[suspectmonkey]

June 15, 2011 at 4:22 pm

Thanks Frank. I had a quick look at the previews of each book on Amazon and I have to say the Scott Kelby style of writing didn’t appeal to me as much. Don’t get me wrong, his writing certainly came across as witty and entertaining, but I think with an instructional book I just want to get down to business :)

Ordered the Martin Evening book, so will see how I get on with it for starters. At 700+ pages it should keep me busy for awhile ;)

[suspectmonkey]

June 15, 2011 at 9:46 am

Thats a good idea Phillip, video based tuition never even crossed my mind for some reason! Thanks for the link, will check it out :)

[suspectmonkey]

October 19, 2009 at 11:22 am

Really like this set, particularly the second photo. The textures and processing really grab me, and its an excellent composition from a scene that many might disregard.

[suspectmonkey]

October 16, 2009 at 1:19 pm

Thanks for all the replies, think thats helped me to iron things out in my head!

[suspectmonkey]

October 15, 2009 at 3:35 pm

In my case I’m using a Canon 50D to shoot and Adobe Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw in PS for processing.

So if I’m understanding this correctly:

– I shoot a JPEG with a custom picture style that gives +1 contrast, +1 saturation, +1 sharpness. When I import it to Lightroom to do some PP the photo should have enhanced contrast, saturation and sharpness even though the sliders for these attributes will still be set at 0. If I was to shoot a JPEG with picture style turned off (or set at neutral) then when I import the photo to LR it will be flatter (less contrast), less saturated and not as sharp?

– If I shoot RAW when I import the photo to Lightroom or ACR it will ignore any Picture Style settings that were defined in camera, and will present me with a neutral image on screen to allow me to process to my personal tastes?

OR are you saying that only Canon’s only processing software (DPP is it?) will apply Picture Style settings to an image? Except in the case that Alan has outlined?

Really, really sorry if I’m making something straight forward complicated :oops:

[suspectmonkey]

October 7, 2009 at 3:22 pm

Just want to take the opportunity to thank everyone for the replies, I really do appreciate the honesty even if the truth can at times be hard to swallow!

Damien, thank you for your comments, its given me a lot to consider. I will hold my hands up and say that this is all very new to me, I’ve only a few events under my belt and I’m sure like many people before me I’ve jumped in with only a scant idea of what business and marketing skills are required.

As for the feedback on the actual photos, I will take it all on board and give it consideration prior to the next event. To be honest most of the photos I’ve been looking at from other event photographers surround similar local events but it would do me no harm at all to take a look at other event photographers work and see how I can apply those principles to improve what I’m doing.

Mind you, I might have to put the price up then ;) :lol:

[suspectmonkey]

October 7, 2009 at 1:40 pm

nfl-fan wrote:

If I was being totally honest…

I looked at the image galleries and I really could imagine a friend with a point and shoot doing these as a favour and giving me the originals afterwards. They just look like standard snapshots.

Sounds a bit harsh maybe… but that’s just my honest opinion on the matter.

J

Would expect nothing less than an honest answer, appreciate your feedback. From my point of view I’ve to get photos of each competitor doing a variety of tasks across the day, which usually amounts to a couple of hundred photos. I’ve to get a clear shot of their face, and because they are running or cycling I’ve usually got one chance to get it. I’ll be the first to admit that there isn’t any art in it, I’m just capturing the competitors during the day which was my brief from the event organiser. I can’t afford to cherry pick just a few photos on artistic merit.

If you take a look over on the main site you can see galleries from other photographers covering similar events all over the world. Personally I don’t see that the event photos at other events are of a different style to mine? I guess the photos tend to be “quick & dirty” as some might say. They aren’t going to get printed, framed and hung above fireplaces but they will end up on web blogs and social networking sites. I’d say they are priced accordingly for that purpose.

The other question – I know someone could ask their friend to come along and take snapshots on the day. But would the friend drag themselves out of bed before the sun is up, travel nearly 100 miles to get there, then stand from early AM all day in the wind, wet and cold before heading on the return journey. And would they then sort through the photos the next day and be able to put them on a website for people to download with a photo of each and every competitor?

Dont take my comments the wrong way, I’m honestly appreciative of any feedback I get, but naturally I will be slightly defensive of my work ;)

[suspectmonkey]

October 7, 2009 at 1:07 pm

How much are you charging per shot though?

Photos are charged at £3 for low res, £5 for high res. The buyer receives a JPEG at either low res 1000px for their web blog, Facebook, Bebo etc. or high res 2000px if they want to get some prints done. Pretty much all the sales are for the low res versions.

I know £3 sounds like a small amount to charge for a photo, but most competitors are buying several from the same event. The going rate for similar (albeit bigger) events is usually around £4.50 – 5.50. The other thing to point out is that the photos receive no post processing, there are usually a few hundred of them. Just don’t want anyone thinking I’m charging too little and under cutting the market, my charges are set in line with other photographers at the same kind of events. That said personally I’m at the lower limit of the price I would be comfortable selling a photo for…

Would need to know the asking price and see some samples to really be able to answer the question.

The actual sales gallery is here if anyone wants to take a look. You can see the photos by clicking the different stages of the day on the left hand side (Start, Checkpoint etc.).

[suspectmonkey]

October 7, 2009 at 10:42 am

Nossie wrote:

I wonder did the BBC and SKY pay to use those photos?

Maybe the wedding photographer uploaded them to photo stock, with this story going around the news he might have made enough by now to cover his legal expenses ;)

[suspectmonkey]

October 7, 2009 at 9:28 am

Thanks for the replies to this thread, given me some useful information to get started with. I have contacted Photo Shield since posting this thread, but unfortunately I phoned them before your post Mark so not actually sure if it was Steve Beveridge I was speaking to! They did give me some good information however. The price did seem to come back a bit higher than some of the other companies I was looking at, however upon doing some further research it seems that Photo Shield offer a much more extensive level of cover, and when you work out the difference per month over 12 months it would certainly be worth it for peace of mind alone.

Sound advice in your last line as well Mark, thanks!

[suspectmonkey]

October 7, 2009 at 9:19 am

Thanks for posting that, my girlfriend told me she had seen that on the news last night so I was sorry I had missed it. As you say, very interesting reading the comments below the article as well!

[suspectmonkey]

September 25, 2009 at 11:31 am

fig wrote:

I think the reason it won so easily is Mick was one of the only people to remove the god awful shadow growing from underneath the models chin? IMO this was the first thing that should have been “fixed” before applying any other effects.

I was initially going to remove that “shadow” but then realised that it is actuallly the bottom of the ear ring which matches the one on the left side of the face. It is rather distracting though, I agree with that :) More distracting to me however was the wrinkled background, a lot of images left that in as well.

Personally I think Mick had the most natural looking image, was my pick of the bunch as well. Well done Mick!

[suspectmonkey]

September 21, 2009 at 9:49 pm

No expert on the matter, but I’d take a look at the 70-200 F2.8 end of the market. Not sure what Nikon’s offering would be like in this area, but there seems to be quite a few fans of the Sigma 70-200 F2.8. There are a few guys shooting soccer matches etc. in the Sports section, hopefully one of them will be better informed to give you advice on this :)

[suspectmonkey]

September 18, 2009 at 11:43 am

aoluain wrote:

Got 6 rolls of Konica 35mm film expired from “suspectmonkey”

wouldnt take payment for them not even postage costs, sound guy!

Did I not mention the royalties arrangement on any photos taken with the film ;)

Only kidding of course, thanks for the shout out Alan :)

[suspectmonkey]

September 18, 2009 at 11:33 am

Got my replacement 190XPROB yesterday.

+1 to the sales guy who ordered the replacement legs and didn’t insist on me returning the item to the store first. Saved me a return trip and I’m happy to have it all sorted within 7 days.

-1 to the manageress who stood beside the sales guy at the till and did her best to make me feel that there was nothing wrong with the item and I was just being fussy. Her attitude alone put me off going back again…

If you can think of a photography store that advertises as being “it’s where the pros go”, and to be honest I don’t think this is too far wrong, because as an amateur photographer I didn’t feel particularly welcome. Pity.