# Any need for photography?



## hertfordnc (Sep 10, 2007)

I make my living as a photogrpaher (I work for the governemnt so I may not be very good) 

Might there be a market among cruisers for photo services? I don't think I've ever seen anything advertised. 

Anyone ever wish ther was someone around who could take a nice picture of you or your boat? 

Just curious.


Thanks


----------



## AjariBonten (Sep 7, 2007)

Don't I WISH .............. Talk about the perfect lifestyle.

Sad to say, I'm afraid that it'll be a tough row to hoe....


----------



## TrueBlue (Oct 11, 2004)

Most marine photographers today have high resolution digital equipment and access to either a stable boat platform or a helicopter. This is the first step - a website gallery of impressive photos is also essential for marketing.

Unfortunately, this is a highly competitive market saturated with incredible talent. The way to make it is to first work locally, avoiding high overhead travel expenses. By specializing in a particular venue, such as organized regattas, private sport boat commissions or even real estate aerial photography, you can do quite well.

Check out The Master:


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

I wouldn't mind, but your'e too far away...


Here we have a lot of photographers that do the photos for free in exchange of a ride..

But keep trying...sailors are cheap by nature...and what you would like to shoot may be different from what we want to see...

For example, you may fit the photo in the perfect angle with the perfect size...we just want to see the hull and the shape on the sails...

Good luck....anyway.


----------



## AjariBonten (Sep 7, 2007)

I didn't mean to be so negative in my reply 

Certainly it can be done; the suggestions so far have been pretty good.

A photographer in our town makes a very good (second) living by shooting only local sports teams. (Little league, Cinderella Softball, Pop Warner football, etc.)

She contracts with parents to shoot a sports portfolio of their child in action; and makes a pretty penny doing it. I think something drawn on that model might be a winner. Someone with a million dollar boat might easily spend a couple of grand on some custom photography, esp. if you can do high quality video.

You'd need a fast chase boat, some _good_ cameras, and a great marketing plan.

Fred


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Unfortunately, photographing boats takes some specialized equipment and talents... which many regular photographers don't have. It is also, as TB pointed out, a very, very competitive market, and with guys like van der Waal, and others out there, breaking into it, unless you have a connection, is pretty tough.


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

Get yourself a helecopter and have at it.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

hertfordnc said:


> I make my living as a photogrpaher (I work for the governemnt so I may not be very good)
> 
> Might there be a market among cruisers for photo services? I don't think I've ever seen anything advertised.
> 
> ...


You would need a power boat to be able to position yourself for the good and action shots...other than that, highly probable profession...


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Photographing sailboats, even the larger ones doesn't take a huge capital investment.. more hardwork than anything... and being in the right location would help a good deal. North Carolina isn't probably the best of locations for this type of business.


----------



## punjabi (Jul 16, 2007)

You know what might work...

I've seen these services advertised where a company will take an aerial photograph of your house for real estate listings, etc. They sometimes use what looks like a small blimp. Might be neat for boat photos. Check out this link:

http://www.southernballoonworks.com/aerial-photography.html

Hell, depending on your mast height, you might be able to mount one of those remote control pan/zoom cameras they have advertised up there. The more I look, the more I start coming up with ideas for my own boat that I don't own yet...dammit.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

The blimp idea is good...

buy one, and go out in 25 knot winds to shoot some boats.

You end up with a lot of funny photos of yourself runing after the blimp...then sell those to America's funniest videos. Of course you need to recover the Camera, for which a International Airline might be needed..

I know a few Airlines in case you need.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Unfortunately, as humorous as Giu's post is... it is pretty spot on... the conditions for getting good sailing photography is generally the weather that you really don't want to put a camera up on a blimp in.... unless you don't mind losing the blimp and camera.


----------



## punjabi (Jul 16, 2007)

Pah!

As long as the wind is coming from one direction, you just string out off the leeward side. Like flying a kite. Although for the prices they list, I might add an EPIRB and flotation device...just in case


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

Back in 2001 I had a bad crash while racing offroad, while recovering I decided to shoot some race pics, ( I've played with cameras 40 yrs now ) even though I wasn't suppose to even look at a bike for 6 month I went out after about 30 days with another bike & my gear and shot

Within a week I had requests to put up a website, within three weeks I was selling pics, within six months I was contributing to one mag and selling to another and made numerous covers.

I think my point is, just do it, get yourself a platform ( a 16' inflatable, red, highly visible) big white lettering on the side with your website and a good dslr and go shoot your local waters, it may just fall in your lap or it may not.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

Check this, low key and does well

http://hstrial-dslater2.homestead.com/index.html


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

A powerboat towing a hang glider would work, would be more portable, and would cost a fraction of the cost of a helicopter. You could have a camera on a helmet, the viewscreen on a small arm in front of you, and a remote control on a glove.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Considering the recent spate of fatalities on parasailors... I think this is a good way to win a darwin.



Valiente said:


> A powerboat towing a hang glider would work, would be more portable, and would cost a fraction of the cost of a helicopter. You could have a camera on a helmet, the viewscreen on a small arm in front of you, and a remote control on a glove.


----------



## RandyonR3 (Oct 2, 2005)

As a fellow photographer, I'll let you in on a couple ideas that work for myself.. And it does work...
Traveling gives you the opertunity to search out new areas and subjects to shoot.. Find a good stock house, and it might take some time to work yourself in, but it is worth it. Most stock houses require a minimum of good, sellable photos each quarter. The word is GOOD photos. those that sell...
When I come into a new area I uasally hit the local 5-&-DIME store to pick up on local post cards as someone has already researched the area and picked the landmarks.. Then I go out to shoot and get a different angle on the landmark already shot..
One good example, 
On the Northern California Coast, at the Oregon line, there's this reef that sticks out about 7 miles with a lighthouse at the far end..
St. Georges Reef and Lighthouse... Hundreds of pictures have been taken
of the lighthouse, BUT, I went out one day, and photographed the lighthouse from the back-side.. With Cresent City and the mountains in the far background... 
The picture has been sold a dozen times and made me a few hundred dollars ..
All my Equeptment is digital, and I've chosen NIKON as the camera to use.
The wife shoots Macro, and I shoot Animals and landscapes, and I'm just getting my sea legs so to speak on shooting people.. People is where the money is...
Pick up a book on selling photos... lots of good ideas..
As far as money, The wife and I both shoot, we live on our boat, and we're cruisers... And our next trip is to central america...
Another Idea I've toyed with.. When you get to a new area and you're going to be there for a few days.. Put an add in the local newspaper, or drop flyers at coffee shops. Take people out on your boat to photograph
the area. I've done it a couple times and I advertize a short class on how to take photos.. A lot of people have digital cameras but have no idea how to use them other than in auto mode..
You'd be surprised how people lite up when you explain aperture and exposure, and you send them over the edge when you explain white balance..


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

> I've chosen NIKON as the camera to use.


Same here, used the same F4s from 1988-2003, when I finally broke down and went dslr, my D was a 100 when it first came out, worked good for it's intended purpose and really took a beating, be then someone decided I was done with it and relieved me of it at a gas station.

Lucky for me my better lenses were home, now it's a year later and I just now broke down and bought another dslr, this time I went low end, no bling with a D40x, figured if I drop it overboard or someone decide I don't need it anymore, 500 bucks won't hurt as much as 2000.00 did


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

LOL... I've been using Nikon for over 25 years... Got a F5 for my wedding a back in 2000... and been using a D80 for about six months now.  In some ways, the Canon equipment had surpassed the Nikon equipment, but the D2X, D200 and D80 brought Nikon back into parity for the most part.


----------



## mccary (Feb 24, 2002)

First, I am a photographer, second I am a sailor, third the 2 rarely cross other than snapshots. When I go out on the water I want to relax and not work, but that's just me.

My best advice is to stay away from gimmicks, so, no blimps, no kites, and mast high rigs, not yet. Instead, concentrate on QUALITY photography. Work within your means. It is too easy to think, "To get better photos I need to buy X camera gear". When the truth is to get better photos you need to practice. Photography is a craft. The key is to make the camera an extension of your mind's eye AND to know your subject. So you need to be able see the photo before it happens.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

This reminds me a lot of when I used to sell camera equipment in college. People would go and buy the top of the line Hassy, Leica, Canon or Nikon equipment and then come back whining that their photos hadn't improved...

One of the photographers I used to print for did much of his work with a 1960's era Diana... held together with tape. The photos he took with this $15 camera were phenomenal, and proof, at least to me, that expensive equipment had little to do with good photography in many ways. His prints of these photographs sold for thousands of dollars.

Yes, a good camera can help you in terms of making it easier to control exposure, but I agree that if the photograph isn't seen in the photographer's mind before he picks up the camera...the most expensive camera won't help.

The other thing that I used to find really ridiculous... is these same guys would often spend $2000 on the camera body, and then cheap out on the glass. They didn't seem to realize that the glass is what makes the image. IMHO, they would have been better off getting a very reliable and less expensive camera body, and spend the real money on the glass. Good lenses are going to be key to getting good images of sailboats. Most of the time you're going to need some big glass to get good images of sailboats due to the distances involved. The fact that you're most likely going to be shooting from a boat, means you need fast glass... that takes money.



mccary said:


> My best advice is to stay away from gimmicks, so, no blimps, no kites, and mast high rigs, not yet. Instead, concentrate on QUALITY photography. Work within your means. It is too easy to think, "To get better photos I need to buy X camera gear". When the truth is to get better photos you need to practice. Photography is a craft. The key is to make the camera an extension of your mind's eye AND to know your subject. So you need to be able see the photo before it happens.


----------



## byrondv (Jan 6, 2007)

sailingdog said:


> In some ways, the Canon equipment had surpassed the Nikon equipment...


*Puts fingers in ears* LA LA LA LA... I can't hear you sailingdog...





sailingdog said:


> One of the photographers I used to print for did much of his work with a 1960's era Diana... held together with tape. The photos he took with this $15 camera were phenomenal, and proof, at least to me, that expensive equipment had little to do with good photography in many ways. His prints of these photographs sold for thousands of dollars.


I love the feel you can get from some of those old cameras. Going down to the local used camera store and picking something up that hasn't been used in 20-30 years is always fun. Besides, having a living room full of shiny old cameras just looks great. Especially when you have prints from all of them.

I almost felt bad about repairing a light leak on an old twin lens medium format. The hazing added something completely uncapturable with modern equipment.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

sailingdog said:


> In some ways, the Canon equipment had surpassed the Nikon equipment, but the D2X, D200 and D80 brought Nikon back into parity for the most part.


I think the difference though minor is the sensor, Canon and CMOS seem sharper and more vibrant, than nikon and the CCD sensor, plus their AF seemed a little more snappy than nikons, but Nikon is coming around to CMOS on their (2) top end cameras, so won't be long before it trickles down the line.

Now they really need to work on that AF snap


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Byron-

I did say had...  BTW, I'm not switching to Canon anytime soon... been using Nikon way too long to do that. Started on a Nikkormat FT2 and a F... and owned and used at least a dozen since then. 


byrondv said:


> *Puts fingers in ears* LA LA LA LA... I can't hear you sailingdog...


----------



## TrueBlue (Oct 11, 2004)

SD,
Do you have any need for a Nikon F90 autofocus SLR with two Nikon AF lenses? It's been collecting dust in my closet for years.


----------



## byrondv (Jan 6, 2007)

poopdeckpappy said:


> I think the difference though minor is the sensor, Canon and CMOS seem sharper and more vibrant, than nikon and the CCD sensor


Not to mention CMOS tends to be far less grainy then CCD. But I am a bit confused - I have always found Canon to be very "cool" on the colors, and Nikon to be much more saturated. Which Canon would you say is more vibrant then a Nikon?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I think that's far more a function of the software that you use to interpret the RAW files, than a function of the camera or glass itself.

I've owned or used Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Nikon, Yashica, Mamiya and Leica film equipment for small and medium format, and Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Olympus digital equipment. Most of the color and saturation differences weren't all that noticeable between film-based equipment, but in digital, the differences are much more noticeable, and much of it is because of the software used.



byrondv said:


> Not to mention CMOS tends to be far less grainy then CCD. But I am a bit confused - I have always found Canon to be very "cool" on the colors, and Nikon to be much more saturated. Which Canon would you say is more vibrant then a Nikon?


----------



## Boasun (Feb 10, 2007)

Going by the above... Practice, practice and practice.
Oh! From personnel experience; I've found to my disappointment that expensive cameras and the sea don't always mix. The camera losing out every time. So use that throw-away until your style of photos take on the luster of excellence. Then the higher quality of cameras will add to you eye.
Right now I have an Olympus SP-550. It is a digital camera.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

One major advantage of the DSLRs over the Point-and-shoot type cameras is the fact that DSLRs can have much longer lenses and tend to have much shorter shutter delays, making it much easier to get the photo you intended. Shutter lag on some of the smaller PnS cameras really blows.

For anyone serious about using a DSLR on a boat, you might want to look into getting a Kata weather cover for it. While not a waterproof housing, they're pretty good at helping keep the DSLR from dying as quickly.


----------



## DrB (Mar 29, 2007)

*Sailing and Photography*

I am a low level professional photographer. I typically photograph college and lower amateur sports, bicycle racing, and scenery. For my day job, I am an research scientist.

People will argue about whether Canon, Nikon, etc are the best and whether you need a ton of MP to take great shots. However, the bottom line is it's the person behind the equipment that makes the photo, not the equipment.

Folks have given you some good advice here, but here is may take. You will need a boat that is fast, small, and very maneuverable. You'll also need a competent helmsman, besides yourself, to drive the boat. You're concentration on taking pictures.

Although I just said that the equipment doesn't make the picture, the photographer does, there are pieces of equipment that make the job easier. Long lenses (200+ mm), relatively fast lenses, F4 or better, and more and good MP. 6 MP + is good for 11X14. Image stabilization is a very handy too.

Fast lenses help with acquiring more light, which means you can use fast shutter speeds which keeps the potential motion blur down. Wide apertures also keep the DOF low, so that the subject is in focus while background is intentionally blurred. This keeps the distracting background clutter down. Long lenses mean that you can get tight shots from a distance away. The more/quality MP means you can enlarge images (sections of) without losing detail.

You're goal should be to get as close to the boat as possible without causing a safety situation. Good shots are of the helmsman taken from the leeward side on a hard reach form boat front and behind showing the boat. Full Sail shots are nice especially when the spinny is flying. If you can get on a boat, looking down the leeward rail on a hard beat is a good shot. Wind/water coming over the rail is always a cool shot

If you want to get a lot of pictures of tactical maneuvers, go to a locale race and sit just off a mark/buoy. That way you get a ton of photos of different boats. You could them post them up on the race's web site and people could look at them and buy them.

DrB


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

sailingdog said:


> Considering the recent spate of fatalities on parasailors... I think this is a good way to win a darwin.


Did I mention that I do photography...and hate competition?


----------



## byrondv (Jan 6, 2007)

sailingdog said:


> I think that's far more a function of the software that you use to interpret the RAW files, than a function of the camera or glass itself.
> 
> I've owned or used Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Nikon, Yashica, Mamiya and Leica film equipment for small and medium format, and Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Olympus digital equipment. Most of the color and saturation differences weren't all that noticeable between film-based equipment, but in digital, the differences are much more noticeable, and much of it is because of the software used.


I should have clarified - I am not talking about film systems, I am talking about digital. However, it isn't just the RAW interpreting software that affects the saturation and other color values.

This link: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD200/page29.asp compares the Nikon D200 and Canon EOS 20D using RAW files and Adobe Camera RAW 3.3 Beta. Since it does process differently for different cameras, a custom workflow was used. As you can see, there is still a difference in the colors that is quite noticeable.

Different sensors and different analog to digital converters are going to affect the color values.


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

mccary said:


> First, I am a photographer, second I am a sailor, third the 2 rarely cross other than snapshots. When I go out on the water I want to relax and not work, but that's just me.
> .[/COLOR]


Sounds familiar.

Be prepared to put in a LOT of effort if you want to make good money. There's a lot of competition, especially since the advent of DSLR's.


----------



## punjabi (Jul 16, 2007)

Damn.

Don't you guys have enough expense with your boats? Where is the camera money coming from? You selling china white around the marina?


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

Selling my services as a professional cinematographer, and male prostitute. One of them pays me pretty well, the other is sort of a hobby.


----------



## AjariBonten (Sep 7, 2007)

Yea, but which is which ?????


----------



## byrondv (Jan 6, 2007)

xort said:


> Selling my services as a professional cinematographer, and male prostitute. One of them pays me pretty well, the other is sort of a hobby.


Shouldn't be much of a shock that this is your 666th post...


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

byrondv said:


> I should have clarified - I am not talking about film systems, I am talking about digital. However, it isn't just the RAW interpreting software that affects the saturation and other color values.
> 
> This link: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD200/page29.asp compares the Nikon D200 and Canon EOS 20D using RAW files and Adobe Camera RAW 3.3 Beta. Since it does process differently for different cameras, a custom workflow was used. As you can see, there is still a difference in the colors that is quite noticeable.
> 
> Different sensors and different analog to digital converters are going to affect the color values.


I got just the opposite results, however, I owned a D100 w/ a 70-200 2.8, when it was in for cleaning I was given a 20D with a 70 -200 2.8 as a loaner.

I felt the color was just a tad better and the AF was noticably faster on the Canon gear and I enjoyed using it a lot, but as SD mentioned, I too have good money invested in good lenses, so I'll stick with nikon


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

xort said:


> Selling my services as a professional cinematographer, and male prostitute. One of them pays me pretty well, the other is sort of a hobby.


Not many people take up cinematography as a hobby............


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

byrondv said:


> Shouldn't be much of a shock that this is your 666th post...


Yea, the devil made me do it.


----------



## byrondv (Jan 6, 2007)

poopdeckpappy said:


> I got just the opposite results, however, I owned a D100 w/ a 70-200 2.8, when it was in for cleaning I was given a 20D with a 70 -200 2.8 as a loaner.
> 
> I felt the color was just a tad better and the AF was noticably faster on the Canon gear and I enjoyed using it a lot, but as SD mentioned, I too have good money invested in good lenses, so I'll stick with nikon


I won't argue with the AF (though with some of the new AF features on the D300 / D3... maybe Nikon will be back in the game).

I wonder if the D100 compared to a 20D is a fair comparison. In any case - I could see the color on the 20D being better. The D100 was announced Feb 2002 while the 20D was announced August 2004, giving it over 2 years of technological advancements.

Of course even if the Nikon is more saturated there are more then a few people who would argue the Canon's colors are still more "natural" even if cooler.


----------



## MiVelero (Oct 30, 2007)

hertfordnc said:


> Might there be a market among cruisers for photo services? I don't think I've ever seen anything advertised.
> 
> Anyone ever wish ther was someone around who could take a nice picture of you or your boat?
> 
> ...


The main question here, from a business perspective is, how much is your average boater willing to part with for a photograph ?
I'm curious to see what folks here have for a $$ figure.
lets say a 11x14 print....
Because I am sure it is no where close to what you think, that is for a professional work, not uncle Harry with his cannon digital...

... Beauty is in the eye of the beholder .... so is the price....


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

You really can't compare cameras that are two years apart fairly. The technology advances quite rapidly in the digital market... and as such, it makes for a very unfair comparison. The D80/D200/D2X have done quite a bit to bring Nikon up to parity with Canon in many ways. However, regardless of anything else, each marque will have its pros and cons.


----------



## DrB (Mar 29, 2007)

*My fees*



> The main question here, from a business perspective is, how much is your average boater willing to part with for a photograph ?
> I'm curious to see what folks here have for a $$ figure.
> lets say a 11x14 print....
> Because I am sure it is no where close to what you think, that is for a professional work, not uncle Harry with his cannon digital...


For a 5X7, I charge $10, a 8X10 or 8X12, $20, and a 11X14, $50. Basically a 11X14 is 4x a 5X7 in area. That is for sports pictures to mom and dads. The boat pictures would be slightly higher as risk for equipment damage is higher and the frequency of quality shots is less. Depending if it is a specific job for a boat owner or whether its part of a race (lots of boats and potential buyers), I'd charge differently for a variety of factors.

DrB


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

MiVelero said:


> The main question here, from a business perspective is, how much is your average boater willing to part with for a photograph ?
> I'm curious to see what folks here have for a $$ figure.
> lets say a 11x14 print....


I could sell 11x14 @20.00 all day long of offroad racing

I could turn around the next day and go to a horse show and sell 
11x14's all day long for 125.00

Here's the best one, in 1998 I got a 9 day all expense paid trip to Hawaii to shoot a 40th wedding anniversary and all the goings on............now that was cool


----------



## MiVelero (Oct 30, 2007)

poopdeckpappy said:


> I could sell 11x14 @20.00 all day long of offroad racing
> 
> I could turn around the next day and go to a horse show and sell
> 11x14's all day long for 125.00


Correct (maybe), but the original question
Originally Posted by hertfordnc 
Might there be a market among cruisers for photo services? I don't think I've ever seen anything advertised.

Anyone ever wish ther was someone around who could take a nice picture of you or your boat?

My question was how much cruisers are willing to pay for this service, ofcourse we all would like a nice picture of our boat.
After expenses etc. you would need to sell many 11x14 @ $20 to brake even.
Just howmuch is your time and talent worth?
So is there really a market ? Sailors by nature are frugal 

As has been said before an 8x10 costs several dollars, an 8x10 with my image on it .... $$ ....

Do you pay $20 for a WalMart portrait or $180 at a studio ? 
I guess you get what you pay for ...


----------



## zaliasvejas (Jul 18, 2007)

Just to add my two cents...

Is anyone doing non silver processes on the boat? I have a view camera and part of my secret plan was to photograph places and people I would visit and print, with an idea of selling to the galleries... 
I have been a commercial photographer in NYC in my past life and still shoot 4X5 for art's sake...
Please visit my web site: ArunasArt.com and follow a link to my flickr page.
All this tech stuff is fun, but to be able to produce something tangible on the boat would be cool..


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I find that most boats aren't stable enough for using a 4x5 on. I do a fair bit of 4x5 photography, mainly architecture and still life, but not on a boat.


----------



## zaliasvejas (Jul 18, 2007)

sailingdog,

Mine is..... just kidding. My plan was to shoot on land and process film and make contact prints on the boat. I have used jobo drum for processing silver prints, so only exposure of paper would require a dark room....I have done cyanotypes and platinum printing in school. Once I am settled in to my boat, I hope to take up this craft in earnest...
I have even build a portable portrait shooting tent to be used with available light, but that is another story....
One thing I realised so far, pressure water from a dock will be a must..

Good to meet other large format photographer on the water.


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

Zal
Will you find much of a market for 4 X 5 pictures? A shame to waste a big negative on such a small print. Have you considered partnering with another photographer who has a gallery? They could print your work & hang it in their gallery as well as do fullfillment of your website orders. For a fee of course.
I built my own 4 X 5 many moons ago. Rail system with full swing & shift in all directions. Just sold the lenses & backs last year. Sigh.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I have a Jobo CCP2 setup... they're excellent for prints up to 20x24 and for sheet film.... one night we processed 150 rolls of Tmax 100 135-36 and 50 rolls of Fujchrome 50 in my old home darkroom.  It is a pretty well-equipped home darkroom.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

Alll you need is a 8-10 Mega camera with a 200-400 telephoto and you can be in business. Go take some pictures and youcan sign up with http://www.wavelengthstudios.com/photo/ to sell whatever you produce, if people want to buy it. he has the web site and a coop program.

This guy's own work is excellent, check it out for ideas, here's one handsome boat he caught
http://sims.myphotos.cc/~wave16/2006/bhi06/bhi06_web/source/bhi06_634.htm


----------



## zaliasvejas (Jul 18, 2007)

Xort,

Thanks for an interesting idea. I am still attached to the dock with a 9 to 5 job, but I will explore the possibility... I participate in shows once or twice a year, but it would be good to find steady representation. I can rent a darkroom at this point.
Sailingdog, CCP2 is a whole processor with a base and such, right? I have used Jobo tank to process 4X5 before, and will have to get back to that on the boat. I have printed a few shows with my drum, on 11X14 paper. I like the consistency and predictability and simplicity. Enlarger would be hard to fit in my boat, though. Maybe, horizontally, in the V- berth.... with the board up against the bulkhead.. Hmmm....


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Yes, the CPP2 is a full processor, and can handle 8 rolls of 35mm at a time, as well as prints up to 20x24". I also have the sheet film drum for 4x5" for it.


----------



## bestfriend (Sep 26, 2006)

sailingdog said:


> Yes, the CPP2 is a full processor, and can handle 8 rolls of 35mm at a time, as well as prints up to 20x24". I also have the sheet film drum for 4x5" for it.


Wow, old school. I was a commercial photographer and college instructor. Doing it since 1984. Sometimes I miss the darkroom, but not very much. what I do miss is the unmatchable quality of B&W prints.

So, anyway, my 2 cents. Nikon or Canon, doesn't rally matter. Personal preference, I went with Canon. Someone told me a long time ago, if you put the camera up to your eye, its worth pushing the shutter. I don't think there is much money to be made taking photos of people and their boats. Stock photography would be the best way to go.


----------



## zaliasvejas (Jul 18, 2007)

Yeah, I like BW,
I kinda like the process, also... I shoot digital, too, but actual BW print these days is a sight to behold, I agree... 
I am not much into shooting boats for a living, I approach photography as visual art. If there is a boat in a picture, and it is worth printing, fine, but I'd rather look for my own subjects. I have dragged my 4X5 in kayaks, boats, cars.. planes and on my back. I guess you can call me a pictorialist...
I will have to look for that 4X5 tank. Hey, sailingdog, would you have any use for temperature control bath box by Jobo? I got it a while ago to do Cibachromes, now it just sits there...


----------



## hertfordnc (Sep 10, 2007)

Wow- this thread really grew legs. 

Makes me wonder if we shouldn't have a photography forum on sailnet. I guess my question was answered to some degree. I think If I wanted to I could supplement my retirement income with my camera while cruising the same way some people make extra money with boat skills like sewing and electrical work. 

Digital allows you to shoot first and sell later. THere's really no overhead to shooting. Sites like smugmug allow you to sell prints with no handling. I think the model would work to shoot people and boats and then pass a CD around with watermarked images and refer people to smugmug to order prints. 

Meanwhile, on the canon/ nikon debate, i must chime in.

For decades Nikon dominated the proffesional market. When canon switched to auto focus they changed their lens mount, presumably to accomidate faster lenses. That leap, plus some aggressive resolution when things went digital made them a big player in the pro market. I think now the companies will take turns being top tog. The differences are too small for a pro to switch back and forth so a beginning pro makes his best choice and lives with it. I've been with Nikon for 20 years or so. My employer uses Nikon. Unlike Canon, Nikon NEVER abandoned its users with a lens mount change. Each new camera was backward compatible with the previous. Now it's only the oldest manual lenses that won't work on my D200.

The D3 solves the small sensor problem and makes use of all those great old lenses. 

I looked at the DP-review article on the 20D vs. the D200. I printed the test photos on a Fuji Frontier minilab and no one I've asked can see a difference. I thought I percieved a slightly better saturation on some colors and expected it to be the canon but it was the Nikon.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I used to sell pro-level camera gear when the whole autofocus equipment just started... The funny part is that for many years Canon used to claim that the FD lens mount was inherently superior to the F-mount that Nikon used, since it wasn't a bayonet mount-type system, and didn 't introduce as much wear on the mating mount surfaces of the lens-so was overall much better at lens-camera body alignment. Malcolm, the then Canon rep at the time got really pissed at me when I asked him, "*Malcolm, if the F-mount is such a bad design because it is a bayonet mount, why do all the Canon EOS-lenses use a bayonet mount too??*" Dead silence and a glare...

As for which equipment is better... for a while Canon was definitely ahead... but that is primarily due to the fact that they weren't saddled with the need to have legacy compatibility in many ways. The high end gear is pretty comparable IMHO, but the lower-end consumer gear, the Nikon stuff was a lot better built. The Rebel series of cameras had, and probably still do, plastic lens mounting flanges on the bodies... UGH.

IMHO, digital photography has some serious advantages over film-based photography for certain purposes. For news, magazine, studio and advertising work... it really makes sense since it minimizes the costs and turn-around time for the whole process. When I worked the 2002 SLC winter olympics, we had a system that would literally have the photos hitting the Yahoo website less than five minutes from when they were taken. Transmitting a digital image or replicating it can be done almost instantly, over thousands of miles or to thousands of people with no degradation in quality-something not really possible with silver-based images.

However, the one real problem I see with digital photography is that it can be very ephemeral. Most of the photos of my late wife were lost due to a hard drive crash on my old Toshiba notebook. It is far too easy to delete images that may be worthwhile when using digital equipment. Also, in many cases, the skill needed to do good photography is replaced by shooting massive quantities of photos, and then culling the occasional good image from the chaff.

With film, timing was much more important. Film was a limiting factor...and when you ran out, you couldn't just erase it and go on... for documentary photography I think this is a very important fact. Silver-based film is much less ephemeral than digital images-but conversely much harder to work with in many ways. For serious documentary photography, I think film makes more sense. The historical record should be fixed, not fleeting.

IMHO, many historically important images, like Dorothea Lange's Migrant Mother would probably never have existed if they had been shot on digital equipment. The ease of deletion, without the chance of further exploration of the image, makes it very likely that some important photos are missed by digital photographers. There is a permanence to a silver-based photograph which I think is still not quite there with digital images yet.

Just my opinion... 


hertfordnc said:


> Wow- this thread really grew legs.
> 
> Makes me wonder if we shouldn't have a photography forum on sailnet. I guess my question was answered to some degree. I think If I wanted to I could supplement my retirement income with my camera while cruising the same way some people make extra money with boat skills like sewing and electrical work.
> 
> ...


----------



## zaliasvejas (Jul 18, 2007)

sailingdog,

I agree about fast editing. I still look over film that I did in school and later and come back with "... what was I thinking?!!". I also find stuff that I never looked twice at...
I heard of one photographer who would process his film and leave it for ten years... Only then he would edit and evaluate. Idea was that only after a few years one can have complete emotional disconnect from the events surrounding the picture and be able to judge it from purely visual perspective...


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*As a curren Nikon user..*

As a current Nikon user I can honestly say I have no desire to switch to a Canon other than the current offering of a full frame sensor but eventually Nikon will have one too. I do believe the technology is virtually identical but I do prefer the build quality of Nikon lenses and bodies over that of the more plastic feeling Canon. Regardless of build quality Canon's and Nikon's will both take an equal picture and both focus just as fast.

To me the big advantage is not Nikon over Canon, or vice versa, but rather Nikon & Canon over the others like Sony/Konica/Minolta/Pentax. The big difference is the focusing system. Sony/Konica/Minolta/Pentax are all still using slow 80's technology "screw drive" focusing systems and Nikon and Canon are using state of the art fast ultrasonic focusing motors. You can't capture shots like the one below with a Sony Alpha (I've tried) because the focus mechanism is to slow.

Shot taken hand held at 1/1250s @ 200mm with a 70-200 f2.8. This lens is not the vibration reduction lens just the regular old, very sharp and fast 70-200...


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Halekai-

When Canon first introduced the USM drive lenses, a good friend of mine had bought a bunch... but returned them fairly quickly. A large portion of her photography was pet portraiture... and the early USM lenses drove the dogs crazy....  They seem to have fixed that problem now. 

The other problem with many digital cameras is the shutter lag...from when you hit the shutter release to when it actually fires.

BTW, I am naming this photo of yours '*Weiner dog in flight*". I am guessing that you were sitting on the ground or kneeling when you took this.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Halekai...

want to spend a week with me in Portugal??

You are my guest. WOW...that is a photo....UNBELEIVABLE!!!

Please come shoot my boat will you?? 

Thanks for the photo of the flying dog!!! AMAZING!!!


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*I was..*

I was actually laying on my stomach on the beach when I took that shot. Framing and perspective are everything and with dogs in action the lower to the plane of action the better.

Shutter lag is a non issue these days with most all DSLR's as you can see from that shot. While point & shoots still suck many of the new top DSLR's will out shoot film in terms of speed!

That photo was actually taken with an older, and now quite outdated, Nikon D-70 not the newer & faster D-80 or D-200/300 .....


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

halekai36 said:


> I was actually laying on my stomach on the beach when I took that shot. Framing and perspective are everything and with dogs in action the lower to the plane of action the better.
> 
> Shutter lag is a non issue these days with most all DSLR's as you can see from that shot. While point & shoots still suck many of the new top DSLR's will out shoot film in terms of speed!
> 
> That photo was actually taken with an older, and now quite outdated, Nikon D-70 not the newer & faster D-80 or D-200/300 .....


I agree but when you use a DFGTH on a 345 the FTR gets leaned against the 4Y FGT 121 and cause vibration to the HJKUY.

But spending some money with a BGFTT will solve the problem of the 09876 and will result in better 121's.

Also if you are using a Recklan, the almtecla tends to satbilyse frame rate inducing into less loss by 455.

Agree???

What the hell was that language???


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

ROFL... Giu is obviously not a photographer...


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*Agree 100 percent*

The only thing I would add is to be sure your rectolineal trifibucators fluxorgate rate adjuster is in alignment with your zodiac sign or all bets are off!


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

halekai36 said:


> The only thing I would add is to be sure your rectolineal trifibucators fluxorgate rate adjuster is in alignment with your zodiac sign or all bets are off!


Glad we're on the same page....   

I bet you could take really nice photos with your camera.

My wife bought me a Sony camera, because Fred droped my old digital Kodak in the ocean (admiting to it much later).

I make idiot photos and movies with it..and I have so much fun...I wonder what I could do with your skills and a professional camera like yours..

Wow...I looked at the dog photo again..do you have more photos??

(PS, now I know why your boats look so shinny...its the picture quality)


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Actually, it is Halekai's much more subtle use of photoshop.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

no no no...that dog is real...you can even see the grains of dust and dirt stopped in the air as the dog moves...it is indeed a nice photograph.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

BTW, it isn't the equipment that makes a good photo... I had a Pentax Optio that I used for several years, and I used it to take many a good photo... especially candids, since it was small enough to conceal easily. 

These photos were taken with it, and it's just a 5 MP Point-and-Shoot.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

I took these with my crap Sony camera, imagine with Halekai's camera and taken by him....wow I wonder...

I never showed them because I knew someone would come here and give me a lecture and crap about hanging outside the boat only grabing the shrouds....with no tether bla bla bla...but I think they are pretty, do you like them? We were moving fast, it was early morning and the bow would dig into the swell pretty deep. We were also almost 30º heel.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Damn... I was hoping to see the sequence with you going overboard...  How's Fred going to practice his MOB drills otherwise???

Fred should have fessed up to dropping the camera earlier...


----------



## bestfriend (Sep 26, 2006)

Uh oh, its turning into another dog thread!


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*Actually..*

I really suck at photo shop and actually use Picasa or Adobe Lightroom. I only use photo editors for slight color and croping adjustments. If you don't start with a good pic it's tough to create one.


----------



## RandyonR3 (Oct 2, 2005)

Got to disagree with the old idea of "its not the camara but the Person taking the photos"
I've been shooting for a number of years and make a very good income from the shots I take.. enough that it has, in part, supported My cruising lifestyle 
and shooting with a lower end camara is just not part of the picture..
You will get a good shot now and then, and that shot might, and I say might bring a buck or two but to make good money and to do it on an everyday scale, you need the equeptment to do so..
Those that say they can make a living from shooting with a low-end camra are kidding theirselves..
A lower end camara might shoot a good picture, but thats the difference between a good picture and a great picture.. And how often do you set the white balance or the bracking with a low end camara.. you dont because you dont have the ability.. Many of the low end camaras dont even have the capability to work the shot or even have a RAW feture so you can work the photo in programs as Photoshop.
If your not working with the newest, most state of the art, equeptment, you are fooling yourself, its competion out there, and If your not agressive with the best avalible, you wont make it.. If you say you are making it, with an out of date, or low-end camara, your full of crap.
Theres a BIG difference in taking Photos, and making a living at taking photos....


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Randy-

Even the best of equipment isn't going to make a good photographer out of just anybody. *A really good photographer isn't generally limited by his equipment-conversely, a mediocre photography isn't going to be helped much by having top-of-the-line equipment. * Yes, having good equipment is helpful... but it isn't necessary. I know a lot of pros that were still schlepping F3s and FM2s around after the F4 came out... and still know a fair number that use manual focus gear. If you do photography professionally, then there is a financial incentive to have the best available equipment...and you can write it off on your taxes... If you're doing it as a hobby...there isn't really any point in spending that kind of money unless you want to. A good photographer can make good photos with a D70s as well as a D2x... a hobbyist with kids and college tuitions to pay can probably justify a D70s or D80, but not a D2x.

BTW, bracketing is often a crutch... and if you're spending that much time in photoshop, you're probably doing something wrong. Just my $.02 worth. 



RandyonR3 said:


> Got to disagree with the old idea of "its not the camara but the Person taking the photos"
> I've been shooting for a number of years and make a very good income from the shots I take.. enough that it has, in part, supported My cruising lifestyle
> and shooting with a lower end camara is just not part of the picture..
> You will get a good shot now and then, and that shot might, and I say might bring a buck or two but to make good money and to do it on an everyday scale, you need the equeptment to do so..
> ...


----------



## RandyonR3 (Oct 2, 2005)

sailingdog,
You dont understand, and it does no good to argue with you, you have your belief and I have my HD3-31, and my D2Xs... and I get a paycheck every month from My stockhouse.
I guess you know a whole lot more about Cruising and Photography than I do. 
And next year we'll be shooting Central America and the Galapagos islands, while cruising, and GETTING PAID FOR IT!


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Randyon...do you like my bow photos???

I think they are pretty...

I can do photoshop...but don't want to be paid for it...


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Randy-

My point is that a good photographer can still make good images in spite of low-end equipment. A bad photographer isn't going to get much help, even from the best top-end equipment. The skills and talent have to be there... or the equipment really doesn't matter at all. The way you make it sound is that the equipment does all the work... that's ridiculous... or there'd be a lot more people making a living at photography. 

Granted, with digital equipment, there is a much more significant difference between the high-end gear and the consumer gear.... for instance, you probably won't see to many professionals using a non-DSLR digital camera for most of their work. Most non-DSLR digital cameras don't have the flexibility or control over exposure...and that is by design. 

But give a talented photographer an all manual Nikon FM2 and a hack photographer a F6.... with the same film and lenses... the talent is going to show, in spite of the difference in equipment. 

Equipment matters...but skill and talent matter far more.

BTW, if you're going to the Galapagos and getting paid for it...that's great... but I haven't seen you post any photos here... the proof is in the pictures...


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*Sd*

The equipment DOES matter and no a professional can't take, on a regular basis, shots worth selling with a digital point and shoot. Your three pictures above prove that premise beyond a shadow of a doubt! Good quality photos must be sharp and free from noise and yes have a photographers eye behind the lens. You photos above are about as noisy as I've seen in a while. Look on my site there are some photos there taken with my P&S cameras but they prety much suck compared to my DSLR with fast high quality glass... The photos below were both taken by the same photographer, me, and both cameras are the same resolution 6 megapixels. The one taken with good equipment, not even top quality, vs. the one with the consumer level point & shoot is clearly obvious.. The photos below, and yours above, speak for themselves. Enough said!!

*Sunset with my 6mp Nikon D-70s and 24-70 f2.8*









*Sunset with my Canon 6mp Point & Shoot*


----------



## RandyonR3 (Oct 2, 2005)

Sailingdog
and you wont see any of my pictures on this site.. If any of my shots are good enough to show anyone, they're worth money, and why should I post photos on this site, to be able to be coppied, and sold somewhere else.. I'm under contract and all my photos are C/R.. The stockhouse has first opertunity, even to the point that my website had to come down.


----------



## RandyonR3 (Oct 2, 2005)

Giu
The photos of the foredeck are good...now imagine this, If you would have shot the same photo on the oppisit tack, you would have had basicly the same photo, but you would not have had any shadows on the sail. and if you waited until just before dark, you would have seen a golden glow on all the stainless..
Most great photographers stage the photos they shoot..
as an example, pictures of children sell great, women and men, so-so but family photos are worth their weight in gold..thats what sells.
So lets take the same photo, shot from the rear corner of the boat, you are at the helm, the kids are in the companionway and your wife is at the winch, the boat is healed over about 7 degrees and the sails are alive with the evening sun..... Now thats a picture that sells..
And you say, thats the same type of photo I see in the sailing Rags..
well now you understand...someone sold them that photo..
Boat photos are cool, but people photos sell.. Next time your out, take a shot of the crew at work....AND THATS A KEEPER.......


----------



## RandyonR3 (Oct 2, 2005)

Another note on this potography thing and then I'll get off.. weather you know it or not, there are many people out there taking photos off the web, just as those that are posted, and add them to their workload.. You can be a fantastic Photographer on paper, with a great income from selling photos and dont even own a camera.. Hundreds of thousands of photos are posted on the internet everyday.. you just have to download them, be creative in photoshop, add a person or two and your photo just sold. your out of luck as someone else has just filed copywright on you photo..
And to let you know what they're worth.. I took a photo of 4 boats at anchor at shelter cove on the northwest coast of California.. It sold to one mag for 45 dollars, back page, small photo, not to interesting.. but the next month, the same photo sold to a realestate company for an advertisement for 1800.00.. That same photo has been sold 7 times and is still on the top of my list.....


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*My photos are not..*

My photos are not for sale though and are for the sheer enjoyment of others. I am not a professional nor do I care to be. Photography is just another of my hobbies that I can blend with sailing and then offer to others as eye candy. I'm sure some of my pics have been stolen and some have been published in boating magazines (free of charge sorry) and many have asked me for permission to use them to which I usually say yes.

I would hate to be a pro right now especially with the mass influx of new "photogs" since the dawning of digital. I have been asked three times in the last four months by art galleries to do a "Maine Coast" showing but it's not what I do nor do I have time to deal with the printing, framing and work involved.

It's a hobby for me.....


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

halekai
I need a new GPS. Mind if I stop by your unlocked boat and 'borrow' it?
Funny how people value/devalue their various possesions.

Galleries are offering you a showing! Let them do the printing & matting if you don't want to put in the extra effort. You could still make money.

What would you think if I came into your place of employment and told your boss "I will work for free, get rid of that halekai you are paying".


----------



## MiVelero (Oct 30, 2007)

halekai36 very nice work...

To me photography is a hobby, my equipment is two 4x5 cameras, 645af mamiya, 6x6 rollei 6008i, 3 cannon digital, pentax and yashica35mm and more, I even have a KIEV and a studio at home with darkroom.... and so far the only thing that has improved my photography is practice, those are only tools. They have made some tasks easier and in many cases peaked my creativity. And like any tool we need the right tool for the job ... and there is no way around that one. Wich is the right tool? The one that gets the job done right!

There are exceptions to every rule... like looking at your first photograph of a 4x5 negative, camera movements etc. Don't even get into the film vs digital debate....

So what is the difference between a pro photographer and amateurs like myself ...? We photograph for the sake of art and personal satisfaction, I photograph what I see, what I feel its me not what some one else wants or what sells.

Giulietta those are some very nice pictures ... now as RandyonR3 points out there are many ways to improve on the shots...but if you were to do that with a price tag in mind you would not have enjoyed that moment that memory and pride on your acomplishment, now recorded on a very creative shot (given the level of experience and equipment)

Now when I am done with my photographs, if someone wants to buy it, I will gladly sell it for $(if you have to ask you can't afford it.) Then also as is usually the case, I give them as gifts, decorate my walls, boat .... That is photography as art.

RandyonR3 you are correct in your point of view, but realize the big emphasis on the business end of it, the all mighty dollar dictates here. Many of the high end photographers are great business man first, good photographers (sometimes) second, that is how they become great photographers.

Xort *Funny how people value/devalue their various possesions.*
I guess we differ in what yardstick we use to measure value, mine certainly is not $$$$
*What would you think if I came into your place of employment and told your boss "I will work for free, get rid of that halekai you are paying".:*eek:

With all due repect, that is a lame argument. If pros feel threatened by amateurs then its time for reevaluation of their skills and or business plans.

Just my 2 cents


----------



## RandyonR3 (Oct 2, 2005)

Mi
What you say concerning the Re-evaluation is a constent threat. When I swiched from film to digital, The choice was made due to an Amature who droped off the stock market scene in 1998 to pick up a digital camara and head for the back country of Alaska. He spent the better part of a year in the back country and when he came out, His photos were shown at the Smithsonian.
The photography world was turned up-side-down, how could a No-Name person with little or no experance have done this, and many as myself felt he had not put in his DUES to have such an exibit.
I was wrong, and what I learned from that was that I have to re-invent my business constantly. I'm always looking for that edge, and YES, sometimes the romance of the shot is shaded by the material value of the end result... But I will say, as a cruiser, it helps support the bugget.


----------



## zaliasvejas (Jul 18, 2007)

The bow pictures look mildly fascinating...
Making them over, as RandyonR3 suggested would turn them into just another something we have seen before. Pointless....
I am fascinated how many approaches to photography there are... That is a great testament to the craft, whatever tools one uses. There is no right or wrong pictures out there, there are only people's attitudes towards them..
I think we should enjoy photography as we choose, and, in the end, that is the ultimate value... 
I did not enjoy photography when I made a living at it, I enjoyed the money I made with it... Kinda sick, isn't it? I am glad I don't have to do that anymore. 
Just some thoughts...


----------



## retclt (Nov 7, 2006)

Don't know if this has been mentioned yet but . . . Keep the horizon horizontal in boating pictures. Most people shoot away not paying attention to the orientation of the horizon. Sailing pictures especially!


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

MiVelero said:


> Xort *Funny how people value/devalue their various possesions.*
> I guess we differ in what yardstick we use to measure value, mine certainly is not $$$$
> *What would you think if I came into your place of employment and told your boss "I will work for free, get rid of that halekai you are paying".:*eek:
> 
> ...


If you have a nice house, I'm sure you'd like to entertain guests, even give them food & spirits. But when a bum staggers to the door and wants you to let his smelly ass in for the night, do you feel that 'well, I should share my nice house with the world'? Sharing your pictures with friends & family is one thing, even displaying watermarked pictures to the world; but to readily make them available for commercial pirates? 
If a commercial operation is used to paying for something, why give it to them free?


----------

