their kids for a photo.

I'm a Professional Photographer, AMA · 10-11-2018 5:52pm

McGaggs wrote: »

It always annoys me when I read or watch news reports about someone who's died or been injured and they use their Facebook picture. So much so that I idly think about putting it in my will that my estate should persue any news outlets that use my pictures if I die in a newsworthy manner.

I understand the annoyance. It can be disrespectful at times (especially in the situation of the newspaper asking permission and being told 'no', but going ahead anyway).

However, on the other side of the coin (as they say), you might find that a news story that has an actual person, a face, a likeness, attached to it, may carry more weight, and make a story resonate that bit more.

What I mean is, when you hear that John Johnson died in a car crash because a drunk driver had a head-on with him, and he had two kids and a wife... you turn the page, forget about it, and see if there's any cheap holiday deals on the next page.

However, if there's a photo of the family, with his innocent looking young kids and they're all smiling... John Johnson all of a sudden reminds you a bit of yourself, or your dad, or your brother.. It can make a story hit home a bit more, and you might condemn the drink driver that bit more as a result of having this visual addition to the story.

(of course, you might still not care, but it's one of the reasons I can see for using photos in those kind of situations).

I'm a Professional Photographer, AMA · 10-11-2018 6:11pm

McGaggs wrote: »

Do you visit photography forum online like boards or Reddit? Do you use Flickr and/or Instagram? (Not looking for links, just wondering if a pro bothers with these).

Boards is where I learned all the basics of how to use a camera and set up for different shots. I was glued to the photography forum when I first started. Met a handful of boardsies in real life and did a couple of the photo walks. Have lost touch with most of them, but it was invaluable experience.

I believe I have accounts on all those named, but I use them rarely.

There's also a thing called Creative Live that do live videos of photographers coming in and doing their thing, teaching a few people in a classroom, which I always thought was good (people at home could submit questions via a live chat window). It's a great idea and it helped a lot.

Nowadays I rarely go looking to discuss photography online. I will still end up posting on photography forums from time to time, or if I'm on boards and see a question i can help with on the main page, I'll click in and reply to it, but in general most of my online browsing has very little to do with photography (although I still use Boards and Reddit, just different forums).

McGaggs wrote: »

A lot of online photography websites just focus on gear, but you seem to be pretty settled on your kit.

This is true, and it's one of the reasons I wouldn't be online too often for photo reasons.

However, it would often be a case that I know i'm going to have to photograph a solicitor, a cafe owner, a Garda, a mechanic, etc. and I've a bit of time beforehand, although I'll have a good idea what I plan to do, I'll often Google 'plumber portrait' or 'waitress portrait' to see if anything jumps out at me.

More recently I've started using drones, so I've googled them a bit, to see if there's anything worth learning that could help me out. Probably not really related to your question though.

Mech1 · 10-11-2018 11:29pm

would you be interested in bringing a "would be" photographer along with you on a shoot or even on a quick job?

I'm a Professional Photographer, AMA · 11-11-2018 2:24am

Mech1 wrote: »

would you be interested in bringing a "would be" photographer along with you on a shoot or even on a quick job?

There was a period in time where I got a lot of 'work experience placement' emails. At the time, I said no. I was just getting my own foot on the ladder and figured that my diary wasn't filling up enough to justify having a work placement student with me.

On top of that, like most self employed, my early days were spent with a near single-digit bank balance and a worry of when will the phone ring. I might not have a job for weeks straight. There'd be no point in having someone tag along for that experience (unless they're a slacker and love getting the 'don't bother coming in today' calls).

I wouldn't feel comfortable having someone with me for two weeks, and not pay them something, which was another issue, as I genuinely didn't have the money.

Nowadays I'm doing a lot better, but no one has asked me in a long time. Someone from Transition Year in a nearby school asked me last year, but they opted for a video placement in a studio somewhere (I think) instead, before I got a chance to reply.

There is a chap I know, who is a friend of a friend, and he has tagged along a couple of times. Some jobs require accreditation and it makes it tricky having someone accompany you.

If it's something you're interested in, just ring a local paper and ask for their photographer's info. Most photographers won't mind you tagging along, because what will happen is they'll start sending you out to do their jobs for them, and pay you less than they're making (so they'll get paid for doing very little). You'll be happy with it because 'yay, you're a photographer', and they'll be happy because instead of making a small few euro doing a day for the paper, they can book a wedding in and give you the paper work.

(Eventually you'll outgrow it, but by that point you'll hopefully have become a bit more known by having worked for the paper and can get your own work on).

pampootie · 13-11-2018 9:35am

I'm a Professional Photographer, AMA wrote: »

For example, I've stood at the roadside, photographing a fatal car accident.

How do the emergency services react to you being there at a time like this?

miamee · 13-11-2018 3:48pm

pampootie wrote: »

How do the emergency services react to you being there at a time like this?

Interesting question, I had assumed you were there to take 'official' photos for an investigation when it was mentioned earlier! Do you also get calls to do things like that for investigations or for official police/state records or anything?

gzoladz · 14-11-2018 8:08am

In relation to gear.. Nikon launched earlier this year the P1000. A compact sensor camera with 3000mm optical zoom.

Some profesional/serious photographers don't take it seriously due to the compromise of a small sensor in particular at the long end of the zoom, while some others do as they let them capture images of long distant objects/subjects that otherwise would not be possible with any other lens combination, if the light is right.

What's your take on it? Would you ever consider one for specific shooting situations or it is a no-go?

pjproby · 14-11-2018 11:18pm

Do you have your own studio?

I'm a Professional Photographer, AMA · 15-11-2018 9:31pm

pampootie wrote: »

How do the emergency services react to you being there at a time like this?

They are well used to it, I'd imagine.

If you show a bit of respect to them, they'll show a bit of respect in return.

I always make an effort to approach Gardai at news events, and I inform them that I'll be taking a few photos. I prompt them so they can turn their back to the camera (they generally would rather not have their faces in the paper).

If I were a Garda, I would appreciate this opportunity to turn away from the camera, so I always put myself in their shoes.

Same if there are fire officers putting out a fire. I always approach them and tell them who I am and what I'm doing. It gives them a chance to make sure they've got all the proper safety gear on and they are "official" before a photo goes to the papers.

I've heard in the past of fire officers getting in trouble because they didn't have a certain piece of equipment on in a photo that appeared in the papers, which I think is unfair, considering the chaps are out trying to make an honest living.

So to answer you're question more directly, you'll find the emergency services don't really care whether you're there or not. Sometimes you might get an attitude, but it'd be rare, and I'd stand my ground if I got an unnecessary hard time off someone.

Gloomtastic! · 15-11-2018 10:18pm

I'm a Professional Photographer, AMA wrote: »

They are well used to it, I'd imagine.

If you show a bit of respect to them, they'll show a bit of respect in return.

I always make an effort to approach Gardai at news events, and I inform them that I'll be taking a few photos. I prompt them so they can turn their back to the camera (they generally would rather not have their faces in the paper).

If I were a Garda, I would appreciate this opportunity to turn away from the camera, so I always put myself in their shoes.

Same if there are fire officers putting out a fire. I always approach them and tell them who I am and what I'm doing. It gives them a chance to make sure they've got all the proper safety gear on and they are "official" before a photo goes to the papers.

I've heard in the past of fire officers getting in trouble because they didn't have a certain piece of equipment on in a photo that appeared in the papers, which I think is unfair, considering the chaps are out trying to make an honest living.

So to answer you're question more directly, you'll find the emergency services don't really care whether you're there or not. Sometimes you might get an attitude, but it'd be rare, and I'd stand my ground if I got an unnecessary hard time off someone.

Did you pick up those tips from someone else or they did just come intuitively?

I'm a Professional Photographer, AMA · 15-11-2018 11:31pm

miamee wrote: »

Interesting question, I had assumed you were there to take 'official' photos for an investigation when it was mentioned earlier! Do you also get calls to do things like that for investigations or for official police/state records or anything?

For newsworthy events, you get a call from the newspapers. For example, if you see a car accident that's caused huge delays, had a death, etc. The newspaper will contact the photographer.

I have taken photographs for the Gardai directly on a single occasion. It was generic photographs for use in presentations. To the best of my knowledge, anything that would be photographed for them, especially sensitive things like crime scenes, files, records, would be photographed by the forensics unit, and the photographer would be a sworn in, actual member of the Gardai.

I'm lead to believe that "back in the day", the average photographer on the street could get those jobs, but eventually it all started to get done 'in-house' (the right way to do it).

At least an actual Garda will be less likely to leak gore photos, whereas a photographer that works for both the Gardai and newspapers would have a conflict of interest and might be persuaded with a few euro (I presume this is why it's garda-only).

I have heard stories of a local freelance photographer that got work regularly off the Gardai, and now works for them full time despite not actually being a Garda. I'm hesitant to believe that story, although it could well be true.

I'm a Professional Photographer, AMA · 15-11-2018 11:49pm

gzoladz wrote: »

In relation to gear.. Nikon launched earlier this year the P1000. A compact sensor camera with 3000mm optical zoom.

Some profesional/serious photographers don't take it seriously due to the compromise of a small sensor in particular at the long end of the zoom, while some others do as they let them capture images of long distant objects/subjects that otherwise would not be possible with any other lens combination, if the light is right.

What's your take on it? Would you ever consider one for specific shooting situations or it is a no-go?

If you could get a decent 3000mm optical zoom that could give professional quality imagery, I'd expect to see it pitch-side at all major sporting events.

I'd certainly consider it to replace my "glovebox camera", but professionally I can't see use for it, for me personally (not saying it won't work for other photographers, but for what I tend to do, it'd be a while before I'd be glad I bought it).

You'll often find these "prosumer" cameras aren't as tough as their profesional cousins, either. I've dropped my DSLR more times than I'm proud to admit, and it's still working fine. I'm not sure I'd be confident I could say the same about the P1000.

Mind you, it's only fair to acknowledge how the technology is coming along. I'd say it won't be too long before the thoughts of having to change a lens seems archaic.

I'm a Professional Photographer, AMA · 16-11-2018 12:00am

pjproby wrote: »

Do you have your own studio?

I don't. I was offered a retail unit a few years ago, at a knockdown rental price, and it would have been fine for studio use. It was also next to a church (I was thinking immediately of communions and confirmations).

Then I realised the money I would spend kitting it out, decorating, doing the store front signage and that I'd either have to be there all day, or pay someone else to be there all day.

I took a look at surrounding studios and realised that, firstly, lots of competition, and secondly, none of them looked too busy.

I do have a portable backdrop I use, so I can get a studio look to photos, but I don't have a proper dedicated studio, no.

My guess is that any studios that are still out there will slowly starting closing their doors as the years roll by.

I can't think of the name of the baby photo place, but they work within a baby shop, and so they can piggyback off an existing customer based, and run promotions that tie into the shop. Great marketing.

They can also rob you blind and guilt you into purchasing expensive images (someone has to pay for the rent and rates). Not my cup of tea, but I can see how it's successful (though I rarely hear good reports. The photos always seem good, but the prices scare a lot of people away).

I'm a Professional Photographer, AMA · 16-11-2018 12:11am

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

Did you pick up those tips from someone else or they did just come intuitively?

A bit of both.

I always approach a Garda attending a scene. Mostly because I think it's just the right thing to do. I firmly believe in being polite to people, even at times when you don't have to be.

I found that when I approached a few of the Gardai they would jokingly ask not to get their face or would instinctively turn around. So I ended up asking about it and it seemed most Gardai simply don't want to be in the paper that much, which is understandable.

The fire safety equipment is something I heard about when chatting to a fire officer at a scene. I appeared at, I think it was a car fire, introduced myself to one of the fire officers, and he let a shout to one of the other gents to put certain gear on (I can't recall what it was off the top of my head. I think it was something trivial like a harness. He definitely wasn't missing his helmet or jacket or something obvious like that).

The officer I was talking to told me they had gotten in trouble not too long before that, because there was a photo of them in the paper, and they were missing certain equipment in the photos.

Ever since then, I've always made it a point to say it to them, and specifically remind them to throw on any gear they might be missing. 99.99% of the time they don't need to add or remove anything, but they always appreciate the heads up.

The only issue I have with it, is even though it's intended as a nice reminder and I'm trying to be decent to them, I sometimes feel like it might come across as though I feel I know better than them, or that I'm telling them how to do their own job. So I often feel awkward saying it, but better safe than sorry, I suppose.

Blazer · 16-11-2018 9:40am

I'm a Professional Photographer, AMA wrote: »

They may well be the dominant brand alright. When I'm on a job I rarely ever look at what anyone else is using. Unless it's obvious (like a white Canon lens) I'm generally unaware.

Of the photographers I know personally, Nikon certainly rules the roost.

It was always Nikon for portraits etc and Canon for sports as the lenses are better equipped for it.
Look on sky sports and you'll see Canon galore. Look on sky news and its mostly Nikon.
Also regarding Storage icloud/google drive/microsoft one drive are good options.
I'm hesitant to recommend flickr as they're changing again and its hard to see where they go from here. Pity as I always loved flickr. Stupid yahoo buying them.
Regardless you still want physical backups and especially in your role you'd want 2-3 copies of your work.

decky1 · 18-11-2018 2:00am

bought a Pentax K.r some time ago , bit over my head to be honest, just wanted something with a better zoom than the one i had ---have noticed in the last week the photo's are blurred,any tips?

ED E · 18-11-2018 2:10am

I'm a Professional Photographer, AMA wrote: »

Inside each of those is a folder whose name is just a date (month-day-year). Month goes in first, as if you put the date first, windows will sort by name and mess it all up). So I have folders called "02-01-2010" (1st of february) and "04-05-2015" (5th of April).

I find it helps me swiftly get through things. If you've already got a lot of photos taken, having to enter the file descriptions will be very time consuming, so just sorting by a rough date will help more (and you can add tags as you go forward, for future use).

My OCD hates that. YMD makes a lot more sense unless you're American. :pac:

Ger Roe · 18-11-2018 11:29am

I have a question about printing large size photo prints from a scanned file.

I am looking to print up to size 44 x 37 cms. This size is required to replace a photo already mounted in a specific frame. I am scanning from a smaller print of the photo to replace a badly sun damaged larger print.

Can you point me in the direction of somewhere that would be able to print to that size on photo paper?

Regards and thanks.

AndrewJRenko · 18-11-2018 1:23pm

ED E wrote: »

My OCD hates that. YMD makes a lot more sense unless you're American. :pac:

My inner database designer hates that.

If there is a 'date' attribute on the folder, then use that for date. Don't build date into a different field - folder name in this case.

beauf · 18-11-2018 1:53pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

My inner database designer hates that.

If there is a 'date' attribute on the folder, then use that for date. Don't build date into a different field - folder name in this case.

Well its still there is you want it. It doesn't get removed or anything.

The date attribute might be when you loaded up or created the folder. It might not be when the event was. So I might might upload Xmas events in January Besides which the date attribute is still there if you want to use it.

Date format YYYYMMDD makes most sense as the dates order alphabetically then.

20151117 Launch Party
20181117 Birthday Party
20181118 Mondello Event

You can still use tags, etc. Tags work differently in different applications. So the folder names is a fall back. Especially handy if you use other software for backing up and archival that isn't tag aware.

Everyone seems to use their own though. I find people who haven't thought about it, are those who can never find anything. Or it takes them an age.

Those who use tags exclusively often can't remember how they tagged them. Did I call it Marys 80th, or Big Birthday.

AndrewJRenko · 18-11-2018 2:00pm

beauf wrote: »

Well its still there is you want it. It doesn't get removed or anything.

The date attribute might be when you loaded up or created the folder. It might not be when the event was. So I might might upload Xmas events in January Besides which the date attribute is still there if you want to use it.

Date format YYYYMMDD makes most sense as the dates order alphabetically then.

20151117 Launch Party
20181117 Birthday Party
20181118 Mondello Event

You can still use tags, etc. Tags work differently in different applications. So the folder names is a fall back. Especially handy if you use other software for backing up and archival that isn't tag aware.

Everyone seems to use their own though. I find people who haven't thought about it, are those who can never find anything. Or it takes them an age.

Those who use tags exclusively often can't remember how they tagged them. Did I call it Marys 80th, or Big Birthday.

A Windows folder has multiple date attributes - date taken, date acquired, date created, date modified

Why not use these as the designer intended, and use folder names for descriptions, as the designer intended?

ED E · 18-11-2018 3:09pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

A Windows folder has multiple date attributes - date taken, date acquired, date created, date modified

Why not use these as the designer intended, and use folder names for descriptions, as the designer intended?

Nope.

You're missing the photog side of things. Makeyuppyexample:
Go to Galway for a long weekend. Shoot a friends birthday Friday night. Go for a hike Saturday. Sunday is a gig. Monday go visit a church or something.

Tuesday, import all. Divvy into folders for days. All will have the same timedate stamp despite being for four days. Yes you can use date acquired say but how does that transfer to EXT7 when you leave windows behind in future.

Sort the files by EXIF, the OPs directory system is near perfect.

AndrewJRenko · 18-11-2018 3:21pm

ED E wrote: »

Nope.

You're missing the photog side of things. Makeyuppyexample:
Go to Galway for a long weekend. Shoot a friends birthday Friday night. Go for a hike Saturday. Sunday is a gig. Monday go visit a church or something.

Tuesday, import all. Divvy into folders for days. All will have the same timedate stamp despite being for four days. Yes you can use date acquired say but how does that transfer to EXT7 when you leave windows behind in future.

Sort the files by EXIF, the OPs directory system is near perfect.

Every photo has "date taken" within the metadata. So you don't need to manually divvy up by day. Just sort by date taken.

I've no idea what EXT7 is, apart from a prominent brand of hand dryer.

https://www.amazon.com/American-Dryer-ExtremeAir-EXT7-High-Speed/dp/B005H0IMYY

But if it doesn't accommodate photo metadata, it wouldn't be a great upgrade path.

beauf · 18-11-2018 3:45pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

A Windows folder has multiple date attributes - date taken, date acquired, date created, date modified

Why not use these as the designer intended, and use folder names for descriptions, as the designer intended?

They get changed. I don't find them very reliable myself. Especially copying on different drives or systems. But they are there anyway. You don't lose them.
Also you have to turn on those either for all folders or for the folder type in Windows.
Its just more concise to have it all in one attribute.
If you are database guy I assume you are used to using aliases, and combining columns to show information in a more compact view.

Anyway people can do it anyway they want. If it works for them.

davedanon · 19-11-2018 10:32am

All gobbledygook to me, as I can state for a FACT: most snappers use Mac.

I'm a Professional Photographer, AMA · 19-11-2018 1:50pm

decky1 wrote: »

bought a Pentax K.r some time ago , bit over my head to be honest, just wanted something with a better zoom than the one i had ---have noticed in the last week the photo's are blurred,any tips?

Kind of hard to tell, could be anything really that could lead to blurry photos.

My instinct is to suggest you keep an eye on the shutter speed on the camera (the more you zoom, the more likely you are to shake/move the camera (or at least, the more you zoom, the more obvious each little twitch of the camera is).

A faster shutter speed will hopefully get rid of that issue.

Now ye're talking - to a professional photographer

Comments