A "Commercial" Photography Section on the Hog? Why not? (Page 2): Are you going to be writing about use film cameras?

Quinn 4

Are you going to be writing about use film cameras?

JPL

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

Although I have duel nationalities, American/Canad... (show quote)

I think this is a very good and useful idea. Support it !!

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I would love to start a new section but I have no means to do so without the cooperation of the site administrators. I will attempt to contact them and see if the are willing since a few of us are interested. Meanwhile we can just keep this thread alive and see what happens.

Richard! Great work- Nice wide angle perspective. Love your shot of a NYC Subway train without graffiti! I'm an ex-New Yorker!

I do have some funny stories too.

Please stay in touch and keep well.

John- I don't think there would be any copyright issues in most cases. In my contracts it is stipulated that I hold the copyrights on my images unless the client purchases all rights. I usually retain the rights to use the images as samples of my work to be used in my print advertising, my portfolio, any media ads on the Internet or for instructional or training purposes. In some cases there are restrictions like in situations where the adverting has not been published as yet or there could be some security issues on government or industrial jobs where the client does not want images of their in-plant facilities on the Internet or in any type of public access media.

Good question!

Even with the paperwork, I always secure permission form the clients- I want the to be comfortable where security or privacy is concerned.

Where models are involved, I always secure a release.

Most of the photographers I know like to keep their tare-sheets in their portfolios to show the printed and published end product of their photography.

I appreciate all of your feedback, THANKS!

RichardQ Loc: Colorado

Quinn 4 wrote:

Are you going to be writing about use film cameras?

If we get this section going, all my images were shot on either medium-format roll film or 4 x 5-inch sheet film (aka cut film), before digital photography came out from the bushes. so why don't I try a sample of how this section might present commercial work?

In the three samples I posted, the first two were shot on 4 x 5 Kodak Tri-X sheet film, using a monorail Graphic View camera and a 65 mm f/8 Schneider Super Angulon lens. The lighting was natural, except for a weak fill-flash on the Traveloader image, so the tubes were clearly hollow. The wide-angle lens was slightly tilted in both shots to provide sharpness throughout the image range. The Traveloader shot was especially difficult because of the low angle. A view camera has to be mounted on a tripod. But my Tlltall tripod's lowest elevation was too high for the composition. I was able to reverse the tripod's center pole, so the camera was suspended upside down under the tripod, close to the ground. That meant I had to sprawl on the ground to make the camera and lens adjustments, close and cock the shutter, insert the double-sided film holder and pull the slide out, trip the shutter, reinsert the slide, pull the holder out and reverse it for the second covering exposure, recock the shutter, pull out the second slide, trip the shutter, reinsert the slide, and remove the holder -- all while praying that I didn't move the camera out of the composition. The awkwardness of doing all that while sprawled on my stomach made me swear to never again attempt an upside-down view camera shot.

The N.Y. subway shot was sponsored by an industrial battery manufacturer (the batteries were under the passenger seats). The medium format rollfilm camera was a Plaubel Veriwide 100, with a 47 mm f/8 Schneider Super Angulon lens. The film image was a 2-1/4 x 3-1/2 inch format on Kodak 120 Ektachrome rollfilm. The existing light was so low and the film speed so slow that the exposure was about a half-second. The camera was mounted on a Tiltall tripod. Because the NY subway system prohibits unauthorized photography, I had to arrange special permission, so a subway public relations guy accompanied me so I wouldn't be arrested.

Or is all this too much detail?

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Thanks,Richard!

The details are great. I remember using that very equipment- I had a Graflic monorail view camera and both the 65mm and 90mm Super Angulons as well- I remember those recessed lens boards. Tri-X PAN was one of my favorite films- used to process it in D-76 at ASA 320 or 400 or in Acufine at ASA 800. Sometimes I would use Panatomic-X at ASA 100 processed in Acuifine- it was almost grain-less and great for photo murals. I used to shoot my chromes on Ektachrom- we had a demand for 8x10 transparencies for very detailed product shots. I still have my 8x10 Linhoff with a 300mm Rodenstock lens- talk about antiques. Later on we switched to Fugichrome- it did not require all that much filtration- the Ektachrome used to go cyan/blue without a heavy filter pack especially with electronic flash. Nowadays, it's all digital- it's great. I can adjust the white balance even for florescent or mercury vapor lighting with no filters. I am getting results that rival some of my old large format transparencies.

Many of the new guys don't realize all the work and darkroom procedures that went into film work. We had to test each batch of Ektachrome to determine the filter pack- what a drag!

I also did a few shoots in the subway for AMF and Brunswick- the manufacturers of the subway cars. I had security guys with me so I woulden't get mugged or murdered down there. Before the Mayor Jiuliani era that place was pretty dangerous and dirty. We did the shots a 3:00AM when there were not very many passengers on the platforms. I have two nephews who are NYC police officers- one of them works for the transect authority- rough stuff!

Keep in touch- let's see more of your old work- CLASSIC

repleo Loc: Boston

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

Although I have duel nationalities, American/Canad... (show quote)

I don't do any commercial photography and probably never will, but I would be interested in following your Section if you can get it going. I suppose a 'commercial' photographer is by definition a 'professional' photographer and becoming a pro is not on my horizon.

However, my experience from the last 18 months on UHH is that the Professionals here are generous with their advice and information, but they post relatively few photos on the forum. I suppose as Professionals they are reluctant to give away their bread and butter for free, although many pro's give access to their portfolios through links in their signature line. This is not a criticism of Pro's- just an observation.

Perhaps a dedicated 'commercial' section would separate the wheat from the chaff and the pro's would feel more comfortable posting their wares among their peers.

luvmypets Loc: Born & raised Texan living in Fayetteville NC

I am not a professional photographer but would follow this section if you can get it going. I will keep watching this thread for updates. Good luck!

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Krl38 Thanks for the link. I will get on it right away!

RichardQ Loc: Colorado

You asked for some more, so here are three diffferent types of subjects.

The first two covers are examples of trade magazines which were hungry for cover photos but had little or no money to pay the photographer. That was an opportunity for public relations photographers, if their client had a product or service relative to the magazine's audience. Of course, the photographer was paid by his or her client, and then had an impressive sample for the portfolio. I also often wrote an article relative to the cover, and signed it with the name of one of the client's engineers or managers (who usually proofread the article to make sure I hadn't embarrassed him with a technical gaffe). I haven't kept up with the trade magazines for years, so they may have faded,but there were very many of them in years past. Those two covers were shot with my Plaubel Veriwide 100 rollfilm camera, described in my earlier post. That is a rare camera, designed by an American engineer,the late Frank Rizzatti, for Burleigh Brooks Inc. and then consigned to a German camera company, Plaubel Feinmechanic GmbH, to be manufactured. They reportedly produced only 2,000 units because its fixed lens was limited to extreme wide-angle photography. I bought mine at their Frankfurt factory in 1963. A Japanese company redesigned it -- unsuccessfully IMHO.

The cover of the Bell Labs 1979 Annual Report was a very different subject. A very qualified photographer, experienced in annual reports, was stymied with the cover subject, a tiny microchip about a half-inch square, which contained all the features of a complete computer within multiple layers. But just looking at it, you saw only a brownish shiny surface with no features. He was using a 35 mm Nikon with fine lenses -- but not a true micro lens. He was glad to turn that part of the project over to me, using his N.Y. studio. I rented a Sinar 4 x 5 view camera (the Graphic View didn't have an appropriate bellows) and a Schneider M-Componon 4/50 lens with a Copal No.0 shutter, A lab engineer brought the chip, mounted in a testing rig that had a large number of fine wires touching the chip's many contact pads. I placed a single spot light at a 45-degree angle and watched the chip's image while an assistant slowly moved the light around. Suddenly I saw a magic moment -- the chip blazed with details refracted from the various layers. Very cautiously i closed and cocked the shutter, slid the film holder into the Sinar, and exposed the Ektachrome sheet film. After replacing the slide and reversing the holder, I repeated the process, and we sent the films to a color processing lab Friday afternoon. But I ordered everything to remain in place until we were certain we had it. When we saw the film on Monday morning, the lab engineer said it was no good because some of the fine wires had moved from their chip pads. He was able to repair them, we double-checked the refractions and reshot. then waited again for the color lab. This time we won the battle. The Bell Labs chairman was delighted because the IBM chairman called to compliment him on an outstanding annual report. And I got a wonderful PR job with photo and writing opportunities for 15 years.

selena18

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

Mwore commercial work.

Very much impressive work and suddenly I am feeling like there is no issue if another category can be created here.

blackest Loc: Ireland

Definitely would make for an interesting section, it's a different approach to photography to most amateur work which tends towards found subjects. Pro work has a more defined objective, something to fill the requirements of the brief. Sometimes manufactured for the photograph.

As it happens I was reading this earlier
http://offbeat.topix.com/slideshow/18723/slide1 It's authored as photographers lying but really it's creating the image they want, with the impact they want.

E.g one shot is of a prawn steaming on a fork (the steam is from a steamer). Clearly the steam makes the shot, other elements too of course but without the steam it's just a prawn on a fork. Some might call it cheating , or you might call it direction.

Regardless putting some thought into capturing the photograph you want makes for a better photograph. Maybe it's a great scene but somebodies discarded coke can is in the shot, would it be wrong to move it? Even if you have quite pure intentions "I don't manufacture a scene" Is that true or do you pick a position or a moment which aligns the elements into a pleasing form. You will probably trash the photo where the back of somebodies head got into the photo or the tree that was sprouting from someones head.

So this new section should have some appeal for most of us, i'm sure there would be plenty of examples of how to make a scene into a great photograph. The techniques, concepts and vision could be applicable to many of our own photographs.

RichardQ Loc: Colorado

blackest wrote:

Definitely would make for an interesting section, ... (show quote)

The arguments between "realists" and "artistes" have been going on since the first cave drawings. Of course, they are pointless but entertaining. In commercial photography, the point is to market a product or service. If a documentary approach is appropriate, fine. But that's pretty rare. Removing empty soda cans or trash from the scene is not lying -- it's good housekeeping!

In my industrial on-site work, the equipment was often pretty grungy, so we cleaned it up before setting up the camera. One oil-well machinery client even had me paint a remote working "horse head" pump as it swung up and down! It could not be stopped because the well would collapse. Of course, I only painted one side (blue and yellow!) that faced the camera. I can imagine the puzzled expression on the next inspector's face -- what kind of lunatic graffiti artist would come out in the desert and paint one side of a working wellhead pump? Only an advertising photographer!

Often I had to check my shooting sites to ensure there were no safety violations in a plant or office. If I was using flashbulbs, it was important to ensure there were no explosive vapors in the area. Naturally, any employee had to look presentable, but makeup was unnecessary. Everybody had to sign a model release, even if it was only an "X".

In one case, I arrived on a site to find the client's new office equipment was still in the shipping containers. We unpacked it and set it up as if it was actually installed, then photographed it. The client rejected the prints. Somebody forgot to tell us that the shoot was to show the unpacking of the new equipment. That sort of frustration is not unknown in commercial photography.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

This is great response! This morning, I wrote a PM to the administrators requesting 2 new departments; commercial/industrial and advanced and professional portraiture. I am waiting for their decision.

I am hopeful. I'll post a copy of my request letter as soon as I get back to my office.

blackest Loc: Ireland

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

This is great response! This morning, I wrote a PM to the administrators requesting 2 new departments; commercial/industrial and advanced and professional portraiture. I am waiting for their decision.

I am hopeful. I'll post a copy of my request letter as soon as I get back to my office.

I hope you get them, I will sign up for both. I'm not a pro I do some publishing work and photographs help present the message. Strong imagery takes work. It'd be nice for stars to align and the world to shift to give you a perfect capture, but sometimes it requires some direction and you can't always fix in photoshop, especially the light. Using say a simple reflector or a little shade to give direction to the light and create some shadows. A little direction for your subject helps, get them where the light is working for you not against you. Nobody wants to be in a bad photograph.

The hard thing is to take charge and give direction, get them where you want them. Or if more informal look for the best locations for your subject and your camera. Even street photography you can find your set and your position and see who becomes your subject. I really need to get better at this :)

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

I too will be a regular. Mostly lurking and learning but, I'll be here. Thank you for the effort.