keith_van_hulle1

You seem like an intelligent person. You should put as much thought into how your organize as you do into the actual process of taking pictures. Only you can answer that one. If you don't put much thought into tripping the shutter, then how you organize the pics probably won't matter. If you put a lot of effort into the shooting, don't you deserve to put as much effort into their storage?

Read <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00623p&tag=">this</a> thread. The simple answer is no. UNLESS you can get a signed release from each person you shoot/sell. Or you sell only for new/editorial purposes. This is not to say people don't do it - but don't get caught either.

Might not a travel agent (or maybe the Turkish embassy) be better qualified to answer this than readers of a photography forum?

Can you post an example of a site that has retained it's relevancy over time? By it's nature, the community here is not static. In the earlier days, the mix of more experienced to less experienced shooters was different than it is now. Too, the forums and those who participate in them have changed.

 

But so has photography in general. Things change. This HAS been covered in previous posts over the last few years (couldn't resist). And this place is WAY better than anything else out there still.

You're trying to make what looks like an outdoor shot at night with a flash come out the same as one obviously done in a studio with a portrait background and 2 or 3 dedicated lights? Think about what you're asking. Ignoring the model for now, it's about controlling the environment, not just taking a picture of somebody. And yes, the first girl is pretty but she could be gorgeous with a 30 minute makeup and hair session (which I bet the second model had). And PS is no substitute, IMHO for getting it right when you snap the shutter in the first place.

You're shooting football, basketball, and soccer and you want to use a tripod?

If you have money to waste, get the new Fisher-Price kid-proof digital.

Yeah, just great. Happy for ya.

In this case, I would do my best to meet the contractual conditions EXACTLY but no more. If your contract states you will provide an album and you've already rec'd payment for it, you need to make good on it. Even if it means you take the initiative. That's how I'm interpreting you say you "owe" them one. Maybe offer them the chance to back out for a small percentage of your fee returned.

<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15822319/from/RS.3/">Latest article on

the decline of marriage in Europe, but moreso in France.</a>

<p><p>

Is this affecting the business all that much or what?

Send a NICELY worded letter with an invoice to the publisher who used the photos w/o approval. Send it registered. You may need to research the publication to determine what the usage was so you can bill properly. Give them 30 days. If you get no response, your best bet is to retain a lawyer if you want to see any remuneration for your IP. I would not involve the magazine you've done work for unless the advertiser implicates them as doing this on purpose.

You want a prospective "employer" to come looking for you? Doubtful.

 

The old fashioned way of pounding the pavement and networking with people still works the best. It's no different than getting any other job in this sense. Unless you're willing to make the effort, anyone that DOES will almost always be considered ahead of you because they did take the initiative.

Some more info? What will be the majority of your shooting? Outdoors, indoors, landscapes, wildlife, portraits, family snaps, etc. Or what do you think he'll like to shoot? Is convenience important? Size, weight? The biggee - do you think he'll want something that takes interchangeable lenses (a DSLR - which will cost more in the long run for more lenses) or something to just take on vacation, capture Xmas morning and so on (what's called a point and shoot)? Quality of the pics from a DSLR, when used right, will almost always be much better than a P&S. But they're much heavier and not as spontaneous.

 

$2,000 is a lot. Personally I'd suggest BOTH a Canon 400D DSLR with the "kit" lens ($750-900, can be found at Best Buy and Circuit City) and a Canon A630 or A640 as a P&S. Some people will scoff at the kit lens but going past that will push you into the $2,000 range. It's something for him to LEARN with. Both shouldn't set you back more than $1,300 or so. Leave a little extra for an extra battery and a couple of extra memory cards.

 

Also, when you have time, scan the Learning dropdown in the upper right and you'll be a more informed buyer and you'll feel more confident when purchasing.

My father had one and I tried it while on vacation to their place one year. Build quality is solid but the focusing sounds like the T-Rex in Jurassic Park. Barrel distortion is REALLY noticeable at the wide end and it'll vignette quite easily. But, like has been said, for as cheap as it is, it's good. However, as above, if you could find the Nikkor used, it would be a better choice.

Mary, based on at least one school of thought, this is NOT a good picture. You didn't stalk it for eight hours in the outback with a 1200mm f/5.6 (36 lbs.) tele. And if you did, you couldn't prove so.<sigh>

 

P.S. - It's a fine capture. I like it.

I have the Tamrom 17-50 as a walk-around lens. Yes, the 24-xx and 28-xx will probably be better overall but won't go as wide on a 1.6 body. Even with the barrel distortion at 17-20mm, it's a decent enough lens for grip&grin type of events and will get the job done.

What purpose does worrying about it do for you and your photography? What are you gonna do about it? Do you have any factual, empirical data to suggest that there are MTBF issueswith your lens choices? And that they're worse than older equipment?

Do you know how much crap and overhead the MS products add to what you're trying to do? All you need is Notepad and little thought and planning.

 

Do yourself a favor. Take 2-3 hours and educate yourself in basic HTML. You only need to know a few commands. There are great primers all over the web on how to do this; even some posts here about this.

My guess? She found somebody who is (a) cheaper - maybe much more so or (b) she's taken her sweet time to decide she doesn't like your style. Customers have no clue what the business side is like and she probably feels two weeks is enough time.

 

You've already provided some images. How? Disc, print, what? She has probably had enough time to dupe them so asking for a return of the images won't do you much good. However, in cases like this you WOULD return the deposit when she returns whatever you have provided her. Or let her keep the images, deduct your value from the 30% you have and return the rest. How much is the negative word of mouth from this bride and her family worth?

Are you asking about the ethical implications of what you want to do or the technical aspect of doing this?

What do the rules of a photo club have to do with the OP's original point? It dealt with aesthetics. Not about some arbitrary rules that so many sheeple seem to want everyone else to follow. And the OP has been the only one to really asnwer the question of WHY. It's a personal thing.

 

But the overal impression of this thread is to impose specific individuals desire for a certain type of order on the rest of us. I have yet to see any empirical reasoning to back up the claims that this should be this way. If I read between the lines, I almost get this impression of some type of elitism at work - "MY picture was taken in <location>, it's obviously better". Or that, unless you can travel to some exotic location, don't bother shooting certain items - it won't be good photography.

 

I haven't seen a lot of people weigh in on this but can't see the decision being that, for this type of photography, location is the determining factor of what a good photograph is. I'm not say the viewpoint is wrong either. Re-read what I've said. I'm saying that there seems to be some need to impose the will of a few on the majority to pre-judge a photograph.

One caveat. I'd stay away from answering the first question in a lot of detail. I've seen posts recently here where the customer was comparing the photographer's price against what they knew about which company was doing the printing as a negotiating strategy. You don't want to get into justifying your pricing against your costs. This question will open that door.

Wow, Harry. Every captive animal is a sad story? Or just makes a bad picture?

 

An example, right from Houston SPCA on TV last week. Cruelty investigation. 2 Bengal tigers and 11 bears (grizzly and black). All in 4x8 cages for upwards of nine years. In south Texas. In the summer. Outside. No water except when the owner decides to hose them down. Rescued by a great group of people with the owner put in jail. I can easily come up with hundreds of stories like this. The world ain't great but what choice do we have but live in it.

 

So, reading between the lines, your choice would be to kill animals like this rather than have them sent to a zoo (since that's a sad story). Bengals are really photogenic and so what if someone takes a snap of them with their consumer DSLR and cheap telephoto. So what if they tell their neighbors they took it while on safari. How does this hurt the viewer? You won't view the picture? Even if it's a great shot? Like that makes a difference in the bigger scheme of things?

 

So, to the next point. Based on all this, what about a pic from a wildlife ranch? It's not a zoo. You're out in the wild. Is that acceptable?

<i>"pass it off as a true nature photograph"</i>

<p><p>

Who cares? The photo police? This is Photo.net, not a Zoology (or any other type of) web site. IT'S ALL ABOUT THE ART AND TECHNIQUE OF PHOTOGRAPHY. Nothing else.

<p><p>

Why does this bother people so much? Do you feel like you are losing out because you don't have all the details on a given photo? What difference does it make? IS this causing you distress in some way? I've heard the what, I'd like to hear the reasoning for the WHY. Preferrably valid reasons with some thought behind it, not just "because I want it that way."

<p><p>

Might as well throw in the arguments about manipulating photos with PS at this point too. Same basic issue.

Why do you all insist on having some unwritten set of rules that YOU determine to be valid that must be applied to other's photography? To the OP - so you're not impressed with zoo pictures - such is life, but don't think your imposing your aesthetics on others will make photography better.

 

Please spend a few minutes to read the archives; it's not like this issue hasn't ever come up before. It's been beaten to death and no one is ever going to agree on it. How does the location, if it's not identifiable in the shot, determine whether a picture is good or not? I get the impression that some people feel this way because others have better shots and there's this sense of "cheating" and "fairness" involved. A healthy does of jealousy too maybe?