Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: mikeroetex
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 136 next>>
Feb 23, 2024 16:30:54   #
Jklovell wrote:
Just saw your response.
I’m selling both. That is what the whole thing is about.

Yeah, but my point is you are a photographer first, not a frame shop. If your product is strictly all or none, that's your choice, but the customer may choose none. I totally understand your desire to represent your art in the best possible vision you have.

I personally have not sold much of my work, and when I have it is usually for a specific event or request (like from parents of kids playing in a baseball game). After I deliver my photos, it belongs to the customer now. It's not up to me how they enjoy them at home, framed or in a scrapbook.

How would you feel if they bought your work in the frames you provide, took them out of the frames and the next time you went to the hospital they were hanging in different frames?
Go to
Feb 8, 2024 11:38:43   #
Jimmy T wrote:
A short one and a long one???

Go to
Feb 8, 2024 06:20:27   #
DirtFarmer wrote:
So let’s keep it going! It’s only 3 pages long.


Two pixels walk into a bar....
Go to
Feb 5, 2024 06:29:35   #
Jklovell wrote:
Am I the only one that sees the frame "nearly as", if not "just as" important as the print? It would certainly be complimentary.

I get it, the "presentation" and all. But that's your ideal. I'd rather sell the photo at 70% of my usual framed price than no sale. What's to keep a customer from buying with your frame, then taking the photo out and putting it into one of their own frames (other than cost)?
Go to
Jan 31, 2024 07:12:26   #
Jklovell wrote:
I want advice on what to do here: I've been providing framed prints of my landscape photography to the hospital where I am employed as a nurse. I have done about 36 so far over the past 3 years. All have been the same size: 24"X36" black and white prints on Hahnemühle Photo Rag® Ultra Smooth 305 g matte paper, 4-ply white cotton rag mats, 3½" wide on the top and sides, 5" on the bottom, acid free Foam Cor backing, 1½" flat face black frames, 1⅜" deep, .118" non-glare acrylic glazing, a dust cover and security hardware. I charge $526 plus $20 to hang them. A week ago, they asked for some proofs to choose 3 from. I provided them (50) 9"X12" prints on metallic paper (to better represent the affect of glazing) to choose from. They came back with a request for bulk pricing for 8 with the above dimensions. Since they have been good to me, I took off $100 and the $26 for each of the 8. They agreed and I asked for them to tell me which ones they want. Two days later, (today) they are now asking for a price for just the 8 prints and they want to buy all of the 9X12" proofs. I don't like that. I priced my work on pretty much the high end of what multiple framing sites would charge for everything but the print. I never calculated the print's worth, but it sounds like they want to get them framed cheaper somewhere else. And as far as the proofs go, I have no idea what they want those for. I think I want to refuse to sell them the big prints unframed and if they want the proofs, I want to frame those too.
Any advice on how to handle this without affecting my reputation?
I want advice on what to do here: I've been provid... (show quote)
.
You selling pictures or frames?
Go to
Jan 29, 2024 12:45:01   #
Delderby wrote:
But I am correct in thinking that there will always be a trade-off between IQ and detail when comparing pixel numbers and pixel size in any given sensor? I'm thinking that less pixels means larger pixels, which logically means more room for more detail?

It occurs to me that detail and resolution are not always analogous. For instance, I can see the sharpness of the details better with the output of a higher megapixel sensor, depending on monitor, viewing distance, print parameters, etc. But, if I blow the highlights and lose the data, neither 12mp or 45mp will matter and IQ suffers.

Or is that a whole new can of worms?
Go to
Jan 28, 2024 08:54:20   #
rcorne001 wrote:
NCSU Gymnasts finally had a home meet. Team season high was recorded as well as several personal bests. Shot with a Z9 paired with a Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8. Shutter speed priority at 1/1000, aperture f2.8 - 3.5, ISO generally 6400.

Great shots! Feel like I was there watching.
Go to
Jan 27, 2024 07:13:30   #
camerapapi wrote:
The way I see something like this and this is my opinion only, Sony could have contacted him to promote their cameras or he is now using Sony because it fits better his photo style.
I am a Nikon user and I feel no need to switch to any other dSLR system. I have been using Olympus for several years now and it offers me small cameras and lenses that are easy to carry anywhere and they have excellent quality. No, I will not quit using Nikon.

I guess each one of us should get the gear that makes us comfortable with our shooting style.
The way I see something like this and this is my o... (show quote)

Agree, but then, Greg is on a crusade. This post should have been under Links and Resources and I bet he knows that.
Go to
Jan 21, 2024 09:09:41   #
MrBob wrote:
Reworked a little in ON1... I like it ! Try download...


Sweet!
Go to
Jan 21, 2024 09:04:36   #
damianlv wrote:
I am new to photography. A few months ago I took this picture in Northern California and edited in LR. I like the version #3 the most but some people (including my wife) say it doesn't look natural, so now I created version #2.
I try to keep the pictures looking as natural as possible. According to you, is the version #3 overprocessed?
How would you edit this picture? The original RAW file is attached for you.
Thank you for any suggestions.

The lack of an interesting sky hampers the effort a bit and your choice of sky replacement throws the scene off to me. I gave it a go, using ACR, just cropping a bit, dodging and burning, and a little Topaz Photo AI. I warmed where the sun filtered in with a radial gradient. Seems a bit more natural. Nice composition overall. Perhaps a spot you can return to during golden hour with some natural clouds?

damianiv rework

(Download)
Go to
Jan 19, 2024 17:01:55   #
DaveyDitzer wrote:
The first two reasons that come to my mind are $3800 (on sale) and 32.1oz (about the same weight as a D850).

Price point, okay maybe.... but the D500 weighs 26.9 oz. Surely 5 oz more won't break an arm? His Z7II will also shoot in DX mode at about 19.5 pixels. Now don't tell me you can really tell the difference in 1 mpxl.
Go to
Jan 19, 2024 16:53:47   #
imagemeister wrote:


.... Sony does not have the 400 prime or a crop frame body ! Sony has put all their eggs in the full frame basket and everyone else has followed .....


Have you met the Sony A6100, A6400, A6600 or A6700?

https://electronics.sony.com/imaging/interchangeable-lens-cameras/aps-c/p/ilce6600-b
Go to
Jan 19, 2024 16:47:48   #
billnikon wrote:
No, Nikon has not produced a APS-C in a Z body.....


Never mind
Go to
Jan 19, 2024 06:37:19   #
Bridges wrote:
I know you can, but I like having a crop-sensor body set up one way, and a FF another way. I also know by using different menus like A menu and B menu you can customize the 8 to perform differently with the click of a button or two. I may do that, but for me carrying two bodies, one set up one way and the other set differently has always been my preference.

So why not buy a second Z8 and set it in DX mode, leave the other in FX mode?
Go to
Jan 16, 2024 07:43:49   #
tommystrat wrote:
RodeoMan and abc1234 -
Thank you both for your constructive input. I wanted to leave a good amount of the foreground in there, because I felt that gave a feeling of breadth and depth to the image. Seems to make the rain even more interesting because it was perceived as being so far away. Go Big Sky!


Have you considered cropping the top 1/4 to emphasize the rain part a bit more? Beautiful capture, by the way!
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 136 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.