<center><img src="http://truth.smugmug.com/photos/127360490-L.jpg"></center><p>
I'm over it. This is as good as it's gonna get. Hopefully it'll print well in a newspaper.<ul><li><a href="http://truth.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=127360490">EXIF</a></li></ul>

Maybe also try some black strips on the softbox to add definition to the main light.

Might also try moving the softbox back -- they're *intended* to make the lighting soft (duh!) but on this shape it's not as necessary as on a wrinkly old chick.

Just out of camera view. Play with their positioning.

but dynamic range is definitely a possibility in sharpness there. It looks like you're asking a lot, especially on the highlights.

This gets sent off tomorrow afternoon...

We could all learn something from this, I'm sure.

Thanks!

shooting for newspapers is tricky - it's easy because image quality is almost irrelevant and it's difficult because newspaper's resolution (or lack thereof) can ruin a great shot...

My experience is more than a decade old, but not much has changed with newspapers since then, so here are a few things to consider.

- line screen (resolution) - this will affect how much of the text on the bottles be visible or turn to mush

- printed size of the image - again, this is important. If, say, the word "chromatistic" is an important part of the image, you need to know if it will be readable in the newspaper print

- your image will likely lose the nice shadow on the bottom and the definition of the bottle tops. Nice shadows defining the sides of the bottle would also be difficult for most newspapers to reproduce.

BTW, very nice picture

The image is going to print in a cropped version with the bottles being about 3 inches tall. It's part of an add so the text in the image only needs to convey that it is chromastics as the rest of the info will be repeated in the ad. newsprint image quality does suck, but hopefully some of the shadow will show up. If not, se la vie...the work is being done for free.

I did the same in college for a while, until I read an interesting article by a web-design professor.

The guy pointed out to his students that while working for free or super-cheap seems like a good way to get experience, it drives down wages for people working in the industry. Why would someone pay a just-graduated student $40k/year equivalent when they can get an about-to-graduate student for $15k/year equivalent? So the just-graduated guys have trouble getting work, lower their prices, and the effect cascades.

Has suggestion was to charge a fair proportion of the going rate, depending on education and skill level. Everyone's time is worth money.


&lt;/soapbox&gt; ;-)

from dealer's table...

Sorry, I disagree - if a talented amateur wants to do work free of charge - be it because of friendship or just to gain experience - more power to him.

A good photographer will always find work. A mediocre one should change profession. IMO, of course.

I agree that I'm not good enough to steal photogaprhy business from a true pro. And when I shoot my friends' weddings I'm not stealing bread from a "real" photographer's table, because they wouldn't pay as much as a "real" photograph charges anyway.

But my old employer went bankrupt because 1/3 of his staff left to start a competing company, and they dropped prices by 10% -- so the boss matched. They dropeped another 10% which was matched ans so-on until people became desparate because nobody was making any money. They were taking jobs at a loss to provide instant cash, sold of the gear, and are basically out of business. The undercutting killed off the market.

So I think there's a balance. I think we've all done some free work as a resume builder or other reason, but we should keep in mind that a long-term career of giving things away only works for the independently welathy.

You can get a sense of how it will look by printing it on a sheet of actual newsprint. You can buy a pad of it at an art supply store and trim out some pages to size (8.5 x 11 or 11 x 17). Set the printer's linescreen to 85. Looking at your shot, I'm going to guess that the cast shadow at the bottom is not going to reproduce, it's too light. The big type on the bottles will probably be legible, but not the rest. i'm also worried the white caps are a little too light - I'd do some burning in there.

<center><img src="http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/2248/l1060539am7.jpg"></center><p>85 lines, on newsprint

<center><img src="http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/9002/l1060545gm7.jpg"></center><p>begging for some more contrast. those grey tones on the back caps are around 5% black, I'd go for 10% minimum.

<center><img src="http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/6707/l1060544uu2.jpg"></center><p>shadow does in fact, print. but reflective effect is kind of lost. and way too much banding.

I'm a talented amateur!

and oddly enough it's the same as mine.

Next time I'll be sure to do some test prints.

just sayin'!

on the whole, dot gain will make it appear darker, while at the same time decreasing contrast. midtones (like most skintones) are the areas where the most trouble happens. they can turn out quite muddy if you don't compensate for dot gain which can be as much as 25% or more on newsprint. in areas of 5% black or less, you might be facing dot loss (ie. a total blowout). this is a difficult shot to get right for newspaper. hope you can post a close-up pic of the printed sample when it comes out.