Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

I just was worried I would be advertising something wrong if I am offering 4K at 3840. I'm doing all future hi def work in 4096x2160. Prior to that I was doing 3840x2160. It is not that big a step up between the two, but the 4096 will fit the bill for 4K, so no one can complain. Some of my early work I only have in 3840. So if I get an inquiry I will tell them it is UHD and don't have it in 4K, but UHD is very close to it. Probably no one would complain either way. I'm dealing with curators of special collection libraries and art museums and possibly galleries. They are generally MA's or PhD's with art history degrees. I didn't even know what 4K was myself until a few days ago. I looked it up and it said the image is 4000 pixels wide. So that is an easy way to understand it. I guess a Blu-ray is a 1K.

Well, I like to have the right nomenclature. There is always enough stuff to be critical of. Honesty of advertised specs should be basic. Thanks!

I want to make some 4K video of still photos. My still photos are all hi-res scans that I am importing into the software. So I am not upscaling or photographing the photos, I'm downscaling scans. The software I'm using has 2 hi-res options for exports. Are either of these two OK to advertise as 4K or does 4K have to be the 4096x2160 only? 3840x2160 4096x2160 I don't care about the ratio on these options as my files are not widescreen. Also, can 4K be MP4 or AVI, does that matter at all? I plan to use the files for projection. Thanks

Have a large group of Civil War images in my digital archives. Here is some of it from the 1850s to 1870s. Read up on Mathew Brady. He financed the photo crew to document the Civil War and ended up dying broke. His photos were not well received. Everyone just wanted to forget about the Civil War and move on. (Some male nudity of soldiers showing battle wounds.)

Portfolio is basic. Keep at it. I started to make video portfolios or reviews of my photo projects. I used to just do standard still online portfolios. Video portfolios open up new display opportunities. Give it a try.

I wouldn't call it a buyers market unless you have deep pockets. I keep buying lotto tickets in any case. Are there comparison photos for FPN ranges? Thanks

Beautiful work!

If you expect $$, if $$ is made, you need a contract.

That is what sets an artist apart...uniqueness of view / execution.

Have you shot any concert pix as yet? Lets see some of what you produce. I feel your pain about passes. They wont give me a pass either. Nor for the pollical RNC DNC conventions here. I like concert photography, but access is an issue. I mean the world is polluted with photogs. No shortage, so it is a hard nut to crack. If you got connections, then OK, but without connections things are not easy. Best bet is to shoot what you can and not pine away waiting for the big time. You may be waiting all your life, just press the button. If you hit the big time, OK and if you don't hit the big time, still OK...you are covered. And lens flare is OK as long as the photo is not ruined from flare. Good luck!

Cutouts...defaced found photography https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v5ELf69g6c&t Found first one in an old family photo album. That got me thinking about their past crimes committed and spurred an interest in collecting.

Here are examples from the Sigma T mount 100mm f2 single element diffusion lens from the 1980's. These were shot wide open. I didn't put my name on the files as I don't want to be associated with flower photography. I was experimenting with it and needed something to shoot.

Forget the notes, what have your experiments yielded? My advice is if you want to smear stuff, smear it on a UV filter, not the lens. And if you smear the lens, make it dedicated and put a clean UV filter on it to preserve the look until you are finished with the project if you want things to match.

They made adjustable diffusion lenses for the Pentax67 if you can adapt it. Also T mount diffusion lenses but aperture is kinda fixed. The later was a magnifying glass mounted in a sliding tube to adjust focus. The T mount lenses was heavily diffused.

Daguerreotypes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMlLv7SAcLk Showcases various daguerreotypes and related ephemera from 1850s to 1870s. Beginning of film is a rich man's household who also was a daguerreotypist and shot some self-portrait dags. I believe the group of servants, carriages, etc was his, but can't remember. I have all the notes to 99% of the images, but making titles is not my thing. With the software I use, and not counting titles, a film like this could be made in under a minute. A few tasteful nudes are mixed in the film. Vast amount of material originated from the J. Paul Getty Museum. Balance of content is from my archive. If I hit the lotto I will hire someone to make titles for me. PS...someone said they don't like my projector sound. It is music to my ears, turn it off / down if you don't like it. I'm a big fair use user with images, but what excuse do you have to use other's music as fair use? Plus I don't like music with my films , 99% of them anyway.

I had read this and wondered if it is true. Not a lot of advantage to 4K over 2K for 16mm. "2K, 4K, etc is mainly measurement of width, not height. So adding extra width to the current 2K 4:3 capture frame doesn't really increase the overall quality of the resolution unless your target frame is also 16:9. To put this in context, 8mm, Super 8 and regular 16mm are all 4:3 aspect ratios. So, as it stands, if you capture in 2K using the entire 4:3 sensor of the current 2K camera, the only way you could see all that information at that 2K resolution is if you float that 4:3 2K image in a 3K or 4K 16:9 frame since there isn't really an industry standard for editing and releasing 2K as 4:3. To prove this to yourself, open up a 4K 16:9 frame in Photoshop and then create insert a 4:3 image that will reach from top to bottom of that 4K 16:9 fram. Then measure the 4:3 image area left to right and you will find that it is pretty close to 2K across. Therefore, if your desire is to output a 4K 16:9 final, the 4:3 image in the middle of that 4K 16:9 frame would, for all practical purposes, still be only 2K in resolution. You can do that now with the current 2K camera. However, if your desire is to fill a 16:9 4K frame then you would have to give up detail at the top or bottom of your 4:3 target frame of film." I was thinking 4K would give double the resolution over 2K. ...what say you?

https://unwritten-record.blogs.archives.gov/2016/01/11/film-preservation-101-why-are-old-films-sometimes-pink/ Internet photo

When you ask these questions why are you not doing a film test to find the answer? Asking is fine, but testing is for sure. In the old days they would test lighting set-ups and everything with stand-ins for important shots. Is your budget too tight for a short film test? I'm not poo-pooing you, I know tight budgets myself, but just curious.

That wont see in the dark. More of a figure of speech. But if it works with moonlight only, then that is impressive.

Well, looks like Vimeo is a much better vehicle than YouTube is for the artist that has strong underground content. They didn't bother me at all...(keeping my fingers crossed.) Censorship is a big issue nowadays and getting worse every day that goes by. YT would poop their pants if I put that vid up there. I should have gone into more detail on the intertitles as to why high level infrared flash candid photography is tough to do. I don't like to write much on the videos, so I will go into a little detail about IR flash here. With the video processing software I use, making pages of text is not like writing on a word processor. Just making each page match the previous page of text is an issue. Plus I hate those films that require you to read a book before watching the content. Even in my artist's books I have little text in them. A big problem with IR flash in the dark is you have to shoot blind. You can't see a thing on your screen. If it is daylight or dusk you can see something, but not at night. Same thing with your controls, you can't see anything. You have to tape down the controls so they don't move or glue something on your main settings to be able to feel in the dark where you are at. There have been times when I was out shooting that it was so dark I could not see what the people were doing. So I take a IR flash photo to see what is going on. When shooting candid work you don't have the luxury of chimping. You can get a shot or two off and guess at the exposure and focus, but what you get is what you get. One of the keys to success for 'in your face' candid work is the ability to keep moving... aka hit and run photography. So you can't stay put shootng off a dozen photos and chimp in front of people to see what you got. Sometimes you do a lot of shooting with IR flash and can't review your work in a timely fashion. Everything is zone exposure and zone focus. If something was not right, start deleting in-camera. With IR flash I can't even tell if I got the shot as my screen is blacked out for auto review and the flash recycle light has gaffers tape on it. Any lit controls of the flash or camera are shut off or taped up. Some of the flashes and cams have so many blinking lights on them they are lit up like GD Xmas trees. I shut off or tape everything up for blackout photography. One time I got roughed up in a crowd and my flash got bumped. I had taken dozens of photos only to find out later my flash was not working as the flash was not in good contact with the hotshoe. You can't hear the flash recycle either, everyplace I shoot is very noisy. With IR flash you are dependent on the flash for 100% of the exposure lighting. IR flash does not blend available light with IR light when shot in the dark. The only thing that may show up is strong incandescent lights in the background or fires. LED light barely shows up, at least at the exposure setting my cam is set to for IR flash. But none of the pinpricks of light in the background helps with lighting the subject. With IR flash you must blend exposure to cover 2 feet to 10 feet sometimes. So you expose for 5 feet and burn in and dodge the far and close subjects in post if you want the whole thing doable. It is not studio photography. IR flashes are generally slow to recycle as well. The old school IR flashes were faster, but they gave off an orange glow to the flash head. The new IR flashes don't give off much glow, but do not recycle that fast, taking a few seconds when set to high power. Sometimes I miss shots due to slow flash recycle times. Another thing that hurts candid work is having a big honking IR flash on your cam. It increases the real estate tremendously to call attention to yourself. Weegee once said there is no such thing as a candid camera, there are only candid photographers. While true to a certain extent, gear plays a big part with candid work. The best gear for candid street photography is small and easy to adjust manual controls. Leica perfected what was needed in a reporters cam eons ago. With a Leica you can just count the clicks to adjust your controls, you don't even have to look at the cam. You can feel for the lens focus knob and know where the O' clock setting is on the lens barrel for 7 feet. Some of the garbage they produce nowadays don't even have distance settings engraved on the lens for zone focus work or F stops...everything is dummied down. (I didn't shoot my IR flash with a Leica...just saying.)

Thanks Phil, but is there a mainstream software you can recommend that does this conversion and can handle sync sound?

How is that? Does it have infrared capabilities?

Well, lots of ADD, so they have to go quick. Also promoted as a still cam. https://www.thephoblographer.com/2019/07/11/new-sigma-fp-worlds-smallest-full-frame-mirrorless-camera/ Too mad no easy to use manual controls for still photos.

I like because of size. But who know how long it will run on its little battery. Once you add all the add-on crap it loses size benefit. I like candid work, so size is an issue for me.

Lots of history gone...where are the films for Kodak's, Ansco's, Dupont's and Agfa's film operation?? Amazing how they made film back in the day with no hi-tech...huh? Especially Kodachrome. Here is Kodak's film spooling operation from 1945. Taken in the dark with infrared flash (bulbs)