Martin Carlsson

On a good day I find keywording to be an artform, always trying to improve, can give one an edge at times (niches) and is part of work - I rather make a mistake myself then paying someone else to do it for me. Think we're on the same page.

Ian - thanks for sharing and that is a crazy amount of images, I'm in awe! Well done! Hopefully your RPI is lifted from many distributors and I presume your type of imagery has a longer lifespan than what I'm used to. /Best

IMHO - Previous experience with either agency doing the keywording or a 3rd party has not been satisfactory - gained time gets lost when double checking and filling in omissions.However, I can see benefits of getting "lectured"/consulted on keywording strategies and is always on the lookout for research/industry papers on the subject - it is a constant work in progress, isn't? I might as well add that I'm a bit of a control freak when it comes to "my metadata", but no master at any stretch of the imagination, so I don't think I would ever trust anyone else enough to see full benefits. Some days I love keywording and some days it is just a complete "stop" and nothing comes out... Fully populated Lightroom keywordlists and automatic adding of synonyms is a big time saver, many sets of images share 90% of their keywords.

11 zooms, 4 reported sales totalling $$$.

Absolutely - I don't even print from PS or LR normally but through Canon Print Studio Pro. For reference, from Lumionous Landscape Dec 2015 "In a colour-managed workflow, something somewhere has to convert colours from the image's colour space to the printer's colour space. That's done using the profile of the image colour space, and the profile for the printer/paper combination's colour space. Generally there are two choices: The printer driver does it. (The option "printer manages colour" really means "printer driver manages colour") The application (e.g. Photoshop) does it. Either works OK; you just need to make sure one but not both do it."

I beg to differ The printer with specific driver and associated paper profiles (for that printer and paper combination) will know better than any generic Photoshop printer settings- for example the printer/driver will know better how to accurately sprinkle the ink on paper then PS. This has very little to do with "normal" colour management. Driver and paper profile in combination will send best data to printer for accurate reproduction. All IMHO and after researching it when setting up the last printer (Pixma Pro-10). Of course I could "generally" be wrong - but I'm gobsmacked by the accuracy I get - I use colour managed camera and screens, but not printer. So I stick by my logic - driver update or difference in settings between the two computers - the only reason for printer to print differently from the two computers are that there is a difference in the data/instructions it is given.

I only print from my desktop so can't say I've come across the problem. Logic tells me that the problem lies within one of the computers as the presumption is that the printer will handle the same data GIVEN the same way and thus output the same way. So if I was having your problem I would approach it like this and doing it when having both computers side-by-side with said image opened on both - easiest way to spot a difference in settings. Does both computers have the same driver (and is it up to date?) for the printer installed? Is everything within Photoshop that could affect the print, even before you click "Print" the same? Color Settings --> Working Spaces, Color Management Policies, Conversion Options, Advance Controls etc. - check side by side. Is both computer's PS working colour space the same? Is the image properly tagged with a colour profile, if not is PS set up to assume or attach the same colour profile? and you are printing directly through PS - not through a plugin (i.e. Canon's Photo Studio)? Hitting "Print" --> "Print Settings" - is everything here the same, under ALL the tabs, such as Media Type (is the correct and perhaps a custom paper profile chosen, especially if using "nice" paper and does it match the actual paper being used?), Additional Features, Print Quality, Color Intensity (Auto or Manual overrides/adjustments) Back out from "Print Settings" and going to "Color Management". Are all the Color Management the same - Color Handling i.e. Printer Manages Color (in my opinion it should be left to the printer, it knows itself the best) or Photoshop Manages Color (if yes to this one, is the same Printer Profile chosen)? Rendering Intent (Relative Colorimetric is my preferred way to go) - same settings on both computers? So again, if possible do your process with the said image, side-by-side and check/double check everything. Good luck and hopefully you'll find the issue. Bit off-topic. I'm using the Canon Pixma Pro-10 (which is fundamentally the same as the Pro-10s) and always print through Canon's "Print Studio Pro". Not done any colour calibration on actual print, but is blown away with this printer's capability to print/match what you see on the screen. I don't know how they did it, to me it is pure magic and works across my very picky selection of papers - Canon Glossy Photo Paper "Everyday Use" (GP-501) for scrapbook and "normal" photos , Canon Pro Platinum (PT-101) for high-end glossy photo prints and Canson (not Canon) Infinity Platine Fibre Rag for all super high end photo/fine art prints - I can gush about this paper for hours, the texture, the colours in combination with the pigment printer and of course it's longevity which when handled right can be way past the life of even my grand children (and I don't even have any yet!)

Sorry @Jools Elliott - just thinking out loud/analyzing for fun and/or for personal business circumstances feasibility purposes and wanted to test @geogphotos scepticism "I can't see how it make financial sense to stand there in one spot for several hours and then spending all this time in post-production is valid or not" 5 days x 8hrs = 40 hours or one work week (using "normal" jobs as reference). Don't know how much time and expenses (travel, lodging, setting up/breaking down, length of time to shoot etc) should be attributed to these 30 time lapses. One work week equates to 1 / (52 weeks - 5 weeks holiday (Swedish normal)) = 1/47 of yearly work capacity or 2.1% Average ("Average") regional (Sweden, west coast) gross annual salary $32,910, average gross annual salary at my educational level ("UniDegree") (3 years of uni, not photography unfortunately, but finance) $59,584. Re-worked to hourly wage; for $32,910/(40x47) = $17,50 per hour for Average or $59,584/(40x47) = $31,69 per hour for UniDegree. What these 30 theoretical time lapses need to generate (for me) to be time well spent (remember this will be low end requirement level as it is excluding directly associated costs and dead time, as well as overhead costs) On "Average" level 40 hours x $17,50 = $700 which equates to $700/30 or $23,33 per time lapse, but collective gross earnings are more important/interesting for the purpose of this "test" On "UniDegree" level 40 hours x $31,69 = $1,268 which equates to $1,268/30 or $42,27 per time lapse So the question or the criteria to be able to say whether the time/effort/investment is worthwhile is "Will these 30 time lapses collectively earn at least $700-$1,268 during a reasonable time frame?"

@RedSnapper and @Matt Ashmore I think the evidence is stacked against him... Several articles mentions that the RAW file (and the other RAW files before and after the disputed image) had been examined. Composites are not allowed and regardless, he claims it's a straight shot at 30s, ISO 5000 and using flash. The anteater was only present in one, not in any image(s) before or after. Sure it was a long exposure and the anteater could just have popped in and then disappeared quickly - indicates pretty rapid movements on it's behalf. Also five scientists (two mammal experts, one taxidermy specialist, one external South American mammals expert and one external anteater researcher) working independently all came to the same conclusion - that the anteater in the winning image is/was identical to the taxidermy anteater that just so happens can usually be found at the visitors' centre at the entrance to the reserve where the winning image was taken. He had been visiting the National Park for three years to get the right conditions to be able to photograph the termite mound. So he didn't just strike it lucky with the conditions with the termite mound, in the midst of him finally getting lucky with the conditions, in strolls a perfectly behaved anteater, positions itself just right for some time during the brief widow of opportunity during the 30 second exposure and the photographer was perfectly prepared for this to happen. Dude was just not a little bit lucky, but extremely lucky and to top it off he also was prepared to be this lucky - I guess he just had an inkling that he would strike gold this time - a lucky genius, with talent, heaps of patience, nerves of steel and also a frequent photography competition entrant with many awards to his name so he knew what kind of image it would take to stand a chance of winning.

Unexplainable "extra post" - please delete if possible, as I can't seem to find how to.

The realtime chat, as in not voice, but text based messaging back and forth in realtime, is available in 24/7 in english (US site, which I usually use over swedish) - unsure about other languages. Personally I find realtime chat more convenient/better than phone support, but that's me. 1. Options Available 2. Choosing "Chat" at previous screen leads to this - usually within a minute or so the chat goes "live"

Big thumbs up to the Nisi v5 Pro 100mm system. Quite a step up from the Lee system in terms of build quality, Nisi is absolutely first class/top notch, but pricey. The built in (but removable) CPL on the V5 Pro systems is easily adjusted/turned using 1 of 2 knobs that rotates it and make it a lot easier when working together with other rectangular filters (can use the CPL and three additional 100mm filters. Absolutely no vinjetting with this systems - widest I go is the Canon Ø82 16-35 f/2.8 Personally I exclusively use a polarizer and NDs, gotten rid of all others. Nisi's filter are in my eyes 100% cast-free. Overall the system is excellent, no light leaks, durable and IMHO worth the considerable premium over Lee/Cokin. My favourite and most used is the 10-stop ND, looking at adding the 20-stop one to eliminate a bit of stacking at times. I'm not "purist" so polarizer and NDs are the only ones needed, everything else easily and more controllably done in post with at least equal quality, most often much better. @geoff s As I understand it after a quick research is that all mirrorless should work fine with linear ones, (and circular) whilst some dSLRs can be thrown off in terms of metering and AF - unless shooting in "live view" I presume. Linear ones considered more effective and are generally cheaper. "Circular Vs. Linear Polarizers: There are two types of polarizing filters available linear or circular. Linear polarizers are more effective and less expensive than circular ones. But circular polarizers are needed with just about any camera that has a through-the-lens metering system, or autofocus. The reason for this is that both of these systems use semi-silvered mirrors to siphon off some of the light coming though the lens. If that light is linearly polarized it renders either the metering or the autofocus ineffective. This means that you’re going to have to buy circular polarizers unless you’re shooting with a pre-1970’s camera, or a view camera." (Luminous-Landscape.com)

I have the photography CC package + premiere pro CC stand alone. I have realtime chat 24/7 and phone support (office hours) available to me, as well as community forum(s) and e-mail. I've used the real time chat on 2-3 occasions and it has been first class, solving the problems pretty swiftly which were in my book difficult and I consider myself pretty knowledgeable when it comes to (windows) computers, software and usually able to sort out all and any issue myself (so let's say 99.99%). Good luck!

Just wanted to say regardless of what lab quote you got/get for an A3+ - their standard papers won't match the feel, texture and overall quality of a well-chosen paper such as the Canson Infinity Platine Fibre Rag or similars - the papers are an art to themselves and something to add to your sales pitch. Also the fact that you oversaw/made it yourself (as in printing at home/office/studio) I think add value. All IMHO of course. I don't know if you stated the reason for doing this, but if it is for print sales - then obviously adding services, "building it up" with matting and mounting, framing and provenance paperwork and emboss stamping all adds to "buying" something special and the further into it you go the bigger the margins and/or numbers of which the margins work. Yet again IMHO. Thomas Heaton did a pretty good video going through the entire process that might be of interest + added a few more videos that might be of interest. Personally I've not done any real marketing or currently even have shop (used to, now I'm in-between websites), all sales have been e-mail/word of mouth from local people and SMBs, but without doing a detailed analysis brutal "Brutus" (nickname for the Pixma-10) has definitely paid for himself and would be a profit centre with a bit more focus on it - too many things to do. However, "personal needs" printing for the wife's scrapbooking/family photo albums is costing a fair penny landing him in loss territory, but the convenience with which it is done is worth a lot to me and you know what they say "happy wife, happy life". Can't see how my ego would survive without him, he really takes mediocracy and spits out stunning pieces of art that people are willing to pay good money for and/or that we're personally happy to decorate the walls with. All this print/printer talk makes me lust for the Canon Pixma imagePROGRAF PRO 1000 to be able to go bigger, which are completely GAS and ego-based, not found any business reasons to be able to go that big - but maybe "if you build it they will come" arguments can be used. Hmm.

Loads of info regarding longevity for papers and inks: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ For example the Canson Infinity paper http://www.canson-infinity.com/sites/default/files/wir_canson_2015_10_04.pdf