Newbie Setting Up Studio needing advice

[Phil Sedgwick]

In addition, the more people like me that are encouraged to jump into the pro-photo arena, the cheaper YOUR equipment becomes.

Now explain to me...how do you lose?

In many cases they the lower the quality threshold.

If they can trust you as a human being and you work until they are happy, you will have a viable business

I agree.

Take a dive into ourselves and ask, "Why does it bother me?"

Because it's been asked and answered. Maybe 20 years in the PC biz is finally getting to me. ;-)

Digital manipulation of photography is a whole different art and science. That stuff is hard and takes enormous talent and skill.

No it's not. In fact it is harder in most cases to do it in camera.

You have pounced upon the arrogance of other posters yet your comment belies your own. I could go off on a tangent about how HTML and web work is just cook book, cut and paste work that is routinely plagiarized but the truth is that neither photography, web site design or for that matter any artistic endeavor is not repeatable by anyone with a simple formula. They all require the knowledge of many disciplines and an 'eye' that can not always be learned.

I appreciate your comments but I was asking for advice on lenses for the D-1 and general advice for studio equipment for portraits and table-top photography.

Pardon me for paying attention, but you did, in this and another thread. mention your interest in sports photography.

I don't consider any of my general inquires "lazy" or "numb-minded".

This was meant as a general lament and not directed at you, I am sorry if it appeared any other way.

Don't over estimate the knowledge needed for your craft. Bright people with natural ability and hard work can learn everything necessary to be viable professionals in a year or two.

The folks at Art Center, Brooks and RIT might not agree with you.

I mentioned "viable professional". Not award winning or even artistic.
I guarantee I can sell my customers with a quality portfolio even though
I could tell them I have only 6 months in the industry. If they can
trust you as a human being and you work until they are happy, you will
have a viable business. Some artsy people, like my brother, never
understand that people want to buy from people. This is business. He
clings so tightly to his desire to make an award out of every product in
multimedia that production slows, budgets overrun, and clients leave
unhappy. An artist who is starving is an artist that will not look for
creative expression WITHIN the constraints of the client. I never want
to go down in the annuals of history as the greatest photographer. I
just want this equipment to pay for itself over time.

But

they want to produce great photographers and as you stated there is a
huge market for average work.

I felt a kinship with Laurn's post, not because it attacked yours, but
because I too have tired of unresearched questions on the web. I visit
forums in my areas of interest - photography and auto racing being the
usual stops - and the number of lazy, numb minded posts can get to you.

I participate in numerous Web development posts (my full-time work) and
never mind silly rookies. I usually don't comment to their post but
others who have the time and inclination, like to flaunt their hard-won
knowledge and enjoy the feeling of being an expert. We all get puffed up
when we can give superior advice. I've been to over 50 sites and read
just about everything of use. Before I came to this site I read over 8
books and was still not able to find answers on professional lense setups
with Digital pro cameras. Most of the information out there is either
outdated for film cameras or too thin on content for professionals. I
don't consider any of my general inquirys "lazy" or "numb-minded". If
Professionals don't wan't to be bothered by the simple questions, isn't
the best course to ignore them? I mean, to spend time responding with
negative comments on the simplicity of my post indicates to me there is
more going on here than is being admitted. Take a dive into ourselves
and ask, "Why does it bother me?"

I suspect people respond to stress poorly and react too emotionally.
Perhaps they are having a tough day. But in a forum, the old saying is
appropriate; "If you can't say something nice, don't say it at all". Who
knows, I may turn out to be an invaluable Web resource for you someday.
Investing in relationships, even online ones, is good business. In
addition, the more people like me that are encouraged to jump into the
pro-photo arena, the cheaper YOUR equipment becomes. (Mass production =
lower prices).

Now explain to me...how do you lose?

There are great resources on the web that many overlook. Photo.net for
one has a large static content that address many aspects of photography
and a searchable forum database that answers many questions, including
some of yours. If you have not visited photo.net, I suggest that you
give it a try.

I did and am not to impressed. But thanks for the tip.

The only thing that changes in photography is the technology. People that buy from you are interested in the composition, color, mood, creativity, expressionism, and the sort.

Yes, but no. The ability to see the composition, color, mood etc change
with the times too and are as much a part of photography as the
technology. You can reproduce the works of others without expanding your
creativity or tickling the mind of the viewer but great photography
pushes the boundaries of both technology and creativity.

Illustration within photographs is not pure photography. It is art more
than photography. It's like baking cookies...Flour by itself is just
flour. Mix it with other ingredients and it becomes something much
tastier but to still call it flour is a disservice. Digital manipulation
of photography is a whole different art and science. That stuff is hard
and takes enourmous talent and skill. Hats off to those who can do this.

I photograph autoracing for print and web publications using the D1 and
film cameras. If there is ever a questions I can answer, drop me a line.

I appreciate your comments but I was asking for advice on lenses for the
D-1 and general advice for studio equipment for portraits and table-top
photography.

I am an amateur photographer but am interested in starting a part-time
business out of my home with table-top, studio, sports, and nature
photography. I am considering the Nikon D-1 and Nikon lenses.

My question is general in nature...Is the D-1 the best bang for the buck?
I need to provide quality to my business customers. Will the file sizes
generated in the D-1 be suitable for a Professional career in this field?

I realize the scope of my applications is great but I don't have more
than 20-30K to spare to start this part-time pursuit.

My bread and butter comes from strategic business Web consulting with
large customers but business analysis and technical documentation leaves
me with no creative outlet. (I think I might be left and right brained)
If I'm going to get into photography as a serious hobby, I might as well
get paid for it. At least if just to pay for the equipment over the
years.

Side question...I checked into some Nikon lenses...why are some 400mm
lenses 8-10K while others are 1-2k? I assume is has something to do with
speed of adjustments with AF and other variables. This application is
sports photography.

I appreciate any help here.
--
Geoff Kirkwold

Does any of this thread bother anyone in the least other than me? I know
I'll get slammed but thats ok. I still want to throw my two cents in. It
seems strange that someone with such a lack of knowledge(see question
posted in the above thread about long lens) is preparing to start
charging the public for photographic services and is seeking advise from
pros in the field to accomplish this. Heres a website consultant who
wants to shoot sports for web pages,do studio work and charge clients for
it. It also means some else isn't going to be hired for the work. I have
a good business and don't feel threatned by this but I do feel insulted a
bit. I have worked long and hard for many years to refine my photography,
to respect both the craft and the work that others have done. Inherent in
this question I believe is a lack of repect for the work that
professionals do day in and day out. It seems to imply that photography
is equipment and little else and that with a little basic knowledge most
anyone can do this . Get the tools and I too can build a house. I think
most anyone who does this for a living has seen it may times over.

Reminds me of a story about a writer who was at a party. A surgeon was
speaking to the writer saying that he would also like to write a book
about a very similar experience that he had that the writer had based his
story on but that he, the surgeon "just didn't have enought time" to
write it.

The writer replied that he too wanted to do surgery but that he was also
to tied up in his workto find the time to do it.

I wonder what typerwriter Hemmingway used and if this gave him an
advantage over Steinbeck.

OH well, I feel better now. Take care everyone.

Regards,

Laurin

Laurin,

You seem like an articulate and thoughtful person so I will go easy on
you. In response to your post to my request for advice on the ProDigital
forum:

Do you feel Web consulting and photography are worlds apart as are a
writer and a surgeon? I think not. I am drawn into photography as it is
a natural compliment to Web development and communication as a whole.
For me to justify spending tens of thousands of dollars on camera
equipment, I am putting my feelers out into a larger world of
photography. I will never make the kind of money in photography that I
do in Web but I need a creative outlet and have the opportunity to shoot
college level sports with a press pass. Just in the right place and the
right time. FYI, I only charge this client $25/hr because he is first my
good friend and second my client. There is no way you or any other pro
would ever work for him because he's too thrifty. I do it for a hobby
and he pays my car gas and beer money.

Now, since you feel your advice is worth big bucks and therefore persons
should not share knowledge in a forum, what is a forum for? Really smart
people to get smarter? Or do you oppose rookies like me getting smarter?
If it makes you feel better, I would be happy to share my Web knowledge
with you or any other Pro Photographer in an equal amount that is shared
with me. We all have something to gain then.

Nobody lacks respect for your photography skills or the years it took to
refine them. But being selfish with that knowledge implies that I will
abuse your trust or otherwise harm your business practice. I have been
in the Web world since the beginning and I do not remember a time when I
was NOT personally training a young college-age "Webbie wannabe" into
the art of building Web sites and running their own professional
business. It takes me at least a year of energy on each one and I do it
for free most of the time. Other times, they help me paint my house. I
know they are being groomed to be future competitors, but mutual respect
will handle most conflict. Besides, they could be a great ally in times
of need as well.

As to your comments on the difficulty of photography...I agree there is
much to the art and it is an art. But the fundamental concepts of
photography are simple, tried and true. The only thing that changes in
photography is the technology. People that buy from you are interested
in the composition, color, mood, creativity, expressionism, and the sort.
I suspect most clients care less about what lense was used as long as the
final product is what they need.

Don't over estimate the knowledge needed for your craft. Bright people
with natural ability and hard work can learn everything necessary to be
viable professionals in a year or two. I suspect you view your
photography more as art and less as business. That's fine. I'm an
entrepeneur looking to cost-justify a large equipment expense by taking a
year or two to learn the finer art or photography and make it a business
add-on. I have a brother who is a fine-art grad from a state u and he
owns his own business in multimedia. Terrible businessman...excellent
artist. His snooty attitude toward everything being art has destroyed
numerous relationships with good paying clients. Now he's looking to
sell his business that's worth nothing. People still buy from people.
There is a huge market for photography that will never win awards.

My skills with the Web came too from hard work...even graduate school in
software design. Trust me when I tell you, learning about photography
provides my brain with a break, not a stress. I have also helped to
build houses from scratch, and trust me, they're not that hard to build.
With a basic set of knowledge, you too could build a house. Don't be
afraid to learn about building houses.

I am curious what you think of Leonardo DaVinci? Was he too trying to be
a surgeon and a writer? Did he aim too high and try too many new things?
I'm only 31. Am I a fool to think that when I'm 35 I will purchase a
woodworking shop for my home and build my own beds, tables and dressers?
Am I unrealistic that when I'm 40 I want to write music (a hobby from my
youth) and try to publish some of it. Am I a freeking lunatic to think
that age 45 I might take up painting as hope to sell some of it! Kudos
to those who want to be stuck in the same career their whole life. It's
just not for me. A true artist sees their life, knowledge and
experiences as the canvas to be explored...not just the physical canvas
in and of itself.

Well Lauren, your lack of depth and ignorance of human understanding
leaves me feeling sorry for you. Not in a smug way but as a fellow
travler on the same road. Sad to see you stuck in a mud puddle and claim
no others may enter with ease. In the bigger picture of life,
photography is so insignificant as is any other career pursuit. Careers
are our mud puddle. Next time, defend your family or religion with this
type of overreactive vigor, but don't make photography a battleground of
ill will. How many homeless people will you help today?

 

[Ron Reznick]

Hi Geoff,

For what it's worth, here's my advice:

You may find that you will need various focal lengths for sports and other situations. Zooms are generally slower, heavier, and softer than prime lenses, as well as being more susceptible to flare, but they are most certainly more convenient. I would say that since you are getting into this in the near future, the timing may be just about right to pick up one of the new 80-400 VR lenses from Nikon to go with that D1. I would also highly recommend the excellent, reasonably inexpensive 50mm f/1.4. You will be able to learn a considerable amount about framing and perspective with the 50mm as well as being able to shoot in available light under low-light conditions. The 80-400 VR will offer you a vast amount of long focal lengths and the glass is about as good as you are going to find in a zoom, plus the VR technology will allow you to hand-hold in fairly low light. You may want a 24mm or wider WA lens too, but I'd start with that 50mm first. I know it's an old-fashioned approach, but you will learn a tremendous amount about how to use the camera with that 50mm -- that's why most cameras used to be sold with just that lens (now, they typically come with a short zoom -- times and tastes change).

Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com

I am an amateur photographer but am interested in starting a part-time
business out of my home with table-top, studio, sports, and nature
photography. I am considering the Nikon D-1 and Nikon lenses.

My question is general in nature...Is the D-1 the best bang for the buck?
I need to provide quality to my business customers. Will the file sizes
generated in the D-1 be suitable for a Professional career in this field?

I realize the scope of my applications is great but I don't have more
than 20-30K to spare to start this part-time pursuit.

My bread and butter comes from strategic business Web consulting with
large customers but business analysis and technical documentation leaves
me with no creative outlet. (I think I might be left and right brained)
If I'm going to get into photography as a serious hobby, I might as well
get paid for it. At least if just to pay for the equipment over the
years.

Side question...I checked into some Nikon lenses...why are some 400mm
lenses 8-10K while others are 1-2k? I assume is has something to do with
speed of adjustments with AF and other variables. This application is
sports photography.

I appreciate any help here.
--
Geoff Kirkwold

Geoff, The D1 is a great digital camera ,especially for a Nikon
photographer who already owns a lot on lenses for his/her film
cameras........But, $5000.00! I want one,but will wait with fingers
crossed, hoping for a substantial reduction in price.( I use a N 990 now).
8-10K for a 400mm lens? !! Jeez....even to consider 1-2K as an amateur
just starting out to learn photography????You have a lot of green stuff
to burn?
Settle for an aftermarket lens ,e.g. Sigma
400mm 5.6 for $719.00, or my best advice, a 28-300 3.5-5.6 at a paltry
$399.00. Great for outdoor sports, and put a 2X telextender in front of
that lens, and....56-600mm! Kenkos are really great TeleExtenders. 2X
@$199.95.....B+H.
P.S. the differences in price depends upon the light capturing ability of
the lens,and for the most part,depends upon the amount of finished lens
glass in the lens. A Nikon 400mm, 3.5,for $4299, is a magnificant lens,
but weighs about a ton after using it not mounted on a tripod...after
only a few minutes.Thats a lot of heavy glass in the "fast" 3.5.
With the (above) $399.00 Sigma, you can do outdoor sports photography at
5.6,even with slow ISO 100 film and shoot ISO 400 film @ 1/250th and
faster. ISO 800....even a whole stop faster yet!
(Final advice.....Get a good (Nikon) SLR to begin and learn
photography.Without basic knowledge, a top-end digital camera would
really be more than challenging. FM2 for $500.00, and then a 28-105 ,
and your tele. Read,read,read. Join a local photography club. Good Luck
pk

Paul,

Solid advice. I actually do have a lot of green to burn to a degree.
The advice my dad always gave me is to buy the very best even if you own
a lot less. Quality above quantity.

I have developed a Tim Allen persona where I have to have the best of the
best then hop up the horsepower even more with aftermarket add-ons.
However, I will seriously consider your advice and will follow some of it
for sure. I'm still in the research phase.

Thanks a ton.

Geoff

 

[Geoff Kirkwold]

In addition, the more people like me that are encouraged to jump into the pro-photo arena, the cheaper YOUR equipment becomes.

Now explain to me...how do you lose?

In many cases they the lower the quality threshold.

There is always a high-end market. Manufacturers will always make quality equipment for Pros. In most cases, quality is not suffered in mass production but improved. I won't site the hundreds of cases of high tech, mass adoption and improved quality studies. It's a clear fact.

If they can trust you as a human being and you work until they are happy, you will have a viable business

I agree.

Take a dive into ourselves and ask, "Why does it bother me?"

Because it's been asked and answered. Maybe 20 years in the PC biz is
finally getting to me. ;-)

Again...just ignore it. Move on. Don't respond. There will always be someone asking simple questions. It's the nature of the beast.

Digital manipulation of photography is a whole different art and science. That stuff is hard and takes enormous talent and skill.

No it's not. In fact it is harder in most cases to do it in camera.

I am not referring to gamma levels, color correction or numerous filters. I am referring to the addition of special effects and drawn illustration to enhance an image. This obviously cannot be done with the camera.

You have pounced upon the arrogance of other posters yet your comment
belies your own. I could go off on a tangent about how HTML and web work
is just cook book, cut and paste work that is routinely plagiarized but
the truth is that neither photography, web site design or for that matter
any artistic endeavor is not repeatable by anyone with a simple formula.
They all require the knowledge of many disciplines and an 'eye' that can
not always be learned.

Pounced? Self-defense is not pouncing. My problem is not so much the arrogance of others but their taking the time to basically say..."Come on people, quit asking such easy questions. We're all professionals here. The dumb ones have to leave." This is not arrogance on my part but a defense of a minority (of sorts) looking for advice from the field of professionals.

I disagree with you on the Web programming analogy. Cut and paste is largely the norm and ethical. If a company wants to hide complex or sensitive code chunks, there are simple ways to keep it on the server and not in the browser (ASP, Cold Fusion, Server Side Java/Script etc...) Web interface design however is different but there are many books on recommended navigation usablility and the concepts are very simple. Top, left and map-oriented design are the basics. The rest is graphic representation of these theories.

Artists are very sensitive to their craft, no?

I appreciate your comments but I was asking for advice on lenses for the D-1 and general advice for studio equipment for portraits and table-top photography.

Pardon me for paying attention, but you did, in this and another thread.
mention your interest in sports photography.

True, sports photography as well. Nature too. My ommission of that was in the interest of time and did not benefit my argument with its ommission.

I don't consider any of my general inquires "lazy" or "numb-minded".

This was meant as a general lament and not directed at you, I am sorry if
it appeared any other way.

I suspected better. No offense taken. By anyone actually. Most people have been very generous in their advice...Without making an issue out of it. To those I am in debt. They know my profile so they can e-mail me for Web advice if desired.

Don't over estimate the knowledge needed for your craft. Bright people with natural ability and hard work can learn everything necessary to be viable professionals in a year or two.

The folks at Art Center, Brooks and RIT might not agree with you.

I mentioned "viable professional". Not award winning or even artistic.
I guarantee I can sell my customers with a quality portfolio even though
I could tell them I have only 6 months in the industry. If they can
trust you as a human being and you work until they are happy, you will
have a viable business. Some artsy people, like my brother, never
understand that people want to buy from people. This is business. He
clings so tightly to his desire to make an award out of every product in
multimedia that production slows, budgets overrun, and clients leave
unhappy. An artist who is starving is an artist that will not look for
creative expression WITHIN the constraints of the client. I never want
to go down in the annuals of history as the greatest photographer. I
just want this equipment to pay for itself over time.

But

they want to produce great photographers and as you stated there is a
huge market for average work.

I felt a kinship with Laurn's post, not because it attacked yours, but
because I too have tired of unresearched questions on the web. I visit
forums in my areas of interest - photography and auto racing being the
usual stops - and the number of lazy, numb minded posts can get to you.

I participate in numerous Web development posts (my full-time work) and
never mind silly rookies. I usually don't comment to their post but
others who have the time and inclination, like to flaunt their hard-won
knowledge and enjoy the feeling of being an expert. We all get puffed up
when we can give superior advice. I've been to over 50 sites and read
just about everything of use. Before I came to this site I read over 8
books and was still not able to find answers on professional lense setups
with Digital pro cameras. Most of the information out there is either
outdated for film cameras or too thin on content for professionals. I
don't consider any of my general inquirys "lazy" or "numb-minded". If
Professionals don't wan't to be bothered by the simple questions, isn't
the best course to ignore them? I mean, to spend time responding with
negative comments on the simplicity of my post indicates to me there is
more going on here than is being admitted. Take a dive into ourselves
and ask, "Why does it bother me?"

I suspect people respond to stress poorly and react too emotionally.
Perhaps they are having a tough day. But in a forum, the old saying is
appropriate; "If you can't say something nice, don't say it at all". Who
knows, I may turn out to be an invaluable Web resource for you someday.
Investing in relationships, even online ones, is good business. In
addition, the more people like me that are encouraged to jump into the
pro-photo arena, the cheaper YOUR equipment becomes. (Mass production =
lower prices).

Now explain to me...how do you lose?

There are great resources on the web that many overlook. Photo.net for
one has a large static content that address many aspects of photography
and a searchable forum database that answers many questions, including
some of yours. If you have not visited photo.net, I suggest that you
give it a try.

I did and am not to impressed. But thanks for the tip.

The only thing that changes in photography is the technology. People that buy from you are interested in the composition, color, mood, creativity, expressionism, and the sort.

Yes, but no. The ability to see the composition, color, mood etc change
with the times too and are as much a part of photography as the
technology. You can reproduce the works of others without expanding your
creativity or tickling the mind of the viewer but great photography
pushes the boundaries of both technology and creativity.

Illustration within photographs is not pure photography. It is art more
than photography. It's like baking cookies...Flour by itself is just
flour. Mix it with other ingredients and it becomes something much
tastier but to still call it flour is a disservice. Digital manipulation
of photography is a whole different art and science. That stuff is hard
and takes enourmous talent and skill. Hats off to those who can do this.

I photograph autoracing for print and web publications using the D1 and
film cameras. If there is ever a questions I can answer, drop me a line.

I appreciate your comments but I was asking for advice on lenses for the
D-1 and general advice for studio equipment for portraits and table-top
photography.

I am an amateur photographer but am interested in starting a part-time
business out of my home with table-top, studio, sports, and nature
photography. I am considering the Nikon D-1 and Nikon lenses.

My question is general in nature...Is the D-1 the best bang for the buck?
I need to provide quality to my business customers. Will the file sizes
generated in the D-1 be suitable for a Professional career in this field?

I realize the scope of my applications is great but I don't have more
than 20-30K to spare to start this part-time pursuit.

My bread and butter comes from strategic business Web consulting with
large customers but business analysis and technical documentation leaves
me with no creative outlet. (I think I might be left and right brained)
If I'm going to get into photography as a serious hobby, I might as well
get paid for it. At least if just to pay for the equipment over the
years.

Side question...I checked into some Nikon lenses...why are some 400mm
lenses 8-10K while others are 1-2k? I assume is has something to do with
speed of adjustments with AF and other variables. This application is
sports photography.

I appreciate any help here.
--
Geoff Kirkwold

Does any of this thread bother anyone in the least other than me? I know
I'll get slammed but thats ok. I still want to throw my two cents in. It
seems strange that someone with such a lack of knowledge(see question
posted in the above thread about long lens) is preparing to start
charging the public for photographic services and is seeking advise from
pros in the field to accomplish this. Heres a website consultant who
wants to shoot sports for web pages,do studio work and charge clients for
it. It also means some else isn't going to be hired for the work. I have
a good business and don't feel threatned by this but I do feel insulted a
bit. I have worked long and hard for many years to refine my photography,
to respect both the craft and the work that others have done. Inherent in
this question I believe is a lack of repect for the work that
professionals do day in and day out. It seems to imply that photography
is equipment and little else and that with a little basic knowledge most
anyone can do this . Get the tools and I too can build a house. I think
most anyone who does this for a living has seen it may times over.

Reminds me of a story about a writer who was at a party. A surgeon was
speaking to the writer saying that he would also like to write a book
about a very similar experience that he had that the writer had based his
story on but that he, the surgeon "just didn't have enought time" to
write it.

The writer replied that he too wanted to do surgery but that he was also
to tied up in his workto find the time to do it.

I wonder what typerwriter Hemmingway used and if this gave him an
advantage over Steinbeck.

OH well, I feel better now. Take care everyone.

Regards,

Laurin

Laurin,

You seem like an articulate and thoughtful person so I will go easy on
you. In response to your post to my request for advice on the ProDigital
forum:

Do you feel Web consulting and photography are worlds apart as are a
writer and a surgeon? I think not. I am drawn into photography as it is
a natural compliment to Web development and communication as a whole.
For me to justify spending tens of thousands of dollars on camera
equipment, I am putting my feelers out into a larger world of
photography. I will never make the kind of money in photography that I
do in Web but I need a creative outlet and have the opportunity to shoot
college level sports with a press pass. Just in the right place and the
right time. FYI, I only charge this client $25/hr because he is first my
good friend and second my client. There is no way you or any other pro
would ever work for him because he's too thrifty. I do it for a hobby
and he pays my car gas and beer money.

Now, since you feel your advice is worth big bucks and therefore persons
should not share knowledge in a forum, what is a forum for? Really smart
people to get smarter? Or do you oppose rookies like me getting smarter?
If it makes you feel better, I would be happy to share my Web knowledge
with you or any other Pro Photographer in an equal amount that is shared
with me. We all have something to gain then.

Nobody lacks respect for your photography skills or the years it took to
refine them. But being selfish with that knowledge implies that I will
abuse your trust or otherwise harm your business practice. I have been
in the Web world since the beginning and I do not remember a time when I
was NOT personally training a young college-age "Webbie wannabe" into
the art of building Web sites and running their own professional
business. It takes me at least a year of energy on each one and I do it
for free most of the time. Other times, they help me paint my house. I
know they are being groomed to be future competitors, but mutual respect
will handle most conflict. Besides, they could be a great ally in times
of need as well.

As to your comments on the difficulty of photography...I agree there is
much to the art and it is an art. But the fundamental concepts of
photography are simple, tried and true. The only thing that changes in
photography is the technology. People that buy from you are interested
in the composition, color, mood, creativity, expressionism, and the sort.
I suspect most clients care less about what lense was used as long as the
final product is what they need.

Don't over estimate the knowledge needed for your craft. Bright people
with natural ability and hard work can learn everything necessary to be
viable professionals in a year or two. I suspect you view your
photography more as art and less as business. That's fine. I'm an
entrepeneur looking to cost-justify a large equipment expense by taking a
year or two to learn the finer art or photography and make it a business
add-on. I have a brother who is a fine-art grad from a state u and he
owns his own business in multimedia. Terrible businessman...excellent
artist. His snooty attitude toward everything being art has destroyed
numerous relationships with good paying clients. Now he's looking to
sell his business that's worth nothing. People still buy from people.
There is a huge market for photography that will never win awards.

My skills with the Web came too from hard work...even graduate school in
software design. Trust me when I tell you, learning about photography
provides my brain with a break, not a stress. I have also helped to
build houses from scratch, and trust me, they're not that hard to build.
With a basic set of knowledge, you too could build a house. Don't be
afraid to learn about building houses.

I am curious what you think of Leonardo DaVinci? Was he too trying to be
a surgeon and a writer? Did he aim too high and try too many new things?
I'm only 31. Am I a fool to think that when I'm 35 I will purchase a
woodworking shop for my home and build my own beds, tables and dressers?
Am I unrealistic that when I'm 40 I want to write music (a hobby from my
youth) and try to publish some of it. Am I a freeking lunatic to think
that age 45 I might take up painting as hope to sell some of it! Kudos
to those who want to be stuck in the same career their whole life. It's
just not for me. A true artist sees their life, knowledge and
experiences as the canvas to be explored...not just the physical canvas
in and of itself.

Well Lauren, your lack of depth and ignorance of human understanding
leaves me feeling sorry for you. Not in a smug way but as a fellow
travler on the same road. Sad to see you stuck in a mud puddle and claim
no others may enter with ease. In the bigger picture of life,
photography is so insignificant as is any other career pursuit. Careers
are our mud puddle. Next time, defend your family or religion with this
type of overreactive vigor, but don't make photography a battleground of
ill will. How many homeless people will you help today?

 

[Geoff Kirkwold]

I just want to mention that this was the roughest string of posts I have
read in AGES on this board. Usually it is a bunch of people screaming
about "who's camera beats the others."

I found this string scary to me for several reasons. The first was the
gereral lack of openness to someone branching into a new field. As a
newbie to professional work - doing mostly recreational photography - I
found it a bit daunthing and insulting as people hurled comments at each
other - on both sides - about what photography IS, and how it should be
done.

Many people I know would argue that ANYONE using anything smaller than
6x4.5 for any professional work is a hack who does not deserve ANY
business at all...but this is different. It did not sound to me like
Geoff was in the process of opening a studio to perform weddings, etc.
What he sounded like he was doing was a natural evolution of the
web-based work that he has been performing for however long.

Anyway, I guess my point is that I would expect more from people - and
allow others to stick their necks out. If Geoff is good, he will stay in
business. Otherwise, he will have an expensive digicam. Give him a
break.

-JM

PS Geoff - good luck with your camera choice. Quite honestly, if you
can wait 2 months, I would. See what results the Fuji and Canon REALLY
produce - not beta models...then compare.

If most of your stuff is not high-end photo business - consider another
SLR such as the Oly 2500 or new Fuji 4900 that just came out. The 2500
may not have 3.3 mp, but it is a spectacular camera for the money. The
new Fuji 4900 also looks like it may be a winner - providing that the
technology is not a flop. Both choices will cost about 5 grand less then
anything that has been mentioned previously.

At this point, I think I may just wait until the next gen of digicams
comes out - say the new full frame Canon or Contax (due out next year).

Thanks for the support James. I think I will wait. I'm on no hurry and do want the best on the market. You are correct, I have no desire for Weddings but am interested with in-house table-top (primary app), then sports (college home games only), then portraits for family and friends. Nothing real aggressive as far as full-time. Just enough to cost-justify the equipment.

I'll keep doing research to get up to speed so I don't upset others. I just don't understand the fuss.

Take care and best wishes of success,

Geoff

 

[Geoff Kirkwold]

Ron,

Thanks for the advice. You are a credit. Best of luck to you!

Geoff

For what it's worth, here's my advice:

You may find that you will need various focal lengths for sports and
other situations. Zooms are generally slower, heavier, and softer than
prime lenses, as well as being more susceptible to flare, but they are
most certainly more convenient. I would say that since you are getting
into this in the near future, the timing may be just about right to pick
up one of the new 80-400 VR lenses from Nikon to go with that D1. I would
also highly recommend the excellent, reasonably inexpensive 50mm f/1.4.
You will be able to learn a considerable amount about framing and
perspective with the 50mm as well as being able to shoot in available
light under low-light conditions. The 80-400 VR will offer you a vast
amount of long focal lengths and the glass is about as good as you are
going to find in a zoom, plus the VR technology will allow you to
hand-hold in fairly low light. You may want a 24mm or wider WA lens too,
but I'd start with that 50mm first. I know it's an old-fashioned
approach, but you will learn a tremendous amount about how to use the
camera with that 50mm -- that's why most cameras used to be sold with
just that lens (now, they typically come with a short zoom -- times and
tastes change).

Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com

I am an amateur photographer but am interested in starting a part-time
business out of my home with table-top, studio, sports, and nature
photography. I am considering the Nikon D-1 and Nikon lenses.

My question is general in nature...Is the D-1 the best bang for the buck?
I need to provide quality to my business customers. Will the file sizes
generated in the D-1 be suitable for a Professional career in this field?

I realize the scope of my applications is great but I don't have more
than 20-30K to spare to start this part-time pursuit.

My bread and butter comes from strategic business Web consulting with
large customers but business analysis and technical documentation leaves
me with no creative outlet. (I think I might be left and right brained)
If I'm going to get into photography as a serious hobby, I might as well
get paid for it. At least if just to pay for the equipment over the
years.

Side question...I checked into some Nikon lenses...why are some 400mm
lenses 8-10K while others are 1-2k? I assume is has something to do with
speed of adjustments with AF and other variables. This application is
sports photography.

I appreciate any help here.
--
Geoff Kirkwold

Geoff, The D1 is a great digital camera ,especially for a Nikon
photographer who already owns a lot on lenses for his/her film
cameras........But, $5000.00! I want one,but will wait with fingers
crossed, hoping for a substantial reduction in price.( I use a N 990 now).
8-10K for a 400mm lens? !! Jeez....even to consider 1-2K as an amateur
just starting out to learn photography????You have a lot of green stuff
to burn?
Settle for an aftermarket lens ,e.g. Sigma
400mm 5.6 for $719.00, or my best advice, a 28-300 3.5-5.6 at a paltry
$399.00. Great for outdoor sports, and put a 2X telextender in front of
that lens, and....56-600mm! Kenkos are really great TeleExtenders. 2X
@$199.95.....B+H.
P.S. the differences in price depends upon the light capturing ability of
the lens,and for the most part,depends upon the amount of finished lens
glass in the lens. A Nikon 400mm, 3.5,for $4299, is a magnificant lens,
but weighs about a ton after using it not mounted on a tripod...after
only a few minutes.Thats a lot of heavy glass in the "fast" 3.5.
With the (above) $399.00 Sigma, you can do outdoor sports photography at
5.6,even with slow ISO 100 film and shoot ISO 400 film @ 1/250th and
faster. ISO 800....even a whole stop faster yet!
(Final advice.....Get a good (Nikon) SLR to begin and learn
photography.Without basic knowledge, a top-end digital camera would
really be more than challenging. FM2 for $500.00, and then a 28-105 ,
and your tele. Read,read,read. Join a local photography club. Good Luck
pk

Paul,

Solid advice. I actually do have a lot of green to burn to a degree.
The advice my dad always gave me is to buy the very best even if you own
a lot less. Quality above quantity.

I have developed a Tim Allen persona where I have to have the best of the
best then hop up the horsepower even more with aftermarket add-ons.
However, I will seriously consider your advice and will follow some of it
for sure. I'm still in the research phase.

Thanks a ton.

Geoff

 

[Axel14259]

paul krouskop wrote:
(Final advice.....Get a good (Nikon) SLR to begin and learn

photography.Without basic knowledge, a top-end digital camera would
really be more than challenging. FM2 for $500.00, and then a 28-105 ,
and your tele. Read,read,read. Join a local photography club. Good Luck
pk

I disagree.......

a amateur, serious or keen, finally has with digital cameras the tool to shoot 100's of pictures of the same motive, without having to worry about costs, and can learn through applying different settings, filters, etc what actually happens.

Really serious or keen amateurs, with some money, can then look at the D1 as a perfect starting tool, and once they realise the few shortcomings of even a D1, they can start to go into business.

Axel
Really keen amateur, not in business

 

[Ron Reznick]

You're welcome.

Now, since I've given you the basic advice, here is the set of choices I made, and why:

For scenics, near/far style wide angle and architecture/interiors, I chose the Tokina 17mm f/3.5 ATX Pro II. It's $400, so it's not tremendously expensive, and it does a very nice job, although distant, fine-detailed objects like trees and such are not quite as sharply-defined as very expensive glass. Considering it is about 90% of the lens that you would get for three to five times the money, you have to decide what is important, on this as well as other lenses;

For other wide angle situations, I chose the Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 -- a very good piece of glass that is quite reasonable at $300. Very detailed, excellent contrast.

For low-light work and general photography, the superb Nikkor 50mm f/1.4.

For short telephoto and macro/closeup work: Nikkor's 105mm f/2.8 Micro. While the working distance at 1:1 is fairly short due to the focal-length shortening trick they use in this design, and the depth of field is pretty shallow at 1:1, the lens is capable of some tremendously sharp and detailed closeup work and macros, and is also very good at standard telephoto work at distance. It's a quite versatile lens, and I generally carry it everywhere. For closeups, plan on using it in the manual-focus mode though.

For medium telephoto and some closeup work, the truly excellent Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 EDIF. This is a magnificent lens, with very smooth defocused regions and sharp definition of the subject, along with superb contrast. You can not beat this lens.

For long tele work, I'm using the Nikkor 300mm f/4 EDIF. The lens is as good as the 180mm, although it is a bit slow to autofocus unless you make use of the focus-range limiter so it doesn't have to hunt as far.

As you notice, I'm using all prime lenses. I have tried a number of zooms, and so far the only one I have found that compares favorably to the primes is the Nikkor AF-S 80-200 zoom. It is rather heavy though... I'd rather carry the 105 and the 180 with me -- together they weigh about the same as the zoom and are actually more versatile in my opinion except for the lack of zoom ability. For sports shooting, the AF-S lens tracks focus better and is faster-focusing of course, but it really is a brick.

I am going to test out one of those 80-400 VR zooms, and if it's even close to the quality of the 300mm f/4, I'll sell the 300 and get the zoom. The weight is nearly identical, and even with the slight reduction in depth of field and contrast, and a probable tendency to flare (all other zooms I've tested are more prone to flare and ghosting than primes), the convenience of that design should offset any negatives. I've worked with short zooms, and for my shooting style I'd still rather carry 2-3 primes (24, 50 and maybe the 105) for a given situation than a single heavy zoom. The long zoom is a different story.

Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com

Thanks for the advice. You are a credit. Best of luck to you!

Geoff

For what it's worth, here's my advice:

You may find that you will need various focal lengths for sports and
other situations. Zooms are generally slower, heavier, and softer than
prime lenses, as well as being more susceptible to flare, but they are
most certainly more convenient. I would say that since you are getting
into this in the near future, the timing may be just about right to pick
up one of the new 80-400 VR lenses from Nikon to go with that D1. I would
also highly recommend the excellent, reasonably inexpensive 50mm f/1.4.
You will be able to learn a considerable amount about framing and
perspective with the 50mm as well as being able to shoot in available
light under low-light conditions. The 80-400 VR will offer you a vast
amount of long focal lengths and the glass is about as good as you are
going to find in a zoom, plus the VR technology will allow you to
hand-hold in fairly low light. You may want a 24mm or wider WA lens too,
but I'd start with that 50mm first. I know it's an old-fashioned
approach, but you will learn a tremendous amount about how to use the
camera with that 50mm -- that's why most cameras used to be sold with
just that lens (now, they typically come with a short zoom -- times and
tastes change).

Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com

I am an amateur photographer but am interested in starting a part-time
business out of my home with table-top, studio, sports, and nature
photography. I am considering the Nikon D-1 and Nikon lenses.

My question is general in nature...Is the D-1 the best bang for the buck?
I need to provide quality to my business customers. Will the file sizes
generated in the D-1 be suitable for a Professional career in this field?

I realize the scope of my applications is great but I don't have more
than 20-30K to spare to start this part-time pursuit.

My bread and butter comes from strategic business Web consulting with
large customers but business analysis and technical documentation leaves
me with no creative outlet. (I think I might be left and right brained)
If I'm going to get into photography as a serious hobby, I might as well
get paid for it. At least if just to pay for the equipment over the
years.

Side question...I checked into some Nikon lenses...why are some 400mm
lenses 8-10K while others are 1-2k? I assume is has something to do with
speed of adjustments with AF and other variables. This application is
sports photography.

I appreciate any help here.
--
Geoff Kirkwold

Geoff, The D1 is a great digital camera ,especially for a Nikon
photographer who already owns a lot on lenses for his/her film
cameras........But, $5000.00! I want one,but will wait with fingers
crossed, hoping for a substantial reduction in price.( I use a N 990 now).
8-10K for a 400mm lens? !! Jeez....even to consider 1-2K as an amateur
just starting out to learn photography????You have a lot of green stuff
to burn?
Settle for an aftermarket lens ,e.g. Sigma
400mm 5.6 for $719.00, or my best advice, a 28-300 3.5-5.6 at a paltry
$399.00. Great for outdoor sports, and put a 2X telextender in front of
that lens, and....56-600mm! Kenkos are really great TeleExtenders. 2X
@$199.95.....B+H.
P.S. the differences in price depends upon the light capturing ability of
the lens,and for the most part,depends upon the amount of finished lens
glass in the lens. A Nikon 400mm, 3.5,for $4299, is a magnificant lens,
but weighs about a ton after using it not mounted on a tripod...after
only a few minutes.Thats a lot of heavy glass in the "fast" 3.5.
With the (above) $399.00 Sigma, you can do outdoor sports photography at
5.6,even with slow ISO 100 film and shoot ISO 400 film @ 1/250th and
faster. ISO 800....even a whole stop faster yet!
(Final advice.....Get a good (Nikon) SLR to begin and learn
photography.Without basic knowledge, a top-end digital camera would
really be more than challenging. FM2 for $500.00, and then a 28-105 ,
and your tele. Read,read,read. Join a local photography club. Good Luck
pk

Paul,

Solid advice. I actually do have a lot of green to burn to a degree.
The advice my dad always gave me is to buy the very best even if you own
a lot less. Quality above quantity.

I have developed a Tim Allen persona where I have to have the best of the
best then hop up the horsepower even more with aftermarket add-ons.
However, I will seriously consider your advice and will follow some of it
for sure. I'm still in the research phase.

Thanks a ton.

Geoff

 

[David Da Costa23779]

Hi Kevin,

I am primarily an underwater photographer (see http://www.dacostad.com ) using a Nikon N90 in a Sea & Sea housing.

I also have recently bought a D1 and was intrigued by your comment about using your D1 underwater.

How are you housing it? I would love to be able to take my D1 under with me, but I am not aware of any housing that is compatable or even slightly compatable.

I was wondering whether an F5 housing may fit, even though I may loose some controls or have to modify controls. (I have a small hobbiest machine shop so I could do some mods).

Regards

http://www.dacostad.com

David Da Costa

Just to get back to your first question of this long thread. I shoot
profesionally
and run a graphic design/photo studio. You can check out my profile to
see a lot
of the very D1 centric posts that I have put up over the last 6 months.
I shoot with 35mm nikon gear and Mamiya medium format 6x7 cameras. Since I
picked up the D1, I've never looked back. The pictures are great, the
turnaround
is great, and the images are working in almost eery application I need
them to.
I'm talking tabletop, industrial, studio, portrait, on-location, sports,
even
underwater! But, and this is a big but, I have about 8 years of photoshop
under
my belt, and frankly, that's half the battle. For someone who is starting
out, the
D1 is a great camera because you can shoot a lot of frames without worrying
about the expense, and like it or not, becoming a good shooter involves
shooting
a lot of frames. I would suggest that the D1 (or another digicam,
frankly, there is
not as much difference between these as you would come to believe on these
threads) is a great place to start. Get some good lenses, spend more
money on
fast glass (f2.8) but avoid buying a lens longer than 200mm until you've
spent
some time looking at how you really are going to work. I shoot with the
sigma
70-200 f2.8 and I bought the 2x teleconverter for longer work. The fact
is that
sports shooting always looks better the closer you are physically to the
action, in
my book. I would also suggest that you sign up for some intense photo shop
classes to get up to speed.
Also, pick up a firewire CDR burner like the sony SPRESSA to back up all
those
images....
Good luck
Kevin

 

[emocmo]

Geoff,

I have a question that may draw on your web expertise:

I am working with my kids sports teams. They have very simple, cut and paste web sites where we post schedules, etc. On occasion I've uploaded some pictures of the games on the site--to very positive responses.

Of course it gets one to thinking about the commerical potential, shooting the games and posting pictures for sale. The problem is that once the picture is posted on the site, just about anyone can download them. Could you point me in the direction of figuring out how to resolve this problem. I think there is a huge market it local high-school age (and above) sports pictures if you can get them to market (the web) fast and secure.

I paid my way through college by shooting hockey and football games for the PR department, rushing back to the lab, and showing up a couple of hours later at the parties with a fistfull of pictures for $10 a pop. It showed me the ego of high level sportsmen/women and the value they place on pictures of themselves!

I sincerely apprecaite any thoughts you may have on this.

Richard (a fellow wanderer)

 

[Don Rogers]

Geoff,

I have a question that may draw on your web expertise:

I am working with my kids sports teams. They have very simple, cut and
paste web sites where we post schedules, etc. On occasion I've uploaded
some pictures of the games on the site--to very positive responses.

Of course it gets one to thinking about the commerical potential,
shooting the games and posting pictures for sale. The problem is that
once the picture is posted on the site, just about anyone can download
them. Could you point me in the direction of figuring out how to resolve
this problem. I think there is a huge market it local high-school age
(and above) sports pictures if you can get them to market (the web) fast
and secure.

I paid my way through college by shooting hockey and football games for
the PR department, rushing back to the lab, and showing up a couple of
hours later at the parties with a fistfull of pictures for $10 a pop. It
showed me the ego of high level sportsmen/women and the value they place
on pictures of themselves!

I sincerely apprecaite any thoughts you may have on this.

Richard (a fellow wanderer)

Richard,

When we put photos on our site we put the name of the studio on the image as a watermark. If they download the image our name is in big letters on the image. We also put them up there at 72 dpi jpg at about a low medium qaulity. Downloading and printing is horrible. Put the © symbol on everything with your name and phone number. You can even ghost in “Do not copy” on the image. Most of your clients don't have the knowledge in photoshop to clean it up anyway.

Good luck,
Don

 

[Don Rogers]

I am an amateur photographer but am interested in starting a part-time
business out of my home with table-top, studio, sports, and nature
photography. I am considering the Nikon D-1 and Nikon lenses.

My question is general in nature...Is the D-1 the best bang for the buck?
I need to provide quality to my business customers. Will the file sizes
generated in the D-1 be suitable for a Professional career in this field?

I realize the scope of my applications is great but I don't have more
than 20-30K to spare to start this part-time pursuit.

My bread and butter comes from strategic business Web consulting with
large customers but business analysis and technical documentation leaves
me with no creative outlet. (I think I might be left and right brained)
If I'm going to get into photography as a serious hobby, I might as well
get paid for it. At least if just to pay for the equipment over the
years.

Side question...I checked into some Nikon lenses...why are some 400mm
lenses 8-10K while others are 1-2k? I assume is has something to do with
speed of adjustments with AF and other variables. This application is
sports photography.

I appreciate any help here.
--
Geoff Kirkwold

Geoff,

Always room for one more. We have been digital in our stuio for almost 4 years. I have been a pro photog.for almost 19 years. Studio does mid to uppermid 6 figures. Cameras are important, I like the cannons best myself, (I have the old Kodak DCS 5 and the Kodak 560) alot of these people seem to be stuck on Nikon. Compare cost and try both. I don't like the nikon digitals, my fingers are tooo fat I guess and find it hard to push the tinnnny buttons. The new cannon is supposed to be something good. ANYWAY!!!!!!!!

All these people are giving good advice, take it with a grain of salt, try them all.

To make it in business, you don't have to have the best cameras or computers, you do need to have some business skills. I know some lousy photographers that make a killing. They believe in themselves and their work they can sell it with confidence. Learn this, (and Photoshop), and you can do ok.... I find that in my business, people are where I make the most money. I can spend an hour and a half with a family and SOMETIMES, not always, make 3 - 4k (usually $300 - $1000). Not a bad hourly rate. We do about 10 - 15k a month alone with head and shoulders business portraits, for people building WEB SITES..... Sounds like you are heading in the right direction.

As far as amateaur photography clubs go, never been to a meeting. I would look at the local photographers guild, state assoc. or the Professional Photographers of America. These are people who are doing, not the ones wanting to. In tennis for example, when I wanted to get better I didn't play people who were new, I played people who were better than me, this is how I got better. Getting deep...

If you need some information on your local, state or national assoc. you can email me, and I can see what I can find out.

Don
PPA Certified
Master Photographer
Craftsman Photographer

 

[Geoff Kirkwold]

Richard,

Watermark the image with something like your logo ot the copyright symbol and save as a lower quality JPEG. I wouldn't put the money into an E-Commerce solution if my market was local UNLESS I really made an outstanding site with add-ons, cross-sells, up-sells and tons of local high school sports writing, stats, interviews and the like.

Consider making a donation (and publishing that on your site) to the local schools sports (and other) departments for each purchase.

In theory, building a secure e-commerce solution is simple enough but at current market prices (custom solution) you can expect to pay 7-30K for the development. Usually any complex system like this requires you to be on your own server and will run $300-$500 per month in hosting. ( http://www.dellhost.com has some of the best Dedicated server solutions without having to purchase your own machine.)

I recommend you categorize your shots in a database so searchers can search by name/subject, date, sport, school and other misc. data.

Purchase a nice printer like an Epson PhotoStylus ( new 100-200 year inks) and run these on high grade paper. Cross sell with mugs, hats, frames, and the like (outsource to the online photo agency's to save $$$ on equipment. The teen market is the highest spending (relative to their income) group in the US for discrecionary (sp?) spending. I played high school sports and would buy EVERYTHING with my picture on it.

Sell banner ads to the local businesses to maximize your Web investment. Local cartooners in the high school would be happy to draw for free (ahh...the allure of ego). You get the drift. Any add value that keeps them there is key. Run contests and givaways as well. Develop an opt-in e-mail list and set up a marketing campaign to your customers reminding them they have a new picture of themselves online.

Online betting for High School sports??? Better wait on that.

Consider making a strategic alliance with local high school papers and have them enter scores and sports write ups onto your Web page. You give them access to a secure Web page (password protected) and they cut and paste their stories in the form and attach either their or preferably your pictures to the story. Trying to manage the sports writing yourself is an administrative nightmare.

If this is something you really want to do...and funds are limited...build this in phases. If not, go for it.

One word of caution...image likeness, copyright, and other legal matters need to be investigated. I am weak in this area.

A great example of this on the Web (not sure if it is profitable yet) is

http://www.merlin-net.com

They deal with Pro-Sports and other issues. Hook up with my profile's e-mail address is you want some in-depth advice...on the house. This forum has been VERY generous to me with shared and quality advice. I don't want to be perceived as promoting my business in this forum.

Geoff

P.S. Do you smoke cigars? If yes, what are your favorites? I'm chomping on a Romeo Y Julieta Vintage and I give it my highest rating. Sooth and cool. I new to cigar smoking (at least the good cigars) and am asking around for good picks.

Geoff,

I have a question that may draw on your web expertise:

I am working with my kids sports teams. They have very simple, cut and
paste web sites where we post schedules, etc. On occasion I've uploaded
some pictures of the games on the site--to very positive responses.

Of course it gets one to thinking about the commerical potential,
shooting the games and posting pictures for sale. The problem is that
once the picture is posted on the site, just about anyone can download
them. Could you point me in the direction of figuring out how to resolve
this problem. I think there is a huge market it local high-school age
(and above) sports pictures if you can get them to market (the web) fast
and secure.

I paid my way through college by shooting hockey and football games for
the PR department, rushing back to the lab, and showing up a couple of
hours later at the parties with a fistfull of pictures for $10 a pop. It
showed me the ego of high level sportsmen/women and the value they place
on pictures of themselves!

I sincerely apprecaite any thoughts you may have on this.

Richard (a fellow wanderer)

 

[Geoff Kirkwold]

I am an amateur photographer but am interested in starting a part-time
business out of my home with table-top, studio, sports, and nature
photography. I am considering the Nikon D-1 and Nikon lenses.

My question is general in nature...Is the D-1 the best bang for the buck?
I need to provide quality to my business customers. Will the file sizes
generated in the D-1 be suitable for a Professional career in this field?

I realize the scope of my applications is great but I don't have more
than 20-30K to spare to start this part-time pursuit.

My bread and butter comes from strategic business Web consulting with
large customers but business analysis and technical documentation leaves
me with no creative outlet. (I think I might be left and right brained)
If I'm going to get into photography as a serious hobby, I might as well
get paid for it. At least if just to pay for the equipment over the
years.

Side question...I checked into some Nikon lenses...why are some 400mm
lenses 8-10K while others are 1-2k? I assume is has something to do with
speed of adjustments with AF and other variables. This application is
sports photography.

I appreciate any help here.
--
Geoff Kirkwold

Geoff,

Always room for one more. We have been digital in our stuio for almost 4
years. I have been a pro photog.for almost 19 years. Studio does mid to
uppermid 6 figures. Cameras are important, I like the cannons best
myself, (I have the old Kodak DCS 5 and the Kodak 560) alot of these
people seem to be stuck on Nikon. Compare cost and try both. I don't
like the nikon digitals, my fingers are tooo fat I guess and find it hard
to push the tinnnny buttons. The new cannon is supposed to be something
good. ANYWAY!!!!!!!!

All these people are giving good advice, take it with a grain of salt,
try them all.
To make it in business, you don't have to have the best cameras or
computers, you do need to have some business skills. I know some lousy
photographers that make a killing. They believe in themselves and their
work they can sell it with confidence. Learn this, (and Photoshop), and
you can do ok.... I find that in my business, people are where I make
the most money. I can spend an hour and a half with a family and
SOMETIMES, not always, make 3 - 4k (usually $300 - $1000). Not a bad
hourly rate. We do about 10 - 15k a month alone with head and shoulders
business portraits, for people building WEB SITES..... Sounds like you
are heading in the right direction.
As far as amateaur photography clubs go, never been to a meeting. I
would look at the local photographers guild, state assoc. or the
Professional Photographers of America. These are people who are doing,
not the ones wanting to. In tennis for example, when I wanted to get
better I didn't play people who were new, I played people who were better
than me, this is how I got better. Getting deep...

If you need some information on your local, state or national assoc. you
can email me, and I can see what I can find out.

Don
PPA Certified
Master Photographer
Craftsman Photographer

Don,

Thanks for the solid advice. The more I research photography, the more I get excited. I will research the Canons in more detail. Perhaps one Canon AND one Nikon? Good or bad? Lense compatability issues?

Best wishes

Geoff

 

[Ron Reznick]

Lenses will not be compatible -- different mounts. Canon glass can be very good though, and their cameras generally are too.

I am an amateur photographer but am interested in starting a part-time
business out of my home with table-top, studio, sports, and nature
photography. I am considering the Nikon D-1 and Nikon lenses.

My question is general in nature...Is the D-1 the best bang for the buck?
I need to provide quality to my business customers. Will the file sizes
generated in the D-1 be suitable for a Professional career in this field?

I realize the scope of my applications is great but I don't have more
than 20-30K to spare to start this part-time pursuit.

My bread and butter comes from strategic business Web consulting with
large customers but business analysis and technical documentation leaves
me with no creative outlet. (I think I might be left and right brained)
If I'm going to get into photography as a serious hobby, I might as well
get paid for it. At least if just to pay for the equipment over the
years.

Side question...I checked into some Nikon lenses...why are some 400mm
lenses 8-10K while others are 1-2k? I assume is has something to do with
speed of adjustments with AF and other variables. This application is
sports photography.

I appreciate any help here.
--
Geoff Kirkwold

Geoff,

Always room for one more. We have been digital in our stuio for almost 4
years. I have been a pro photog.for almost 19 years. Studio does mid to
uppermid 6 figures. Cameras are important, I like the cannons best
myself, (I have the old Kodak DCS 5 and the Kodak 560) alot of these
people seem to be stuck on Nikon. Compare cost and try both. I don't
like the nikon digitals, my fingers are tooo fat I guess and find it hard
to push the tinnnny buttons. The new cannon is supposed to be something
good. ANYWAY!!!!!!!!

All these people are giving good advice, take it with a grain of salt,
try them all.
To make it in business, you don't have to have the best cameras or
computers, you do need to have some business skills. I know some lousy
photographers that make a killing. They believe in themselves and their
work they can sell it with confidence. Learn this, (and Photoshop), and
you can do ok.... I find that in my business, people are where I make
the most money. I can spend an hour and a half with a family and
SOMETIMES, not always, make 3 - 4k (usually $300 - $1000). Not a bad
hourly rate. We do about 10 - 15k a month alone with head and shoulders
business portraits, for people building WEB SITES..... Sounds like you
are heading in the right direction.
As far as amateaur photography clubs go, never been to a meeting. I
would look at the local photographers guild, state assoc. or the
Professional Photographers of America. These are people who are doing,
not the ones wanting to. In tennis for example, when I wanted to get
better I didn't play people who were new, I played people who were better
than me, this is how I got better. Getting deep...

If you need some information on your local, state or national assoc. you
can email me, and I can see what I can find out.

Don
PPA Certified
Master Photographer
Craftsman Photographer

Don,

Thanks for the solid advice. The more I research photography, the more I
get excited. I will research the Canons in more detail. Perhaps one
Canon AND one Nikon? Good or bad? Lense compatability issues?

Best wishes

Geoff

 

[emocmo]

Geoff:

Thanks for the input. I have to figure out the legal issues of essentially taking pictures of minors without their express permission. I live in an upscale town, full of lawyers....I'd hate to find out the hard way!

Not much of a cigar smoker--although a coworker brought some Cohibas back from the Domincan Republic earlier this year. That was a nice way to spend time. Of course, my wife can't stand the smell--so I am limited to the golf course!

Richard

Watermark the image with something like your logo ot the copyright symbol
and save as a lower quality JPEG. I wouldn't put the money into an
E-Commerce solution if my market was local UNLESS I really made an
outstanding site with add-ons, cross-sells, up-sells and tons of local
high school sports writing, stats, interviews and the like.

Consider making a donation (and publishing that on your site) to the
local schools sports (and other) departments for each purchase.

In theory, building a secure e-commerce solution is simple enough but at
current market prices (custom solution) you can expect to pay 7-30K for
the development. Usually any complex system like this requires you to be
on your own server and will run $300-$500 per month in hosting. (
http://www.dellhost.com has some of the best Dedicated server solutions
without having to purchase your own machine.)

I recommend you categorize your shots in a database so searchers can
search by name/subject, date, sport, school and other misc. data.

Purchase a nice printer like an Epson PhotoStylus ( new 100-200 year
inks) and run these on high grade paper. Cross sell with mugs, hats,
frames, and the like (outsource to the online photo agency's to save $$$
on equipment. The teen market is the highest spending (relative to their
income) group in the US for discrecionary (sp?) spending. I played high
school sports and would buy EVERYTHING with my picture on it.

Sell banner ads to the local businesses to maximize your Web investment.
Local cartooners in the high school would be happy to draw for free
(ahh...the allure of ego). You get the drift. Any add value that keeps
them there is key. Run contests and givaways as well. Develop an opt-in
e-mail list and set up a marketing campaign to your customers reminding
them they have a new picture of themselves online.

Online betting for High School sports??? Better wait on that.

Consider making a strategic alliance with local high school papers and
have them enter scores and sports write ups onto your Web page. You give
them access to a secure Web page (password protected) and they cut and
paste their stories in the form and attach either their or preferably
your pictures to the story. Trying to manage the sports writing yourself
is an administrative nightmare.

If this is something you really want to do...and funds are
limited...build this in phases. If not, go for it.

One word of caution...image likeness, copyright, and other legal matters
need to be investigated. I am weak in this area.

A great example of this on the Web (not sure if it is profitable yet) is

http://www.merlin-net.com

They deal with Pro-Sports and other issues. Hook up with my profile's
e-mail address is you want some in-depth advice...on the house. This
forum has been VERY generous to me with shared and quality advice. I
don't want to be perceived as promoting my business in this forum.

Geoff

P.S. Do you smoke cigars? If yes, what are your favorites? I'm
chomping on a Romeo Y Julieta Vintage and I give it my highest rating.
Sooth and cool. I new to cigar smoking (at least the good cigars) and am
asking around for good picks.

Geoff,

I have a question that may draw on your web expertise:

I am working with my kids sports teams. They have very simple, cut and
paste web sites where we post schedules, etc. On occasion I've uploaded
some pictures of the games on the site--to very positive responses.

Of course it gets one to thinking about the commerical potential,
shooting the games and posting pictures for sale. The problem is that
once the picture is posted on the site, just about anyone can download
them. Could you point me in the direction of figuring out how to resolve
this problem. I think there is a huge market it local high-school age
(and above) sports pictures if you can get them to market (the web) fast
and secure.

I paid my way through college by shooting hockey and football games for
the PR department, rushing back to the lab, and showing up a couple of
hours later at the parties with a fistfull of pictures for $10 a pop. It
showed me the ego of high level sportsmen/women and the value they place
on pictures of themselves!

I sincerely apprecaite any thoughts you may have on this.

Richard (a fellow wanderer)