Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
About Varied / Professional Senior Member Charles S. FallisMale/United States Recent Activity
Deviant for 13 Years
Needs Core Membership
Statistics 502 Deviations 3,401 Comments 95,113 Pageviews
×

Newest Deviations

35mm pinhole camera by FallisPhoto 35mm pinhole camera :iconfallisphoto:FallisPhoto 1 2 4x5 pinhole camera by FallisPhoto 4x5 pinhole camera :iconfallisphoto:FallisPhoto 0 0 Buster Brown B2 box camera by FallisPhoto Buster Brown B2 box camera :iconfallisphoto:FallisPhoto 0 2 Agfa/Ansco Buster Brown B2 box camera by FallisPhoto Agfa/Ansco Buster Brown B2 box camera :iconfallisphoto:FallisPhoto 2 0 Yashica Model A in grey Griptac by FallisPhoto Yashica Model A in grey Griptac :iconfallisphoto:FallisPhoto 2 0 Yashica Model A, Grey by FallisPhoto Yashica Model A, Grey :iconfallisphoto:FallisPhoto 0 8 Restored Davidson Tripod by FallisPhoto Restored Davidson Tripod :iconfallisphoto:FallisPhoto 1 4 Davidson Star-D Conquest tripod by FallisPhoto Davidson Star-D Conquest tripod :iconfallisphoto:FallisPhoto 0 2 Broken Chronos and Agfa shutters by FallisPhoto Broken Chronos and Agfa shutters :iconfallisphoto:FallisPhoto 0 0 Yet more junk art by FallisPhoto Yet more junk art :iconfallisphoto:FallisPhoto 1 0 More Junk art by FallisPhoto More Junk art :iconfallisphoto:FallisPhoto 0 0 Ansco Pneumatic and Voightlander dial shutters by FallisPhoto Ansco Pneumatic and Voightlander dial shutters :iconfallisphoto:FallisPhoto 0 8 Grey Toad Retina by FallisPhoto Grey Toad Retina :iconfallisphoto:FallisPhoto 2 6 A little more camera porn... by FallisPhoto A little more camera porn... :iconfallisphoto:FallisPhoto 0 0 Retina II in Grey cane toad by FallisPhoto Retina II in Grey cane toad :iconfallisphoto:FallisPhoto 0 0 Her bark is worse than her bite by FallisPhoto
Mature content
Her bark is worse than her bite :iconfallisphoto:FallisPhoto 2 0

Favourites

Strong Girl by Sokovikova-Art
Mature content
Strong Girl :iconsokovikova-art:Sokovikova-Art 7 12
Exa 500 + Isco Tele Westanar by TLO-Photography Exa 500 + Isco Tele Westanar :icontlo-photography:TLO-Photography 9 7 Torso by Plage-Photo
Mature content
Torso :iconplage-photo:Plage-Photo 43 7
The Red Chair by JordanBunniie
Mature content
The Red Chair :iconjordanbunniie:JordanBunniie 181 26
Amber VII by Dora-23
Mature content
Amber VII :icondora-23:Dora-23 4 0
Stone by Dora-23
Mature content
Stone :icondora-23:Dora-23 52 5
FINCH_LINDEN_12 by lydiahudgens
Mature content
FINCH_LINDEN_12 :iconlydiahudgens:lydiahudgens 44 1
- sensual nude III - by SaschaHuettenhain
Mature content
- sensual nude III - :iconsaschahuettenhain:SaschaHuettenhain 928 107
No.2 Nude-White Anklets by Snapfoto
Mature content
No.2 Nude-White Anklets :iconsnapfoto:Snapfoto 1,561 100
Nude by PixiesForGenna
Mature content
Nude :iconpixiesforgenna:PixiesForGenna 210 21
Sarah and a Washtub by NadIksodas
Mature content
Sarah and a Washtub :iconnadiksodas:NadIksodas 620 63
no title 40 by ABrito
Mature content
no title 40 :iconabrito:ABrito 645 47
Journal
Goddesses Features
An Ode to diversity & tolerance...
Because beliefs, even if we don't admit it, are important in our lifes. We all believe in something and most of us need to represent our beliefs by someone or something.
What can be our beliefs, it does not matter how we represent it, how we practise it. We all believe in the same thing, no matter the way we represent it!
I've choosen to feature here the Goddesses from different traditions or simply the Your representation of the Mother Goddess.
View the meanings of the Goddesses what they represent. That's the treasure of "so-called" Polytheistic Beliefs.
Do what you will until you harm none!
With LOVE, karemelancholia
Meme Aphrodite subit le Temps by J-Ely Mother Nature by Angel-of-Shadows30 Goddess by Flingling The Goddess by croaky - Goddess - by alatherna Goddess of the First Star by shadowgirl Dream Fairy by Flingling Goddess of the Earth by ElvenstarArt The melody of your demise by enayla indian goddess by JENJYart :thumb34
:iconkaremelancholia:karemelancholia
:iconkaremelancholia:karemelancholia 83 59
221. Nu 1 by lily-muxu
Mature content
221. Nu 1 :iconlily-muxu:lily-muxu 4 0
Shoot me by amelkovich
Mature content
Shoot me :iconamelkovich:amelkovich 2,402 142
Dark Eyes by mjbw39
Mature content
Dark Eyes :iconmjbw39:mjbw39 16 7

Critiques

Activity


I have already written one of these about film versus digital cameras, but I think I need to go into more depth about various films. Basically, there are slide films, color negative films, instant films and black and white negative films. Additionally, the black and white negative films can also be broken down into C41 process films, tabular grain films and cubic grain films.

All of the good instant film is a thing of the past. Fuji makes a tiny little sticker-sized instant film that is pretty bad, compared to what Polaroid used to make, and the Impossible Film Project film is appallingly bad. So much for instant film. If you have an old Polaroid film camera, my advice to you is to either throw it away or convert it to use 4x5 negative film. There are several people out there doing Polaroid conversions and they mostly convert the more desirable rangefinder Polaroids. Those can be made into very good negative film cameras.

Of the slide films, pretty much the only ones left that are worth considering, in my opinion, are Fuji Velvia 100 F and Kodak Ektachrome. Neither of those compares to the stunning image quality of a couple of the discontinued slide films (notably Kodachome 25 and Kodachrome 64) but it is what we have left.

There are still a few pretty decent color negative films around. The best of these are probably Kodak Ektar 100, Fuji Velvia 50, and Kodak Portra 160. Portra is a very well-known portrait film that is best known for accurately reproducing skin tones. Ektar and Velvia are both films with high saturation, and so they are probably better used for landscapes and flora. Velvia leans toward green and has higher saturation across the entire spectrum, while Ektar leans toward red, so you might want to keep that in mind when choosing a film for certain subjects. Speaking of Kodak and Fuji, I might mention that Kodak films usually lean more toward blue and Fuji films lean more toward green. Portra is a notable exception to this rule. This means that Kodak films are more suitable for shooting people and Fuji films are more suitable for shooting foliage and landscapes. With a little thought, you can use the film's properties to enhance the impact of those colors in your photos. Kodak's and Fuji's consumer grade films show this tendency to lean more toward blue and green more strongly, and this can also be used to your advantage. Personally, I would not use any color films other than Fuji or Kodak. They have been tweaking their films for far longer than anyone else, manufacturing color film is very complicated, and they have way too much of a lead on everyone else for any other manufacturer to come very close to being as accurate (and even they miss the mark quite often, which is why I have left out mentioning several of their films here).

In black and white there is a rather wide selection to choose from. Many of the best ultra-high resolution films are gone (Agfa APX25, Gigabite, Macophot 25, Efke KB25), but there are still a few left, like Adox CMS 20 II, Kodak 2468, Rollei Copex, and Rollei 25. Kodak 2468 is VERY slow, with an exposure index of about 0.5, but it is very fine grained and the resolution is very high; its exceptional slowness makes it unsuitable for anything but entirely stationary subjects though. Rollei Copex was originally intended for use as microfilm. It is now offered in 35mm, but must be developed in Spur developer if it is to be used as a pictorial film. As you can imagine, it has a very fine grain. With the Spur developer, it has very accurate duplication of tonal values. Without the Spur developer, it has extremely high contrast: black, white, and not much in between.

The more commonly used b&w films, that I am experienced with, are Ilford HP5 400, Ilford Delta Pro 100 and 400, Ilford FP4 Plus 125, Kodak T-Max 100 and 400, Kodak Plus-X 125, Kodak Tri-X, and Fuji Neopan Acros 100. Of those, my personal favorites are T-Max 100, Tri-X and Neopan. Kodak T-Max is a very good film for fine art applications -- because its extreme sensitivity to pretty much anything you can do to it during development allows you to manipulate the grain. Depending on how you develop it and in what developing agent, you can get grainless negatives, grain from hell (like medium grit sandpaper), or anything in between. Neopan has a very fine grain. Tri-X is the most foolproof film ever made; you can develop it in nearly anything, with poor lab technique and still get good results. It is a good film to use in complicated lighting. Ilford Delta Pro is another film that is tricky to develop. You need to watch your temperatures because sudden shifts in temperature can cause the film to reticulate (crack up like a dried out mud flat). Kodak Plus-X 125 is a very old standard film. Like Tri-X, it is almost goof-proof, but not to quite the same degree, and it responds more differently to different developing agents than Tri-X does.

There are also some consumer grade b&w films, like C41 process Kodak film, and Foma. There are even some lower grade films from Lomography  (like "Lucky" and "Grey Lady" ) and some special purpose films like Rollei infrared film. 

All of the b&w films and many of the color films, fall into the categories of tabular grain or cubic grain films. The individual grains of silver in the emulsion of tabular grain films are crystals that lie flat, like fish scales. In theory, this gives you a smoother transition from black to white, but in practice, that only works if everything goes perfectly. T-Max 100 is a tabular grain film, and it is one of the trickiest films to develop that exists. As previously mentioned, it is hypersensitive to just about anything you can do to it during development. If the chemistry is too warm, if you use anything other than T-Max developing agent, if you give it anything other than VERY gentle agitation, then the "scales" stand up instead of lying flat and you get grain from hell. Looking on the positive side of this, If you know this is going to happen, you can USE this quirk to enhance a photo wherein a coarse grain might be desirable. Cubic grained films are films wherein the silver crystals are ground into granules. These granules can be extremely fine (much finer than talcum powder) and so all of the ultra-high resolution films are cubic grained. Cubic grained films are far easier to develop, because they do not have scales that can stand up.

Everyone experiences this, especially film photographers: You are out walking with your camera and you come upon something that is absolutely beautiful. Since you have your camera with you, you take a photo, or a dozen, or 40. When you get back home, you find that what you shot does not match what you saw at all. The camera does not work at all like your eye and your brain. Your brain INTERPRETS things and that is how you see them. For example, you might see a dilapidated cabin in the middle of a field and completely miss the trash heap in the foreground. You were so enraptured by the cabin that you developed a sort of tunnel vision. You might see a sort of soft glow around your girlfriend that isn't really there.  The list goes on and on. Your bran enhances the appearance of things you like and ignores things it regards as extraneous or unpleasant. Your camera only captures the literal truth, even when you don't want it to. The image you captured looks nothing like as beautiful as what you saw and THAT is what you wanted to photograph.

What you have to do is carefully examine what is in front of you, breaking all the elements down, then try to figure out how to shoot something that resembles your first impression (what you remember, rather than what is in front of you). It can be done, film or digital, but it is not easy and it is not at all basic photography; it is decidedly advanced. There are a great variety of techniques for doing this and many of them are very old -- but not a whole lot has been written about many of them other than dodging and burning. If you can figure out how and when to use just half a dozen techniques, that puts you way ahead of most photographers. You can then shoot things that they can't.

Here are a few advanced techniques:
Vignetting (white outline)
Reverse vignetting (black outline)
Sabatier
Double printing
Photomontage
Soft focus/glow
Texture screening
Hand coloring
Tinting
Negative stacking
Double exposure
Toning
Split toning
Split contrast filtering

With all of these techniques, it is not a matter of either do it or don't, there are degrees to which you can do them.
Incidentally, vignetting and/or reverse vignetting will give you that tunnel vision effect you had when you first saw that cabin, and soft focus will give your girlfriend back her glow. Split contrast filtering adjusts the contrast on each of three individual layers of photographic emulsion, independently of one another. Double printing, negative stacking, double exposure and photomontage are all different ways of getting something into your photo that you only imagined was there. Toning and split toning give you color shifts (subtle or dramatic). Hand coloring (with translucent oil paints) concentrates the viewer's attention on specific details, or adds a surrealistic effect. These are just a few techniques. There are more than I can possibly write about.
35mm pinhole camera
Some time ago, I bought a cardboard 35mm pinhole camera kit. Well, I finally got around to putting it together and, while it worked, it looked like the cheap POS it was. I decided that I had wasted my money and to never do cardboard again. Anyway, I took it apart, used it as a pattern, and made one out of wood. It's a little dirty (cutting and sanding wood makes a lot of sawdust), but here it is. Finished about 10 minutes ago. I used the pinhole from the cardboard kit, the take-up spool and the winding and rewinding dowels. The rest is all mine. I made it from basswood. The piece sticking out of the top with the hole in it is the combination viewfinder and shutter. It tells you where the camera is pointed, and on a bright sunny day you then pull it up to expose the pinhole and make your photo. After about a second, you slide it back down again to cover the pinhole. I painted the whole thing black (flat inside and semigloss outside) and covered the back and the shutter with a burgundy leatherette. There is an inset of black leatherette surrounding the lens opening.
Loading...
If you are using these to prevent your work from being stolen, I have bad news for you: neither will work. They won't even slow the thieves down much. A watermark removal program can remove a watermark in about 2-3 seconds and even in a primitive program like Microsoft Paint, I can remove a signature in about an hour. With a better program, like Photoshop, I can do it in about 10 seconds. Note that I have never removed a signature, but I have done some photo restoration and I have removed children's scribbles, flaking emulsion (from folded photos) and much bigger problems from old photos.

Watermark removal programs are common and many are free. There are literally hundreds of them out there and some of them are included in programs like Lightroom and Photoshop. In fact, many of the programs that you can use to install a watermark can remove it -- not just yours, but anyone's. Here are a few watermark removal programs:
tinyurl.com/yc549c9c
tinyurl.com/y9sl2sng
tinyurl.com/y7c9pylk
tinyurl.com/ycktde8v
tinyurl.com/har8mdm

There is, however, one way of seriously protecting your artwork and it works. There are two steps:
1. Register your copyrights. You own the copyright to any artwork you make, but if you seriously want to protect it, it is worth registering it.
2. Either embed your photo with a tracking program or learn how to do an image search. A tracking program embeds a code in the image. It does not change the appearance of the image in any way, but the code is searchable. If someone steals your image and puts it on his website, you can find it.

If you have registered your copyright, you can then take the thief to court. Each violation of a registered copyright is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000. You also get damages, if you can prove them. With an unregistered copyright all you get are damages.
Aside from pinhole photography, there is another, lesser-known method of taking photos without a lens, called "pinhead" photography. This is one I have read about, but have never seen in real life. I do understand it though and would be able to do it. In pinhead photography, the camera is held with the film plane perpendicular to the subject and the image is reflected onto the film with a pinhead-sized mirror. Actually, the mirror is bigger than that, but the main part of it is masked off, using a thin, non-reflective, opaque material, exposing only a small, round pinhead-sized portion. This is a diagram of how a pinhead camera could be made:
Pinhead Camera by FallisPhoto
Black represents the cut-away body of the camera. Blue represents the mirror. Red represents the film. Yellow represents the light path.

deviantID

FallisPhoto
Charles S. Fallis
Artist | Professional | Varied
United States
Current Residence: darkroom
Favourite photographer: Jerry Uelsmann and J.K Potter
Favourite style of art: surreal nudes (darkroom manipulations)
Personal Quote: "Great photos are created, not captured." -- Ansel Adams
Interests
I have already written one of these about film versus digital cameras, but I think I need to go into more depth about various films. Basically, there are slide films, color negative films, instant films and black and white negative films. Additionally, the black and white negative films can also be broken down into C41 process films, tabular grain films and cubic grain films.

All of the good instant film is a thing of the past. Fuji makes a tiny little sticker-sized instant film that is pretty bad, compared to what Polaroid used to make, and the Impossible Film Project film is appallingly bad. So much for instant film. If you have an old Polaroid film camera, my advice to you is to either throw it away or convert it to use 4x5 negative film. There are several people out there doing Polaroid conversions and they mostly convert the more desirable rangefinder Polaroids. Those can be made into very good negative film cameras.

Of the slide films, pretty much the only ones left that are worth considering, in my opinion, are Fuji Velvia 100 F and Kodak Ektachrome. Neither of those compares to the stunning image quality of a couple of the discontinued slide films (notably Kodachome 25 and Kodachrome 64) but it is what we have left.

There are still a few pretty decent color negative films around. The best of these are probably Kodak Ektar 100, Fuji Velvia 50, and Kodak Portra 160. Portra is a very well-known portrait film that is best known for accurately reproducing skin tones. Ektar and Velvia are both films with high saturation, and so they are probably better used for landscapes and flora. Velvia leans toward green and has higher saturation across the entire spectrum, while Ektar leans toward red, so you might want to keep that in mind when choosing a film for certain subjects. Speaking of Kodak and Fuji, I might mention that Kodak films usually lean more toward blue and Fuji films lean more toward green. Portra is a notable exception to this rule. This means that Kodak films are more suitable for shooting people and Fuji films are more suitable for shooting foliage and landscapes. With a little thought, you can use the film's properties to enhance the impact of those colors in your photos. Kodak's and Fuji's consumer grade films show this tendency to lean more toward blue and green more strongly, and this can also be used to your advantage. Personally, I would not use any color films other than Fuji or Kodak. They have been tweaking their films for far longer than anyone else, manufacturing color film is very complicated, and they have way too much of a lead on everyone else for any other manufacturer to come very close to being as accurate (and even they miss the mark quite often, which is why I have left out mentioning several of their films here).

In black and white there is a rather wide selection to choose from. Many of the best ultra-high resolution films are gone (Agfa APX25, Gigabite, Macophot 25, Efke KB25), but there are still a few left, like Adox CMS 20 II, Kodak 2468, Rollei Copex, and Rollei 25. Kodak 2468 is VERY slow, with an exposure index of about 0.5, but it is very fine grained and the resolution is very high; its exceptional slowness makes it unsuitable for anything but entirely stationary subjects though. Rollei Copex was originally intended for use as microfilm. It is now offered in 35mm, but must be developed in Spur developer if it is to be used as a pictorial film. As you can imagine, it has a very fine grain. With the Spur developer, it has very accurate duplication of tonal values. Without the Spur developer, it has extremely high contrast: black, white, and not much in between.

The more commonly used b&w films, that I am experienced with, are Ilford HP5 400, Ilford Delta Pro 100 and 400, Ilford FP4 Plus 125, Kodak T-Max 100 and 400, Kodak Plus-X 125, Kodak Tri-X, and Fuji Neopan Acros 100. Of those, my personal favorites are T-Max 100, Tri-X and Neopan. Kodak T-Max is a very good film for fine art applications -- because its extreme sensitivity to pretty much anything you can do to it during development allows you to manipulate the grain. Depending on how you develop it and in what developing agent, you can get grainless negatives, grain from hell (like medium grit sandpaper), or anything in between. Neopan has a very fine grain. Tri-X is the most foolproof film ever made; you can develop it in nearly anything, with poor lab technique and still get good results. It is a good film to use in complicated lighting. Ilford Delta Pro is another film that is tricky to develop. You need to watch your temperatures because sudden shifts in temperature can cause the film to reticulate (crack up like a dried out mud flat). Kodak Plus-X 125 is a very old standard film. Like Tri-X, it is almost goof-proof, but not to quite the same degree, and it responds more differently to different developing agents than Tri-X does.

There are also some consumer grade b&w films, like C41 process Kodak film, and Foma. There are even some lower grade films from Lomography  (like "Lucky" and "Grey Lady" ) and some special purpose films like Rollei infrared film. 

All of the b&w films and many of the color films, fall into the categories of tabular grain or cubic grain films. The individual grains of silver in the emulsion of tabular grain films are crystals that lie flat, like fish scales. In theory, this gives you a smoother transition from black to white, but in practice, that only works if everything goes perfectly. T-Max 100 is a tabular grain film, and it is one of the trickiest films to develop that exists. As previously mentioned, it is hypersensitive to just about anything you can do to it during development. If the chemistry is too warm, if you use anything other than T-Max developing agent, if you give it anything other than VERY gentle agitation, then the "scales" stand up instead of lying flat and you get grain from hell. Looking on the positive side of this, If you know this is going to happen, you can USE this quirk to enhance a photo wherein a coarse grain might be desirable. Cubic grained films are films wherein the silver crystals are ground into granules. These granules can be extremely fine (much finer than talcum powder) and so all of the ultra-high resolution films are cubic grained. Cubic grained films are far easier to develop, because they do not have scales that can stand up.

Comments


Add a Comment:
 
:iconmichael-d-beckwith:
michael-d-beckwith Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2016  Hobbyist Photographer
Hope you have a merry christmas and happy new year Charles.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2016  Professional General Artist
and I hope you have a good Yule as well
Reply
:icon62dingos:
62dingos Featured By Owner Oct 20, 2016
Thanks for the advice on all things I like reading your notes
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Oct 21, 2016  Professional General Artist
You're welcome.
Reply
:iconthe---virus:
The---Virus Featured By Owner Edited Sep 15, 2016  Hobbyist Photographer
Hey there. I've seen you answer several beginners' questions in the photography forum.

Cheers for your supportive attitude!
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Sep 15, 2016  Professional General Artist
Thank you. I do have one problem though. I have no patience at all with those who have a lackadaisical attitude, who offer lame excuses and won't try. Photography, like other forms of art, is a discipline that demands focused commitment. Otherwise you won't live long enough to get any good at it.
Reply
:iconthe---virus:
The---Virus Featured By Owner Sep 16, 2016  Hobbyist Photographer
That's fair. It's tiresome when people assume there are shortcuts for everything. I see it a lot with people trying to learn guitar, who give up when they cannot play this insane metal solo after a week.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Sep 16, 2016  Professional General Artist
I know exactly what you mean. For me, building a musical instrument would be a lot easier than playing one.

Lots of people have an entirely false idea of what is going on in the life of a professional photographer. They assume it is easy. Some of them assume that I have sex with all my models too (I think those guys are projecting). Those who have ever actually even seen a shoot, or modelled for one (very few) see me clicking away and adjusting lights and they think "How hard can it be? I have a camera and I've taken photos before and it was easy." Of course they were using autoexposure and autofocus,, accepting all the decisions the camera made for them, and they are easily satisfied. Their very best photo wouldn't stand u to two minutes of serious criticism from anyone who knows art, but they don't know that. This is an extension of "I know it's good because mommy has it taped to her refrigerator." Many don't know what depth of field is. They know nothing at all about light, body language, or anything else they are going to have to not just become acquainted with but master. At this stage, they are little better than idiots. They have no clue. At all. There is way more going on than what they can see, if they have bothered to even look. They can't see how intently I am focused, how hard I am concentrating, that I am thinking about the way the light is falling on my model and how much fill I need where and of what kind, they know nothing about exposure and compensating for what the background is doing to my metering, they're not looking for skin folds, the position of the feet and hands and what that is doing as far as body language, making sure nothing looks awkward or is sagging, looking at their expressions and thinking about what that is saying, do they need makeup, where do they need it, and has the makeup artist done a good job, is this pose too clichéd, does the model have oily skin or coarse skin texture, how do I fix the scars, pimples, stretch marks, warts and moles, birthmarks, elastic marks and all of that, do I need to shoot for more or less contrast, what lens would be best, am I going to do this as a surrealistic photo and if so, what adjustments do I need to make for any of several entirely different kinds, or any of the thousand other things I have to do that tie my brain into knots on a regular basis. I mean for God's sake, I did a photo for teaching purposes titled "evolution of a pose" where I showed a nude model going through several adjustments to her pose and explained what was wrong with each one until I got to where I wanted to be and one of the first replies I got was that the guy would never have noticed that anything was wrong until I pointed it all out! This was from a guy who does photography! My models get breaks every 15 minutes, because modelling is not easy for a 110-120 pound girl, and none of these women are the female equivalent of Arnold Schwarzenegger, but I am moving around ten times more than they are and I don't get breaks, and so on. I have to watch for goosebumps too, because slender girls get cold easily and goosebumps are not exactly photogenic, and I have to make sure they are happy and don't get bored. I don't believe I have ever done a shoot that didn't leave me dripping with sweat and that didn't give me a headache. I make sure that the models are comfortable throughout though, and that they have a good time when working for me. Then there will be weeks of editing and making prints. Then there is marketing research, and actually selling the photos, contract law, book-keeping, taxes, insurance and so on. Maybe I need to write another series of my tutorials on all that.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icondjl1958:
djl1958 Featured By Owner Aug 26, 2016
Happy Birthday!!!!!  

I hope that today and the whole year to come bring you much happiness and success and contentment and fulfillment and good health (and copious remuneration for the fruits of your artistic talents and labors, too, since this is your livelihood as well as your life).

Take good care of yourself; keep up the great work in all of your artistic endeavors; take the time to enjoy your special "once-a-year day" to the fullest;

and thank you very, very much for sharing the fruits of your considerable artistic talents and skills and labors and professionalism (and also the considerable artistic talents and skills and labors and professionalism of the beautiful, hard-working ladies who pose for your "people" photographs) with all of us on DeviantArt!!!!!!   You do an outstanding job, in a number of different genres; long may you prosper!!!!!!



Birthday cake  icon        Happy Birthday Grin     Happy B-Day Caeser1993           Happy Birth Day Fella (messages)        MenInASuitcase        Happy Birthday Kero Keroppi (3)        Animation sm Happy Birthday 2 


Master of the Flute     :clarinet:         Saxophone animation 2           :trumpet:        Trombone
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Aug 27, 2016  Professional General Artist
Well, that's kind of over-the-top; not even my own family made that much fuss, but thanks!
Reply
Add a Comment: