Equipment failure during ceremony??? I need some advice

<p>@William W.<br>

The last comma—the one between the word "and" and the preceding word—is often called the <strong>serial comma or the Oxford comma</strong>. In newspaper writing, incidentally, you will seldom find a serial comma, but that is not necessarily a sign that it should be omitted in academic prose.</p>

 

<p>I may be wrong but wasn't the original post made by someone else? Now, I am seeing someone named Michelle N. made the original post. What gives? Am I dyslexic?</p>

<p>Nope, you're not suffering from a bout of dyslexia or early dementia. Mods can change your username, I think Nadine did it once for me.</p>

<p>G, Kelly took Juanita's advice #4 to heart, didn't want potential clients googling and seeing this thread.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>Moderator Note:</strong> It is true that recently, a new guideline was put into place concerning the removal of threads. It is item 15 in the Community Guidelines (for photo.net).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Please think carefully before you post in a forum. Once past the self-edit time period anything you post will remain in the forum unless it violates the photo.net Terms of Use. If you say something that you later wish you hadn't there is no mechanism to remove it. Photo.net's policy is not to remove any user contributed material unless it violates the site's Terms of Use.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As moderator, I cannot arbitrarily remove a thread unless there is good reason, namely violation of the site's Terms of Use. What this means to you, the photo.net member, is that before posting any kind of thread, think how what you reveal about yourself in the thread can affect you.</p>

<p>If you use your real name, and you are posting about client problems or technical problems you experienced on the job, realize that photo.net is very 'searchable'. Anyone, including clients, can find the threads or your posts, if they care to search, or even if they don't--they can stumble upon it just searching with your name. Besides your name, revealing other facts about yourself can also lead to others searching for your website or other online information about you.</p>

<p>You can open an account on photo.net using a pseudonym, but a 'real sounding' one--not a famous person's name or silly or nonsensical name--particularly if you intend to use the forum as a sounding board or to learn about photography (if you also run a photography business). If you opened an account with your real name, you can request a user name change, which is what was done here.</p>

<p>About posting answers, particularly with new or up and coming photographers' questions: Mary Ball, the moderator of the Wedding Forum on photo.net, has made it clear that newcomers are welcome here--in fact, any question, by any photo.net member of any level, is to be answered in a civil way. So when you post answers to questions, everyone--please give the benefit of the doubt, and just answer the question(s).</p>

<p>This is not to say peripheral discussion should not be allowed. Any reasonable and related point(s) can be made. However, points, including criticisms and negative ones, can be made gently, and at times, they are not. Let's all strive to keep discussions positive.</p>

<p>On the questioner's part, a thick skin is often necessary, because you are asking a question in a public forum, and anyone can reply--including people with a chip on their shoulder and people with insecurities. However, IMHO, it is worth it to deal with posts that may not be so helpful because you will also find many people who will provide the answers you are looking for, and then some. Whether to ask your question is a decision you should make with both eyes open.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The most common conjunction used in the English language is: "and".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In american english periods go inside the quotation marks – regardless of the "sense" of the usage.<br>

(At least I <em>believe</em> that's still considered to be the case.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Aside from the obvious apology to the B&G, I would do everything to recoup whatever you can from what you have.</p>

<p>As for kit failure, you should always have a backup body/lens on your person, or within arms reach during a ceremony. I have a second shooter who keeps his eye on me at all times, just in case everything I have fails. I have a flash on cam. regardless of whether or not I expect to need one (use it for fill or to freeze the walk during the pro/recessionals). I also have a belt pouch with an alternate lens, just in case I cannot grab my seconds cameras.</p>

<p>Hope you fair well, and lesson is learned.</p>

<p>Well I am glad the grammar rules are now as clear as mud. :)<br>

<br>

> As I was taught, the "Oxford Comma" is when there is a list. In the posts here the "and" was joining two clauses, (in both cases of this gramatical wrong-doing).<br>

<br>

> Dunno 'bout 'merican conventions, Phillip, but for we folk down here, whether or not the "Full Stop", (your "Period"), goes inside or outside the quotation marks (or brackets), is dependent upon use of the word in quotes and meaning of the whole sentence. <br>

<br>

JH should be here - he could give us all a lesson in how to not using any punctuation whatsoever within in all sentences no matter how long they be. <br>

<br>

I think I have just used up my <em>"peripheral discussion"</em> allocation.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

 

<p>In light of that allocation being used up and although, IMO, the other two contributions by me were useful to the OP . . . my opinion on how to deal with the problem is:<br /><br /><em><strong>"1. Give her the full ceremony for free." </strong></em><br /><br />This is the best suggestion and by a country mile. <br /><br />If you are serious about building your business, done properly and followed up correctly, it will be one of the best investments you could ever make.<br /><br />WW</p>

<blockquote>

<p>> Dunno 'bout 'merican conventions, Phillip, but for we folk down here, whether or not the "Full Stop", (your "Period"), goes inside or outside the quotation marks (or brackets), is dependent upon use of the word in quotes and meaning of the whole sentence. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, that's much more logical. Alas, our period-quotes placement is a holdover from the old type setting days. It only makes sense in that context.<br>

<br /></p>

<p>Didn't have the foggiest clue that the conjunction and comma usage rule was referring to a particular post(s).<br>

BTW, I did not know that another name for this comma was "Harvard comma". Will there be a Cambridge full stop next?<br>

:-)</p>

<p>I am now speaking not as moderator, but as 'myself'. I use my real name here on photo.net, and I never post anything here that I would regret, so I don't worry about anyone, including clients, finding me here. In fact, I have gotten some clients through photo.net.</p>

<p>Let me say, Michelle, that I really don't think the people who have responded have insulted you. A few (a very few) have been blunt, but by and large, you have gotten your answers. Let me also say that <strong>I made the assumption that you were not a complete beginner</strong> and had shot weddings before. This is why I was <em>surprised </em>at some of the things you did or didn't do at this wedding. I also think this is why some of the people responded with bluntness and with "you should have"s. Unlike Juanita, I think saying "you should have" is OK, given the assumption I just described. (Juanita--I also don't think any of the respondants were particularly self righteous, acting like vultures or claimed they never messed up in their lives.)</p>

<p>One of the most basic and first things a wedding photographer learns is to have a Back Up (in this case, complete kit of camera, lens and flash) available at all times, ready to grab 'in an instant', particularly for important parts of the wedding. This being the case, I am not surprised that people made strong comments about your not having a back up 'kit' <strong>ready to go</strong>.</p>

<p>A wedding photographer also learns to handle changing conditions (particularly lighting), client lateness, and scheduling problems with aplomb--both technically and socially. A wedding photographer learns to plan ahead, anticipate and make contingency plans. Now, even if you had not realized how quickly the light would fade, etc., you could always fall back to your contingency plan (Plan B), because having a Plan B is probably the second thing a wedding photographer should learn. Plan B in this case is actually one and the same as the Back Up. If you had a complete second kit ready to go (on your shoulder), you would have grabbed it (or swapped a lens, flash, or camera body) and things would have been fine. There are several solutions and alternatives for your problem situation, but the Back Up would have been the simplest and fastest to implement, and would have produced fine results. You would not be where you are now. Barring that--the Re-creation would have also been completely adequate (Plan C).</p>

<p>The reason I am repeating much of what has been said is to explain why people responded as they did. I can understand why. If you are not a complete beginner, it is surprising you didn't have the Back Up and the Plan B.</p>

<p>One final comment. Re the concession to the client. I am not so sure giving them the full ceremony for free is appropriate because we don't know the extent of the problem with the files from the ceremony. It may not be enough. You say you have 5 files you can work on, and calling 5 files 'the ceremony' may be overestimating. If you feel like it, tell us what the problem is with the files and whether you have the following:</p>

<p>1.) Processional shot of the bride and dad walking down the aisle.</p>

<p>2.) View of the wedding party and couple at the altar from the 'back'.</p>

<p>3.) Full length view of the couple turned to each other.</p>

<p>4.) Any ring exchange shot.</p>

<p>5.) The kiss at the end.</p>

<p>6.) The couple recessing.</p>

<p>IMHO, if you don't have the above, you are missing some major parts of ceremony coverage. I consider items 1 and 2 very important. If you have at least those, you may be in a better position than if you don't.</p>

<p>There are many photographers skilled with Photoshop on these forums, and if you need help, ask. You don't have to post the images, just describe what is wrong. People have been known to help others with their files, if asked. While Juanita's suggestion to have a local group of associates you can rely upon for information and advice is a good suggestion, let me say that photo.net is an international group of photographers. You would be hard pressed to find the breath of knowledge represented here. I recently asked a technical question about moire problems with digital files, and got the best information--information I probably could not find easily in any other way.</p>

<p >

<p>

<p >Michelle. How long have you been shooting weddings, and how many?</p>

<p >It can take many years to be completely proficient in this business.</p>

<p >Take care. Mike.</p>

 

<p > </p>

</p>

</p>

<p>Actually the Tamron 70-200 is KNOWN to suck at autofocus in low light. It will hunt and hunt. I know because I have one. I read so much about it but still got one and was shock to see how bad it was. So I am not surprised you keep getting out of focus shots.<br>

Sold it and got a Nikon 80-200 F2.8 and a world of difference.<br>

Thomas</p>

<p >This is just a question for the Mods. I understand that once posted in this photo.net forum, posts are not deleted unless there are some violations of forum rules.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Are posts edited by the Mods even if there is no violation of the rules?</p >

<p >If the forum policy dictates that this is quite normal and acceptable then let us be clear about that. I totally support if posts are being edited or nuked for profane language or violation of published forum policy. However, any editing other than that leads to a slippery slope. Don't you think?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Thank you.</p>

<p>G.--normally questions about moderation should be directly sent to a moderator, or to photo.net administration through the usual channels of communication--there is an e-mail address for this--and not asked in a forum thread.</p>

<p>However, since I posted the clarification above, I will answer your question here. You noticed I edited your question, no doubt. So firstly, <strong>threads</strong> are not deleted unless Terms of Use guidelines are violated. <strong>Posts</strong> may be removed or edited by moderators, certainly for violation of published forum policy, but also at their discretion, with the policies as their guide.</p>

<p>Certainly you can understand Michelle's concern about revealing so much that her clients can find this thread. It is my opinion that changing names for continuity and removing information that reveals too much about Michelle, her website and business, <em>considering that this thread is about a client problem</em>, is appropriate and does not damage the thread or anyone's right to comment. Hence, I do not believe doing so leads to a slippery slope, in this case.</p>

<p>Folks,</p>

<p>This topic has reached the end of it's useful life. Michelle is either going to take the good advice she has gotten here or she is not. Either way, I'm closing it.</p>

<p>-President of Photonetkistan</p>