FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions (and questions that should be asked!)

Do you do passport photos? No.

Do you do portraits?  Yes. If you want exciting, unique portraits of family or pets, you have come to the right place! No boring "line 'em up and shoot 'em" Lots of options and alternatives.

What about "Department store style portrait packages 40 photos for $18.95"? No. If all you want is traditional poses then visit Wal-Mart or similar places. When you're willing to spend time getting the perfect, unique, series of portraits, then lets talk. Of course, when it comes to ordering reprints & enlargements, Wal-Mart is many many times more expensive (that's where they make their money - they call it the bait & switch technique of selling.) and in my humble opinion, (and the opinion of all of my clients) the quality just isn't reliably even in the same ballpark. (By reliably I mean that - sometimes they do get a great shot. So I am not trying to suggest they never do, its just hard with the style they use and the price they are aiming for.)

What about Church/Group photo directories? Yes BUT! I do not do it the normal way. Most photographers charge a fortune for mediocre prints and the images they take are inappropriate for a photo directory - in a photo directory you are going for recognition - that means the heads should be as large as possible. For hanging on a wall those make for lousy pictures. So why do most do it this way? Because the photographer is using the "photo directory" as an excuse to hi-pressure sell. Click on one of the links on the left for more information.  

What about traditional School pictures? Due to requests, yes, and you can book today. I am finally working on how I could bring my unique photographic experience, at least in part, to the traditional school picture arena. I am working with one school right now to fine tune a way to do this that would go well beyond the experience they are used to. For example, like Church photo directories, every single school yearbook I've seen uses "the" school pictures, and the faces are just too small a part of the picture! My University year book is even worse than average. 1.5"x2" pictures that show from the waist up, showing off the cap, the gown, hands, books - leaving a tiny little spot for the face. When I look at these I'd prefer to see the person's face so I can recognize them! Ah well. No one is asking my opinion!

While for years I've said I won't do this. I believe that I can now bring a very good quality job to this arena along with some unique and beneficial options. Details will follow, for the current status, go to my page dedicated to School Photography .

What about high end prom/graduation pictures? Yes. I will set up to do graduation/prom photography. Of course, you won't get the traditional with me here! You will get the natural style instead. Talk to me if you want to do this. We will need a student coordinator who will set up for 8 to 10 singles or couples to be done near the prom or graduation site. If your school wants me to do pictures for your year book, that will be a different time and setup so that the pictures can be optimized for the year book.

Can I afford the travel expenses? All travel costs are at economy for flights within North America, and Business class for International flights longer than 5 hours. I'm aware that business class to some locations is extremely expensive. In these cases, I have been willing to add 2 days to the trip instead - you pay for my time, but my time is often cheaper than business class air-flights! As of this writing, on most job, my client has chosen to pay the extra 2 days fees rather than the extra plane costs. There is usually some additional baggage costs (my well packed equipment) but these usually aren't a significant overall cost. As for Hotels/Motels, I figure I'm only there to sleep, so I will not break your budget there either. You are paying for what you get, not for some fancy hotel! If you want, you can book the hotels for me. Food, I work in the middle, I don't need fancy but I like at least OK food. Outside of North America, I prefer to taste local quisine. Indeed, in some areas of North America, I prefer to eat local quisine. So you don't need to worry about providing me with the true Alberta beef I like, I'll eat local food! A good way to deal with this is on a negotiated fixed daily expense rate or you pick the food and places for me to eat - I'll trust you - at least the first time! Transportation at location: It depends on the country, my main concern will be for the safe transport of equipment. Most often a rental car will be the method chosen, but I prefer smaller cars (easier to park) especially in Europe.

How big can my shot be enlarged? Huge! But ... This depends on many factors, but the most significant when you get to 11x17 and up is the negative size. A 4x5 image can be used to create a wall sized image, a 35 may start looking "not quite as perfect" as quickly as an 11x17. If you are cropping (only using part of the image) then you usually will want something larger than 35mm. Think of this, if a 35mm starts looking poor at 11x17 from 1' away, a 4x5 negative using the same film type will start looking poor at 2.75'x3.5', assuming you stand 1' away. If you back up to 3' away, the image can be 8 feet x 10 feet and look just as good! And to be fair, the 35mm can be quite a bit bigger from 3' away, and the further back you get, the larger the enlargement can be and still look exquisite. Whether shooting with 35mm or large format, I always use the best films currently available, usually from Fuji or Kodak. With my portrait digital camera, 13x19 is the largest reasonable if you are going to be viewing within less than 1 metre (3 feet.) But if the image is going to be viewed from 10 feet or 100 feet away, obviously the image size can be better. If you have specific needs and you are unsure, rather than do an expensive huge enlargement, we can first of all do a 4x6 print of a small portion of the image, then you can look at that portion from the distance you will be viewing the to see if the quality is within the range you desire. This is a time to bring in your "pickiest" person and have them look at it from the prescribed distance. Or pick the person who uses the highest resolution computer monitor - you know, the one that every one else squints at and asks "how can you read that". If they think it is OK from the prescribed viewing distance, almost everyone else will too.

Do you use Fuji film or Kodak film? I'm amazed how many times people ask this. First of all, for the most part I do use Fuji or Kodak, so I answer "yes." Now, I know that's not what they were asking, they wanted me to tell them that "Fuji is best" or "Kodak is best". So, OK, for negative film, I currently (at the time this was written - mid 2002) like the most recent professional Fuji films the best for most of my photography (In 2000/2001 I liked Kodak the best, in 1999 it was Fuji, back in the late 1970's it was Kodak and between 1980 & 1999 I switched back and forth and with other manufacturers as films kept improving.) For slide film (transparency reversal film) I currently like Kodak best for most purposes. But most people who ask are going to run out and buy consumer film, not the professional film (which mostly has to be kept refridgerated or frozen) and these films are different. So I cannot tell you which manufacturer is "best". I can tell you that both Fuji and Kodak produce extremely good quality film and they do keep improving. What about next week or next year? Who knows - we'll worry about that when that day comes.

What ISO do you use? As most people know, the higher the ISO (ASA) the poorer the quality. But that only works for a specific type of film. When I first worked with color film ISO 400 film was terrible, 100 was great and 25 was exquisite.  I usually settled on 100 as a compromise.  When Kodak Royal Gold came out, It's 200 was about as good as you'd expect from the previous 64's from film like "Kodak Gold." Royal Gold 400 was actually a decent film! and 125 was the primary speed I used (until they stopped selling it) With the Film I currently use, 400 is as good as the 100 I used to use, and 160 was as good as 25 used to be and there is no "slower" option. I could have gone up to 400 and maintained quality, but I wanted a little more room for enlargements. So... for portrature and professional work I usually work with 160.

But we'll have to see what Fuji and Kodak have in store. It wouldn't surprise me if in the next 4-5 years, I have switched to (what will then be new) 400 ISO film. Of course by then, I may have switched to digital for anything I'd use 400 for ...

So what about digital? Yes I use digital, but only for limited purposes. It is fine for web images, but it isn't quite  good enough for portrature or other professional work (where professional is referring to quality not purpose - I use digital for one of my companies that uses the images only on the web so that technicaly is "professional work" - but that isn't what I'm talking about here.)  But it is getting close ... down to months now ... waiting for one minor picky (but important) detail... 

You use large format for some work, Isn't large format expensive? Let's be honest here, your major cost is the time, skill and availablility of the photograher. 4x5 costs a few dollars more per shot. I use the large format when it is beneficial, and small format the rest of the time.

Other than enlargements, are there any other significant reasons why you would use a large format camera? Yes! I choose large format because there are many shots that simply can't be taken with a small or medium format camera. My most common reason is: A good large format camera lets you adjust the lens relative to the object and relative to the film, this lets you do things like have a blade of grass 2" from the camera be in focus as well as distant mountains. Try THAT with a small or most medium format cameras! Or trying to take pictures from akward angles (a building from ground level, or from one end of the building because there isn't room in front without using a distorting wide angle lens.) Other factors include that each shot can be taken on a different type of film and ISO (ASA) value, each shot can be push or pull processed independant of each other. Buildings actually look straight up and down instead of like they are falling over. There is far more artistic opportunity in several ways, all because the film and lens can move completely independant of each other.

So you do most of your shots with a 4x5 camera? Not a chance. The 35mm cameras are far better most of the time. They are more compact, easier to move around, more spontaneous. I certainly don't use the 4x5 camera for any of the natural photography shots! It just doesn't work that way. Indeed, overall, I do less than 1% with the 4x5. But for those 1%, It is the best camera and I use it for those shots.

I'm planning on scanning the image into a computer, what do I need? Obviously a scanner. But you also need an image. Generally speaking, you will get the best image from color reversal film (ie a slide.) Then scan it using a scanner that handles transparencies or using a film scanner. Of course, if you spent the $5000+ for a film scanner, you wouldn't be asking the question, so I will answer for the $200-$500 scanner range. There have been several good tests and articles on scanning. If you are scanning for the web, generally you can just use a print/proof. The resolutions required there are so low that any source will do. However, if you are scanning for something like a magazine cover, the only practical option is to use large format film such as 4x5 or the $5000+ scanner I just mentioned. gee - do I sound like I'm biased? - but ask other experts, using an 8x10 enlargement of a 35mm is a very good second best option, scanning a 4" print is a waste of time, scanning a 35mm negative or slide is even worse. If you are using me to produce your images, I will either scan an 8x10 print or shoot these on 4x5 color reversal film. Note: due to "casting" problems - that orange cast, I do not recommend you use negatives for serious work that requires accurate colors without getting an expensive scanner that has the formula for the orange cast of the film you are using. (Kodak updates these monthly for their scanners to match the way their film is currently being produced.)