rick_m.

<p>IPhone 5s. When I took a vacation to Portsmouth and London a couple of years ago I took a small Nikon point and shoot. </p> <p>I rarely take pictures without a purpose though. I have a D7100 which I guess could be a walking around camera but I find that when I go to take pictures for me I carry pretty much the same things I carry at work.</p>

<p>I like your portfolio. Some very nice pictures. I would work on some fashion shots with real impact. The ones on the site are nice but not WOW if you know what I mean. Think of who your market is and aim your shots to dazzle them. Fashion designers are edgy folks so they will want to see edgy pictures. Just an example. </p> <p>If the purpose of your site is to drive business to you then you have a great deal of work to do on Search Engine Optimization (SEO). You will want your home page to mention where you are and contain your desired search terms. Google seems to like a lot of text so you will probably want to put some there. <br> I won't go into all of the details but consider this. You are essentially working the Raleigh market. Your site should target that market as well as Rolesville and other area towns and villages. To do that all of these locales should be mentioned on your site and best on the first page. See what I mean. If you did a search for "Raleigh Wedding Photographers" your site would never show up.</p> <p>So get with someone who truly understands SEO and let them go wild with your site. Getting on the first page of Google can be a life-changer. To do that you have to do very specific and very technical things. Look at the top three photographers on a Google search for "Raleigh Wedding Photographers". Their front pages are text rich and utilize the search terms you want your site to appear under. Now consider this....Raleigh-wedding-photography.com is available. If you want to get ahead of the competition which is better? The address of your site or that one? Right? If I were you I know how I would spend my next $10.00. Figure out how to get your main search term in the address. <br> Best of luck with your photography. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Sometimes it is not possible to defend against every possibility. Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition as Monty Python says. There are times when ones humanity transcends ones business sense. Find out what happened to the father. If he has recovered just fine, go with what Peter said. </p> <p>If the poor man died and the family understandably does not want pictures from the event you may want to consider that you are not producing a product and just let it pass. What is three hours balanced against the chance to do a really kind and thoughtful thing. If the family wants product from the event then go ahead and charge your normal hourly rate.</p> <p>A good rule of thumb is to put yourself in the shoes of the son. What course of action on your part will make him honor and respect you as a professional. You may have to invest three hours in the process but it may pay off in a big way when he calls you againor refers you for Mr. Big's wedding. </p>

<p>Is the problem taking the pictures or is it finding a market for them? As a PJ I have always known that I could take (and do) take pictures that will not make it to print. Is this political correctness or simply understanding a market and then creating a product to fill that market.</p> <p>From a commercial standpoint (and therefor from a publishing standpoint) any picture with a strong political point of view is self-limiting. Unless the photo transcends politics and cultural sensitivities its subject both sells and limits its sale. My point is that often what is described as PC is actually a commercial decision. </p> <p>Suppose I was editing a newspaper in New Orleans. A freelance PJ takes a picture of a minstrel show revival done by some civil war reenactors. If I choose not to publish the picture I can be certain that many people would call my decision political correctness. I would maintain that it is not that at all. It is my editorial judgment based upon my desire to serve my market. This picture could not stand as wild art without a story to support it and I may not feel that story worthy of the space. Do I know that the picture may offend a number of my readers? Sure. Editors offend readers all of the time. It is sort of what editors do/control. But when deciding to offend, there should be some compelling motive for accepting that offense. It should serve some greater purpose than simply publishing the salacious and such.</p> <p>When we look back on pictures of black Americans from the 1940's and 50's we are observing a world in which political correctness itself demanded that whites and blacks rarely be shown freely associating. Not having blacks date whites or Jews as members of one's country club WAS politically correct then. Never but never would you see a story about homosexuals or a Japanese man dating a white woman. We have to be careful about the use of the term 'political correctness'. It is a moving target. I think we are moving in the right direction. It would be odd to wish to reset the clock. <br> The internet offers a venue for artists unlike anything before. You can publish just about anything and maybe even find an audience for it. This was certainly not always the case. So my point is that no matter what one defines as 'politically incorrect', unlike in the past, it finds a potential audience on this media. So with the possible exception of clearly illegal subject matter, there has never been a better time to publish just about anything. </p>

<p>The OP's first post makes no sense at all. The link he sent (perhaps the reason for the post at all) shows the work of a fairly accomplished photographer, using great Canon gear to good affect. It would be preposterous for that photographer to buy the mixed-up bag he proposes and even questionable that he would switch to Nikon. So I am not buying his post at all.</p> <p>For the record. I currently own and have extensively used the D2H, D2X, D3 and D4 as well as most of the lenses he mentions. I think there are some fun reasons to use the D2H and the D2X is still a capable rough-service camera for good light. The rest of the kit is not thoughtfully considered IMO.</p> <p>Let us see if the OP posts again. </p>

<p>Shun is right. If you are going to limit yourself to F/16-32 you should not buy an 810. There is no good lens on an 810 at F/32.</p> <p>So you mind telling us why you believe you ought to shoot at these apertures? </p>

<p>If you always shoot raw, fast, low ISO, from a sturdy tripod, with Nikon's very sharpest lenses in good light then this might be a significant thing about which to worry. I almost never do all of that so the amount of sharpness I add with my D7100 will have infinitely more to do with my technique and other factors than whether or not it has an AA filter. And it will potentially be different with each shot.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Nicolaie has made some good points. You gave away something and the B & G treated it with the same respect as anything else free warrants. Do not be surprised.</p> <p>I think that this wedding experience has been more valuable to you than the mythical "1K£" you seem to think a photographer with no experience is worth. You have learned that if you are going to do this for a living you have to pay attention to the "living" part of it. Take this away from the experience if nothing else. A professional photographer makes his/her living <em>selling</em> photography. FIRST comes the sale, then comes the fun part....shooting. So for the bargain basement price of only a couple of day's time and effort you learned to take your new job seriously. You learned a valuable lesson in running a business and that is the vital importance of a contract. You learned that you will have to balance what the law allows you to do if you get in a snit with what you ought to do if you are going to have a good reputation. You learned what it is like to shoot a wedding. You learned how hard it is do the post processing. You learned that you needed to "sell" this B & G on using their photos in a more definite way than just a casual question. You learned how important the subsequent product is to the customer. I hope you learned that a professional anything thinks of the client first, last and always. I hope you call the groom and make nice with him. You don't need him puffing out his chest and telling everyone how he "won" the battle with a newbie photog. </p> <p>I also agree that unless you are a prodigy, some day you will look at those photos aghast that you were wanting to put them on like. Live long and prosper. </p>

<p>I would go with the D7000. It is simply a better camera on virtually every point. Image quality and resolution are much better. It has a stop and a half better dynamic range. More autofocus points and a better autofocus system. Much better low-light performance. Video is much better.<br> As a newer body, Nikon will likely support it for longer. </p> <p>The 18-70 is a surprisingly good lens. You will enjoy using it. </p> <p>Good luck!!<br> </p>

<p>I use cameras at work. My decision to replace them is mostly driven by either necessity, convenience or competitive advantage. Those are mostly unemotional decisions. And yet...<br> I think of myself as a "Nikon shooter". To say that I am unmoved by the solid feel and yes, even the prestige of carrying a pair of D3/D4 cameras would be disingenuous. I am at least a little bit "proud" of my equipment and get some joy is showing and sharing it with others. Lately I have become excited about the D7100. The camera inspires me for some reason. </p> <p>I took it very personally when. recently, I was blown-off by Nikon Customer Service, and have turned several people who have asked my advice to Canon. Why? Canon has, IMO, much better customer service and clearly more concern for the individual photographer. Even though I am a Nikon shooter my Canon rep treats me with concern and respect and I could call her on the phone. I asked Nikon who my rep was and they would not tell me. If a photojournalist is not even allowed to know who the Nikon rep is (assuming they even have them anymore) then that should tell us something about how Nikon views its customers. I bring this up to illustrate the sense of brand loyalty that most of us feel. Nothing sparks debate on this site like the Nikon/Canon fiascos we see from time to time. Clearly there is plenty of emotional capital tied up in brand loyalty. I wonder what that says about the original question. </p> <p> </p>

<p>I guess he got the link someone told him to get.</p>

<p>What Matt said. I am surprised that a large organization would try to pull such a stunt. </p> <p>Make them pay and shrug is off when they move along. You are not doing this for money so you do not have any skin in the game as they say.</p>

<p>I thought your site was pretty nice. I complement you on your putting your phone number on the first page.</p> <p> So here is the deal. If you want your site to bring you gigs, people have to find it. When I did a google position report on Raleigh Wedding Photographers and Raleigh Photographer your site was not on the first 10 pages. So there is your first and most important problem. There is a very extensive field of expertise called "SEO" Search Engine Optimization. You need to get really good at that. You need to get to page one and MAYBE page two of google before you can expect your site to generate new business. If you are not there, your site is little more than an online portfolio to which YOU can refer people.</p> <p>Here is an example. Google bots read your first page as very important. There is nothing on your first page that says you are a photographer. It says photography but not photographer. It does not say what city you are in, that you do weddings, etc. You may have this in META tags but you need a text rich front page. That front page should contain key words that lead the search engines to your site. Your domain name does not help you either. Who is going to search your name? The domain name Raleighprofessionalphotography.com was available a couple of minutes ago. Would that not lead search engines to consider your site more strongly? Go to the number one search under "Raleigh Wedding Photographers" and see what he did. His domain name contains photography and his front page clearly says who he is. (It is also drop dead gorgeous.)</p> <p>I can see that you are doing some SEO stuff but you really need to dig into it more.</p> <p>Finally. As you were successful before you know that you did not achieve that success by waiting for traffic on your website. Your job as a professional photographer is FIRST to sell your services. So if you are at home and not out either shooting a paying gig or trying to sell new clients, you are not at work. </p>

<p>That is a seriously powerful work station. Perhaps even a bit of overkill but what the heck.</p> <p>You will love an SSD as your boot disk. My machine boots to full ready in about 30 seconds. This allows me to shut it completely off as often as I like and save some electricity. Not to mention the other benefits of a clean boot. I would never go back to a spinner for my operating system again.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The issue of whether it is their business to know I am charging brides to feature weddings is completely separate. It is not only the images that make the feature. I think I've come to the wrong place to get an answer for this as clearly egos are getting in the way.</p> </blockquote> <p>What you are not getting here, and we have all told you this, is that you don't own the rights to the pictures and neither does the bride unless her contract specifically gives it to her.</p> <p>I think you could have posted this anywhere and gotten similar answers. Look at your quote. You said: "The issue of whether it is their business to know I am charging brides to feature weddings is completely separate." No actually it is at the very heart of the issue.</p> <p>I might understand and even allow a bride to put a few shots on her Facebook page. She is not being paid to do that. However. Consider this. If one of my brides asked me if she could put "the kiss" on her Facebook page I might let her do that for free. However. It would be quite another thing if she wanted license it to a third person to use to sell wedding dresses. That is very much my business. How much the person selling wedding dresses is willing to pay is between me and the designer, not the bride. </p> <p>Are you here to try to assert that one of my photographs is to be used for you to make money and it is none of my business? That is what you said.</p> <p>You said there are advantages to me to do this? Make your case to me and you might get what you want free. It is up to you to show me why. Not hide the potential theft of my property from me. This is not rocket science.</p> <blockquote> <p> </p> </blockquote>

<p>I would not get into the legalities of this idea. You really need to talk to a lawyer about that. </p> <p>As a photographer I can easily answer this question:</p> <blockquote> <p>If I personally reach out to the photographer and ask their permission to use their work on my site, and they agree, is it OK? OR do I need to specifically let them know that I am making money from it?</p> </blockquote> <p>The first and easiest answer is that I would not grant you a release unless you made a compelling pitch for it and showed me how it benefits me. Some nonsense about "exposure and publicity" will fall on deaf ears. We hear that from SEO people all day long. </p> <p>The second thing is that I am an ethical person. I would probably not allow anyone to use photos I took of someone's wedding without the subject's permission even if my own releases allow me to do that. </p> <p>Finally. Did you really come on a website to ask professional photographers if we think it is OK for you to deceptively obtain our pictures? Did I just hear you do that? </p> <p>I don't know what your scheme is Jani but if you went to one of my brides and sold her some 'product' in which she wanted to use my pictures, I might very well charge her for the permissions. You have nothing to do with that. In most cases the bride will not have the authority to grant you license.</p> <p>I think you need legal advise before you proceed with a business plan that at least on the surface of it appears to be based upon deception of at least one person. </p> <p>By the way. If a bride comes to an established professional wanting what you appear to be selling, we are already prepared to provide that service to her. </p> <blockquote> <p> </p> </blockquote>

<p>Brad nailed it. A young photographer just starting out needs an old photographer. </p> <p>Sometimes the old photographer needs him right back. </p>

<p>I pocket full of airplane tickets. Cameras I got. </p>

<p>Money of course. But mostly I like being where photojournalists are allowed to go. I like the people I meet. I like being allowed to go to the front of the line. </p> <p>In my personal photography I like the almost Zen aspect of going to a place and truly seeing what is there. I can't help but see things but the camera makes me really look at them. I also enjoy showing people how they look to others. Making someone look good is an act of kindness. </p> <p>I like helping other photographers who really want to learn. </p>

<blockquote> <p>This is only the second charge I have given it in 18 months.</p> </blockquote> <p>Eek! Have you actually taken a picture with it yet? </p> <p>Seriously though. The others who mentioned reading the manual are right on. There is a real education in the information you will get there. Perhaps you will find some inspiration in some of the great capabilities your camera has. </p>

<p>Get a D7100 and don't look back. It is a wonderful camera.</p> <p>Stop manual focusing. It is quirky and you don't want to be known as one of "those guys". ;)</p>

<p>Call them on the phone. Every one of them. You can't go wrong learning from your customers. If they like you they will be flattered by the attention. If they have concerns you have the opportunity to head off problems and learn from them. Let me ask you this. How would your client feel if, after expressing a concern, you said, "that is a very good point. I am going to incorporate your ideas into my shoots in the future". </p> <p>You have given them credit for their intelligence. You have responded to their concern. You have learned from them. And they think you are a real professional not some know-it-all prima donna. </p> <p>It comes down to this. There is an old saying in the Army. "You never hear the bullet that gets you". This is true with customers too. If you know of a problem you can work to ameliorate it. If you don't know about it you are powerless.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Is there a survey somewhere that shows this?</p> </blockquote> <p>Not that I know of. There are however dozens of Photoshop schools, courses, and workshops that relatively few users attend. It might be interesting to know what percentage of Photoshop users have never attended any formal training.</p> <p>As you know Jeff, we have a number of "I want to be a professional, what camera should I buy" threads here. How many of them include in their "kit" training to go along with their purchase of Photoshop. When they mention it at all I might add.</p> <p>I have mentored quite a few photographers along the way and am amazed at how many of them have never considered formal training in Photoshop. A great many have a Costco copy of Elements. I know professionals who use Elements exclusively and who have no plan to do anything else.</p> <p>There are still film shooters out there. Few and far between but out there. They have no option to use all of the features of PS but yet they press on. I am all for the right tool for the right project. I use PS myself. I also have and am becoming quite fond of the Corel product. It is really quite capable. It can do virtually everything I wish to do quite nicely. I have it on two of my laptops.</p> <p>Certainly one can't have too many features available should one need or choose to use them. But if those features cost $10.00 or more per month in perpetuity, it is reasonable to question the expense.</p>

<p>Adobe did lower the price per month but there is no guarantee they are going to keep it there. The monthly price also reduces the necessity for them to continuously improve the program to justify upgrades. There is a good reason for them to be concerned about this. </p> <p>When it comes to software most photographers are WAY over gunned. Very few photographers truly understand Photoshop in depth or use the majority of its features. Corel PaintShopPro is an excellent program, with a short learning curve and an unbeatable price. It will do the overwhelming majority of tasks that most professionals and amateurs demand. There are other programs as well. </p> <p>Then there is the observable trend away from the over-processed, almost cartoon like photos that were a fad for a few years. It may be that we have come to realize that we do not live in a CGI world. </p> <p>If your boss requires you to use PS then you are stuck with it. If you have been wise and stored your clean raw images in the past and want to try something else, there are some very good options for much less than a year's worth of Photoshop. </p>

<p>The photographer who said he carried no lens on his camera because of how long it takes to change lenses needs to work on his decision making skills;) Really.</p> <p>So I would carry the 18-70 unless I expected a particular situation in which I would need the tele. Frankly this is not hard. Try not to let your camera and kit get in the way of taking pictures. </p> <p>I don't know what it means but in 50 years of photography I have never heard of a professional photographer carrying a camera without a lens. There may be something in that. </p>