irusan

<p>None. He didn't steal any images, he used the images that he shot with his own camera.<br>

If you'll allow me to be blunt, there are two things "wrong" with what you've recounted here:</p>

<ol>

<li>You didn't talk to, and coordinate with, the videographer prior to everything starting.</li>

<li>If you're the "official" photographer, then you need to think of it being your set and you didn't control your set.</li>

</ol>

<p>By controlling the set, I don't mean that you don't let anyone else shoot. That's a great way to get a terrible reputation. I always stop people from shooting over my shoulder because it's a distraction to me and the couple, who have paid a lot of money for my services, deserve the best possible images.<br /><br /><br>

Instead, I tell everyone that, if they let me get the 'official' picture first once I have lined everyone up, then I will step aside and everyone can rush in and take their own picture.<br>

As for the tone and attitude of the videographer, I can't comment because I don't know the tone of voice you used or your exact words.<br>

HOWEVER, I will say that I personally find it tacky and unprofessional to have shown the images during the reception. He was the videographer and I think he crossed the line there (assuming that it wasn't part of the agreement/contract he had with the couple).<br>

AND, I commend you for not adding drama during the day. That was the professional move and too many photographers don't think about it.<br>

Let me sum it up this way: in the long run, this was just one wedding. Were the bride and groom happy with the results? If so, fantastic. It's a lesson learned in dealing with other vendors.</p>

<p>Hoi, this is pretty much impossible for anyone to answer without knowing where you live. Right to privacy and right of publicity is different in each state and that's just here in the US. <br>

In other countries, the privacy laws could be far stricter or even non-existent.</p>

<p>Although I've not posted much (if anything) over the past couple of years. I always read every single email notification I get and noticed that Nadine had been quiet the past few months.<br>

Photo.net will be a lesser place without her but I am grateful for all the wisdom she (so patiently) imparted. Not a lot of successful people are as willing to give so freely of their own knowledge like Nadine did.<br>

My thoughts and prayers are with her family, too.<br>

R</p>

<p>Hi Marc,<br>

I use the Photocrati template for my WordPress sites:</p>

<ul>

<li>http://www.Domaschuk.com </li>

<li>http://www.PolarizingImages.com</li>

<li>http://www.ShootHybrid.com</li>

</ul>

<p>I think I paid somewhere around $89 for it. I like that they license it for all sites you own, which means I paid for it once and used it (legally) on the three different sites. Really great gallery management, built in e-commerce, highly customizable, and decent customer support.<br>

Cheers!</p>

<p>Sue,<br>

How tall are you and, with the camera on the tripod and the center column raised no more than an inch or two (at most), does the viewfinder on your camera come to eye level or do you have to bend over a bit?</p>

<p>If you have to bend over, do NOT buy the tripod. It may not feel too bad at first but after a day of bending a couple of inches to look through the viewfinder, your back will feel like it's on fire.<br>

<br />Also, what head are you looking at? If a ball head, make sure the ball is larger rather than smaller.</p>

<p>A good tripod will last for years - I am on my third camera body but I still use the same tripod I bought many years ago.</p>

<p>Stephanie,<br>

Unfortunately there's not enough information here to adequately help you but I will say that I'm sorry to hear you're going through this.<br>

Are you located in the US?<br>

Was there any kind of contract between you and the photographer?<br>

Were there any emails (in the absence of a contract) between you and the photographer?</p>

<p>Let the people hired be the photographers. As Louis said, if I am a guest, it's because I am either a family member or a friend and I am there to celebrate, so I'd rather have a drink in my hand than a camera (and, if I am there a a guest because some cousin eighteen times removed invited us because they want lots of gifts, then I want lots of drinks in my hand <em>j/k</em>)</p>

<p>I absolutely evaluate the photographers and I happily tell my wife my opinions (good or bad) but I would <em>never</em> tell the couple anything (unless I had high praise).</p>

<p>Being a professional photographer also means being a professional when you are not the photographer.</p>

<p>Wade, I can understand your reaction to work that is below your personal standards.</p>

<p>But, Lupo is absolutely correct- if these people are in your market, you're really lucky. I am in Chicago which has many, many amazing photographers and being "really good" usually means you are not "good enough".</p>

<p>A saying that I love is this, "a beginner talks about <em>equipment</em>, a professional talks about <em>technique</em>, and a master talks about <em>light</em>." So, when I re-read your rant and you mention 'equipment' a few times then, in my eyes, it removes any legitimacy to your complaint.</p>

<p>One last thought - these forums are publicly viewable and are searched/indexed by Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc. If you are going to rant on the Internet <em>and</em> use your real name, make sure you're writing something that you won't mind one of <em>your</em> potential clients reading.</p>

<p>Randall is absolutely right about A/D's getting annoyed with seeing watermarks and about the fact that they need to realize why watermarks are used.</p>

<p>Until that time, an option is to have a password-protected gallery to non-watermarked images and you can supply the A/D (or other client) the password.</p>

<p>It is distracting and intrusive but that's part of its purpose, is it not? You're not adding it as a way to advertise, you're adding it to help prevent (or lessen the odds) of the image being stolen. So, to that end, it needs to be somewhat intrusive. If it isn't, then that means you have a watermark that can easily be removed by the pirate.</p>

<p>It is a balancing act - how "in your face' do you want it to be while knowing that it detracts from the visual interest of the image itself?</p>

<p>Now, you've set the layer's fill to 0% and kept the opacity at 100%. It may be a less cumbersome mark if you drop the opacity down to about 50% and removed the text and just kept the logo.</p>

<p>It will still be visible enough to (hopefully) convince people not to steal it but not as bright as to completely interact with the image itself.</p>

<p>Just a thought..</p>

<p>Here's an analogy I like to use:</p>

<p>Imagine you have a 100 gallon bathtub that you need to fill. You open the faucet all the way and water comes out at 10 gallons per minute. It takes 10 minutes to fill the tub, right? Now you turn the faucet to it's slowest setting so that water comes out at 1 gallon per minute. Takes 100 minutes to fill that tub.<br>

<br /> No matter how fast, or slow, water is coming out of your faucet, it takes 100 gallons to fill the tub. But, the faster it comes out, the faster it fills your bathtub.<br>

<br /> Likewise, a picture requires a certain amount of light hitting the sensor.<br>

<br /> Now, your bathtub is your camera's sensor (or film), the faucet is your lens, and the opening in your faucet is the aperture of your lens (the size of the hole that lets light in).<br>

<br /> So, if you set your lens' aperture to a small opening (like f/32) it will take a lot more time to completely fill the sensor with the required light. If you set your aperture to its largest opening, then it will take <em>a lot</em> less time to fill the sensor because light is coming in really fast.<br>

<br /> What is your lens' largest aperture? That depends on each lens as some lenses can have really large apertures and others, to lower the price, can't be opened as wide. But, a "fast" lens will be capable of opening really wide, allowing light to pour right in. That means you can have a really fast shutter speed.<br>

<br /> Budget lenses may only be capable of opening to f/4 or f5/6 instead of f/2. Is that really a big deal? Well, it can be. For example, if your lens can only open to f/5.6 and that gives you a shutter speed of 1/60 of a second, you can shoot that same picture at 1/500 of a second if your lens can go all the way to f/2.<br>

<br /> 1/500 of a second is a lot faster than 1/60 of a second - which is why they are referred to as fast lenses.<br>

<br /> HTH<br>

<br /> Rob</p>

<p>There *are* several issues with the site, design and aesthetics notwithstanding.</p>

<p>But I am with Joseph, I don't know anyone who uses (or would use) InDesign to create an album. It's incredibly easy to mess up the color management of the images.</p>

<p>You can use any piece of editing software. What you have to do is follow the State Department's guidelines for an acceptable image.</p>

<p>http://travel.state.gov/pdf/Photo-Quality-Requirements.pdf</p>

<p>BTW, I'm assuming that Leudis is here in the US.</p>

<p>I'm confused. The D5000 has the standard ISO hot shoe, so why can't you use the CyberSync transmitter?</p>

<p>The answer, though, is no. A PW will not fire a CS receiver nor will a CS transmitter fire a PW receiver.</p>

<p>I want to echo Marius' thought - good glass is far more important than your camera body. If you buy a "not so expensive" lens, you will likely be disappointed in the results. You may end up with a great lens in strong light because its maximum aperture is still fairly small - and as long as you are shooting in lots of light, you *might* not have a problem. Then again, without a large aperture, your creative choices are limited somewhat.<br>

Or it will be a cheap lens because the quality of the optics isn't there. Then having the 5D Mark II is irrelevant - no camera will take a good picture with it.<br>

So, rent a high quality lens lens as needed until you can afford to purchase it. Buy that first and use your 50D as the backup body.<br>

With that said, I use a Sigma 24-70 2.8 and I've not had a problem with group shots.</p>

<p>I try not to shoot relatives (With a camera or anything else) but typically would prefer to be "just a guest".</p>

<p>But I always quote my regular rates when they ask. A few times (for really close family members) I've either shot for free or at a really steep discount and made that my wedding gift.</p>

<p>Hi David,</p>

<p>Based solely on what you've written here, I'd suggest the 70-200 for two reasons: it's image stabilized AND you said it would be more useful later on.</p>

<p>But, with that said, the 300 f/4 would serve you well on the trip, too. Consider <em>renting </em>one, or both, of them, for the trip and then decide which would suit your needs the best.</p>

<p>The only thing about renting lenses (which is quite inexpensive) is that you have to put down a deposit equal to the price of the lens. So you will need room on your credit card to "buy" both of them until you return them. As long as you can, though, renting is a fantastic way to test a lens to see if you want to buy it or not.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can people write off wedding photographers as a business expense?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely!<em> But</em>... can they do it successfully <em>and</em> will the IRS allow it? Who knows...But they can certainly try. <em> </em>People have been known to try to write off escorts and strippers, too.</p>

<p><em>Personally,</em> I think it's a pretty ballsy move to try to deduct one's wedding photographs as a legitimate business expense. And, <em>personally,</em> I think it's kinda skeevy to request the form from you *after* you shot their wedding. How difficult would it be to say during the initial conversations, "and by the way, we'll need a W9 from you for this."</p>

<p>However, if they paid you more than $600 and they are claiming it as a business expense, you might actually be obligated to provide them with it. It's a way for them to prove to the IRS that they actually spent the money. A lot of businesses get W9s from all their vendors, regardless of the amount they spent.</p>

<p>As others have noted, check with your accountant.</p>

<p>John's right, of course. To clarify, I did say that only the copyright holder can have images removed <em>under the DMCA</em>. :-)</p>

<p>Paul,</p>

<p>Using TinEye (www.tineye.com) may be of help in locating the original image creator. Assuming you are here in the US, there isn't much you can do other than confront the person you suspect is infringing. Only the copyright holder has the ability to get images removed via the DMCA.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, it's possible that, while he is not the original creator, he may still be legally using the images. There's a practice (which is highly unethical, IMNHO) of photographers selling the copyright to their portfolio images when they retire or close down shop. The person who purchases those images/copyright use them to advertise their business. Personally, I don't know how that wouldn't constitute fraud but I am not a lawyer nor would I ever do that so I've never bothered checking into its legality. I guess it's not much different than buying stock images and using them. Maybe as long as they're not claiming that they actually shot the iamges (just let the potential client think they did without clariyfing)... who knows.</p>

<p>Anyway, I know that if someone contacted me saying that my images were used elsewhere, I'd be extremely grateful.</p>

<p>It will fit fine but if you have the octobox angled down too much, you <em>might</em> have to put a counter-weight on the the light. The unit itself is strong enough to support the weight of the octobox but it may be too much tension on the locking mechanism. Nothing will break, but it might not be strong enough to hold the light in position.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Simon wrote that, not me. I'm not qualified in US law either.... or English law. If I was eighteen again I would study law but at 46 it's a bit too late and will remain just an interest.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!</p>

<p>Thank for pointing that out, Steve <sheepish grin></p>

<p>Well Simon, if that post irritated you enough to stop telling people in the US that they can ignore federal copyright law because you think it's wrong, then my work is done.</p>

<p>BTW, on another note aimed at our OP, I take issue with the sentence <em>"this horribly rude but professional photographer"</em>. If he was horribly rude to you (or any of your guests) I wouldn't go around calling him "professional". Sounds like he was/is anything but... :-)</p>

<p>Dave Wilson wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well Rob and Simon, a way back at the sixth post you can see where I simply wrote a response for the OP to contact a lawyer and get professional advise. That was because I know my place on the food chain. Speaking of which I just had my lunch ;-0</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely Dave and I didn't miss that. I am not one to immediately proclaim that a person should consult an attorney on every little question but there are times when it is advisable and a helluva good idea to do so and this is certainly one of those times.<br>

In fact, many attorneys offer a free consultation and, if I were in the OP's shoes, I'd take advantage if it. She just needs to make sure she sees an IP attorney.</p>