• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

Possible Baby photograph business on the side??

Fair enough :)

I've just finished doctoring a team photo I took today for work ... adding in a colleague who is in Singapore at the moment :D
 
I was referring to things like removing that rock or telegraph pole which detracts from the image or adding pretty clouds etc. Not changing the colours or contrast. In other words adding or removing the physical things.
From what I have been reading images of people, models etc are being altered to remove skin blemishes, spots, or any other characteristic the poseur might not be happy with.:mad: ;)

Regards
John
 
From what I have been reading images of people, models etc are being altered to remove skin blemishes, spots, or any other characteristic the poseur might not be happy with.:mad: ;)

Regards
John

But again, that has happened for many, many decades. That's why it's still often referred to as 'airbrushing'.

Even in the 1930s photos were being expertly altered to remove people etc.
 
But again, that has happened for many, many decades. That's why it's still often referred to as 'airbrushing'.

Even in the 1930s photos were being expertly altered to remove people etc.
Nooooo!!!! Don't spoil my memories :devil:

Dusty Springfield just used to put on layers of poly filla, or was it make-up? :)

I have a very good friend who still shoots black and white film. He has his own dark room and talks about forcing out various weak parts of the image and masking over other parts, but I understand the very valid point made by Oldcro.

Holiday brochures tend to add scenes from anywhere in the World and then plonk them into a location that bears no reality to the true location. I must emphasis though that we do have a species of palm trees in Torquay and the pictures are not air brushed from Hawall :devil: :D

Regards
John
 
3) It's 90% skill 10% kit (and that's being generous to the kit).


The kit is probably the least important factor - the studio I worked for in the late 1970's used a Canon "canonet" for weddings......

The canonet was a compact, automatic, rangefinder camera. Nothing special - nothing like Leica quality, but it had one important quality. Because it was a compact, not an SLR, it could synchronise flash at 1/250 or 1/500, making it ideal for using fill-in flash outdoors. This helped prevent green shading to the bride's dress (reflected light from lawns) and meant that we could ignore the position of the sun when setting groups, and pose bride & groom against the sunlight - enhancing the hair.....

Inside the church, the canonet was again ideal because the shutter was much quieter than an SLR - and it could be hand held at low shutter speeds without the shake caused by movement of the SLR's mirror. This was in the days when most churches prohibited photos during the service - but we were always able to sneak one or two pictures with nobody the wiser.

More recently, up until about 5 years ago, I had a very nice part-time income photographing children at nurseries - with a fairly ordinary 35mm SLR - candid poses and ambient lighting - and the printing was courtesy of Jessops - standard mchine printing - and found the parents generally delighted at quality and price. I sold four 7x5 prints for £20 - but when you consider there were on average 40-50 children "snapped" in a day, the maths speak for themselves. 10-15% to the nursery gives them some extra funds and is gratefully recieved.

Rather than the usual "studio" poses, my pictures would have children poking their head through playhouse windows, crawling through hoops, playing with toys. Action and bright colours were key.

The hardest part was getting the nurseries to let me in - not for a security aspect - I had police checks carried out through a local nursery before starting - but because some felt it was a disruption to their day. Still, those that I did get into were glad to have me back each year.

I used to take 6 pictures of each child - have all printed - and sell the best 4 as a package. Of course, with digital cameras, you can delete the bad pics without printing- take the photos and use a laptop to show photos to the parents when they pick up their children- take orders and just print what's ordered.

A very cheap business to set up... Liability Insurance was part of a camera policy from E&L (about £100 a year), no premises needed.

I only stopped due to a knee injury - I could no longer get down to the children's level to take the pictures.
 
5) I'd disagree with a lot of suggestions of kit that have been mentioned so far. Yes almost everything that has been mentioned is stella quality gear, but to buy that sort of equipment when starting out is crazy. Sure get an SLR, and avoid the D70 only because it's a 6mp camera. The D80 would more than suffice for a studio camera. Hell if it does take off THEN you buy the silly priced equipment, but spending over £1000 on the camera alone is crazy talk, again in my opinion.
6) As someone else mentioned, glass IS king. Be sure to get the right lens for your needs. As a rule, primes tend to be sharper, and IIRC the "perfect" length for portaits is around 70-80mm. The faster the better. You'd need at least a 2.8, but realistically a 1.8 is better suited.

Yep

Cheap DSLR body with a pair of decent lenses will be much more productive
My 85mm F1.8 Canon lens is ideal on a 1.6 crop 30D/400D body for portraits as its pretty close to the recommended 135mm portrait length on a full frame.

You need shallow depth of field for portraits to give the blurry backgrounds and this comes from fast glass with wide apertures.


Mark
 
Thats a bargain - my 30D has produced some astounding shots and whilst it may be a "mere" 8mp they are high quality pixels and that will be more than enough!
The kit lens is a toy and its only worth £10 - you won't get decent results from it without a lot of thought and effort. It is actually possible to get decent results from it but you need to be a much better photographer than I am :(

Combine the 30D with a Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 for general/wide angle use and if possible something like a 100mm F2 Canon for portrait use and you have a pretty reasonable starter kit capable of asounding results.

Now you need lights or at least a dedicated flashgun, remote mount to avoid redeye, diffusers and maybe even a wireless trigger.
Direct on camera flash will light the subject but it will be really harsh and unatttractive!
Pick up a couple of reflectors to make the most use of natural daylight and


As usual I am a Canon fan but I am well aware Nikon also make a good system, I just find Canon lenses more readily available and generally at a slightly better pricepoint.
With Nikons new D3 an D300 offerings they are currently leading the market for the firt time in years and their 12-24 lens almost made me a convert overnight. Canon will catch up just as Nikon did
Despite all the hype and dramatic claims however there were a lot more big white Canon lenses at the recent Olympics than black Nikon ones!


Mark
 
My 2p worth, I fully understand that you may enjoy your photos and are very proficient at taking them. My opinion is that if you want to set up, then do a short course in photography in night school for example, I'm doing this at the moment so that I can understand different settings to use while taking different photographs but also light conditions, the development process and mounting or processing of photos.

It will make sure to iron out any bad habits you have. It may look like point and shoot but good photos take planning. Hope this helps.
 
Makes me wish I had ordered one when it was £399 now :(

However I really couldn't justify a 3rd camera body now matter how much I convinced myself it was cheap :)


I strongly agree with the course/nightschool proposition though - I have been looking into the idea for a while now but finding something local that fits in with my lifestyle is proving slightly more difficult than I anticipated.
 
I did click on the link and it was £699 so guess it was an error.

Your right, night school or similar I am also looking at. There are lots of great books etc but nothing like hands on.

Some good ideas, things to think about

Thanks so far all
 
Slight update

Went to a shoot with the Mrs and I was more interested in the set up, camera, how things were done.

Anyway I took a note of the camera they were using

An Olympus E1 with a 14mm-55mm 2.8 to 3.5 lens.

What do people reckon to this?

From reserch the lens seems to be key, and this can be more than the camera...
 
Slight update

Went to a shoot with the Mrs and I was more interested in the set up, camera, how things were done.

Anyway I took a note of the camera they were using

An Olympus E1 with a 14mm-55mm 2.8 to 3.5 lens.

What do people reckon to this?

From reserch the lens seems to be key, and this can be more than the camera...
Canon and Nikon are mainline, Olympus, Sony, Fuji are not. That is not a comment on quality but a comment on support, range of equipment and availability of accessories. Sony seemed determined to make it into teh mainline but I have doubts that Olympus can return there.
You are choosing a lens more than a body as, with the rate of development, the life of a body is, I'd guess, 3 to 5 years.
If you are shooting in a studio you would be better off with prime lenses, say a 50mm, an 85mm and a 105mm.
The choice of Canon bodies would be a Canon 5D 2, announced but not yet launched or a Nikon D700. All in around 4000 to 7000.
There
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom