12 replies to this topic

[OTRTexan]

So I understand that we need model consent forms from people that we photograph if we plan to profit from said photo. But , what about privately owned buildings? Do the same rules apply?

As for the second part..

I am thoroughly enjoying my hobby and want more gear, as I'm sure we all do! So I've been scouring the internet looking for ways to let my hobby, at least partially, pay for itself as I hone my skills. Being on the road, I can't really set up a studio or book weddings or portraits. I have thought about trying to sell my skills to truck owner operators. Some of these guys have beautiful trucks, and they are proud of them. However, truckers are well known for being cheap, so not sure how well that will work out. Stock photo sites seem to want commercial type shots that take props/models that I simply don't have access to out here. Any ideas would be appreciated. I do want to turn this into a full time profession down the road.

[Merco_61]

ASMP has a good resource site that seems to cover most release form situations. Link.

[Ron]

You have a unique opportunity to document both the trucking community as well as the scenic and not so scenic USA. I confess to just a twinge of envy here. I imagine that many truckers would be glad to have themselves and their rigs photographed. I have known a few of them over the years and for the most part they are justifiably proud of  both their profession and their rigs.

 

Who knows where this may lead. You're doing the right thing by looking at the legal aspects early on. Once you have a large body of work and decide to publish, it's too late to go about obtaining releases. 

 

--Ron

[TBonz]

Some stock agencies will accept nice landscapes or wildlife photos.  Even without going to a stock agency, you could put up a professional site on one of the hosting services that lets you set prices for any image that anyone wants to purchase.  The key there is figuring out a way to drive people to your site to get them to look and purchase.  That would also work for photographing truckers and their rigs - hand out a card that points them to the site and let them order whatever they want...all it costs you is a bit of time to do it...I think both of those could be good starting points.  I would definitely look into the legal side of things if you are thinking of trying to sell images of recognizable buildings, etc.  Especially if a company name is visible in the image.

 

The reality is that it isn't easy to make a good living doing photography.  Not suggesting it isn't possible as I know several people who do it for a living.  The hard part is doing the type of photography that you enjoy doing and getting enough money by just doing that type of photography.  I am working full time, but doing sports photography as a side business when I can.  I am trying to move that bar over at some point in the next several years where I can do photography as my main source of income, but that is basically when I retire as an added source of income rather than a full time, support myself and / or family kind of job.  Even then, I expect I will be doing a variety of photography and trying to find other ways to sell images to increase that income.  

 

Hope that helps!

[OTRTexan]

Great link Merco, will certainly be useful. I'll have to look into some more stock agencies. Right now I know I'm my own worst critic and too much of a perfectionist when it comes to my own images to be comfortable with setting up shop just yet. I want to add a lens better suited for portraits before I start charging for them.

Thanks for the tips and words of encouragement!

[K-9]

You should start with a 50mm f1.8 G if you don't already have it.  Very low price, sharp, and great for portraits.

[OTRTexan]

You should start with a 50mm f1.8 G if you don't already have it. Very low price, sharp, and great for portraits.

I was considering the 85mm f1.8 G. Think the 50 would serve me better?

[Merco_61]

The 85 can be a bit long and give a too tight crop on a DX body. The 50 OTOH can be a bit short at times for portraiture. A 60 mm macro lens is worth considering as it is both a nice macro lens and a portrait lens on DX rolled into one.

Try putting some PVC tape on your 18-55 to lock the zoom at 50 mm, lock the zoom of your 70-300 to 85 mm and try the focal lengths for yourself.

[TBonz]

If you are thinking of using it for drivers with their trucks, the 50 might be a bit too much lens with a DX body, especially if you are in a cramped area.  As Peter said, try shooting with your lenses at various ranges and decide what prime would work the best for your photos.  

[Ron]

I have a 50mm f/1.4, a 60mm f/2.8 and an 85mm f/1.8. I love all three. 

 

The 50mm f/1.4 is very sharp once you stop it down a little and focuses pretty close. Close enough to use for close up shots of still life such as flowers and is a really nice portrait lens. Because it has rounded aperture blades, it has incredible bokeh. CA is well controlled at any aperture from f/5.6 on. I understand that the f/1.8 50mm has somewhat more contrast and is, of course, much cheaper.  

 

The 60mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor is, as you might expect, extremely sharp. It also has a much wider aperture range than any of these three lenses. All the way up to f/32 I believe. I seldom use it beyond f/22 though and almost never for portraits. The plane of focus with this lens is, at least on my sample, very narrow. It's also the slowest of all three lenses so your viewfinder will not be as bright. Depth of Field is shallow even closed down but bokeh is very good to excellent. I seldom use this lens for general photography. 

 

The 85mm f/1.8 is an incredible lens (in my humble opinion). Sharp, contrasty and well balanced even on smallish DSLRs. It's a large lens though and will attract stares. Especially with the included lens shade attached. I find it to be a very good portrait lens that allows you a greater working distance which can be an advantage when working with critters. It also has very nice bokeh although that is marred somewhat by the fact that Nikon inexplicably decided not to use rounded aperture blades on this lens. This means that out of focus highlights are rendered as pentagons rather than circular blobs. That hasn't been much of a problem for me though.  

 

I realize that the above info doesn't help much in deciding between the three. Considering the type of photography you may be doing, a good low light portrait lens will come in handy. I think I would add the 50mm first and then augment it with the 85mm at some point down the line. Unless you'll be using flash a lot, or working at high ISOs, I wouldn't consider the 60mm. But Peter does have a good point. On a crop sensor the 60mm works out to 90mm equivalent which is almost perfect for portraits.

 

--Ron

 

[OTRTexan]

Following up on the 60 mm idea, I looked at the 60s available at b&h. I really like the idea of a portrait/macro lens. Only nikon and tameron offer one and nikons are f2.8 while the tameron is f2. In the tameron description, it says it's for c sensors. Does that mean it won't work on a full frame camera? I understand the effective focal length will be different. When I bought my 3200, I had no notion of trying to make money with photography and regret not getting a better body. Not that it's a bad camera, it just has limitations I've already noticed even at this early point. That was all to make the point that I plan on buying a full frame in the semi near future.

Wow, I don't have ADD, really I don't...

[Merco_61]

The Tamron vignettes severely on FX, unfortunately, and is a pure DX lens. The Nikon vignettes slightly wide open on FX, but it is easily corrected in post. The vignette is completely gone at f/4.

[OTRTexan]

More to ponder then. I definitely plan on keeping the 3200. There have been many times I've missed a shot for switching lenses