john_h.1

<p>"I read the text you quoted as display of disgust toward the magazine; and the original post as asking for suggestions"<br /><br /><br /><br />There were no questions anywhere but someone did provide a suggestion nevertheless. I can't think of others that don't involve extraordinary measures, such as spending money and time suing a distant business to obtain a remedy for the complained of slight that features scant, if any, monetary value. Do you have any suggestions to add or just complaints that people responded to other issues Samir raised?</p>

<blockquote> <p>OP does not suggest anything about monetary compensation.</p> </blockquote> <p>The OP specifically expressed an opinion on that subject... "<em>Its shame how photographers are asked for free pictures to run big business</em>". Discussing that doesn't mean we missed the crediting complaint. It means we chose to discuss the free photography comment. If there is anything to contribute to the lack of crediting as agreed, please indulge.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Why would you give them a free picture?</p> <p> </p> </blockquote> <p>Flattery probably. One may deem it of value. </p>

<blockquote> <p>"Its shame how photographers are asked for free pictures to run big business."<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>You contributed to it and encouraged more to occur by providing the free imagery. I'm not sure why you would do that if this is the way you feel.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"I don't know if I should be, um, letting the IRS know that this is my source of income?"<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>Go see an accountant and ask what you need to do.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"My camera already has 540 photos on it so I will probably just back those up and clean out my camera."</p> </blockquote> <p>Probably? That's somewhat like saying you are going to be a limo driver for the first time, your gas tank is nearly empty and you'll "probably" get gas before heading on a road trip where there are no gas stations. Your current one and only card isn't storage enough to have on hand even if it IS empty.</p>

<p>I missed the second shooter part. The priority of what you need depends on the circumstances of the arrangement. Hopefully that has already been established with the first shooter.</p>

<p>An additional camera for back up, two to three fast lenses, two bounce swivel flashes (one for back up), multiple batteries. multiple memory cards. So basically thousands of dollars of stuff even if used. </p>

<blockquote> <p>"John--ever compared a sunset shot at 1/200 with one at 1/400 or higher?"</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes.</p> <blockquote> <p>It's no comparison!</p> </blockquote> <p>If you are doing something else to cause a substantial difference. Its not the shutter speed by itself. You should be able to underexpose a bit in any event. Maybe you are shooting really wide open or something.</p> <blockquote> <p><br />Thanks for being helpful, Marco.</p> </blockquote> <p>I guess I'm not to be believed. Photographers have shot sunset portraits for a long long time without really fast synch speeds. You can too. That was what your actual question was about.</p>

<p>I don't know why you would need a fast shutter speed unless you subjects are running around and moving a lot and you needed to freeze them in motion. Otherwise, just use a normal slower shutter speed, meter for the background sky and fill the subject with flash. Adjust flash strength as needed.</p>

<blockquote> <p><strong>Posts that are not answering or extending the question will be deleted.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p> At the risk of being deleted but, asked for sake of clarity, what does "extending the question" mean? Are we not allowed to ask for more details, inquire or raise additional issues related to the question, offer corrections or other comments to relevant responses? Does it just mean irrelevant comments?<br> <strong> </strong><br> <strong> </strong></p>

<blockquote> <p>"The title would probably give it away if the message isn't already obvious, but even then, viewers come from many different perspectives"</p> </blockquote> <p>My perspective as soon as I saw it before reading... A still life set up to portray some unspecified message. The photo below resonated more as it conveyed something that did not appear to be manufactured to convey something. Even if it was.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"The fact that Photo.net write in their terms that accounts can't be deleted is VERY MOOT."<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>How so? You seem to think allowing their continuing existence is of practical importance. The opposite of moot.</p>

<p>Business 101.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"The OP didn't seem to me to be speaking all about himself. The question seemed to be about site policy."</p> </blockquote> <p>So that imagery conforms to his standard worth and credibility despite the standard having nothing to do with the merits of the imagery.</p>

<blockquote> <p>No one is making you do anything.</p> <p>Likewise.<br /> </p> </blockquote> <p>I'm not the trying to cause that to happen.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I used to believe... ...I'm not... ...why should I be... ...I am proud... ...I want... ...If I'm... ...I want... ...I believe <br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>So, it's all about you.<br /><br /></p> <blockquote> <p>nobody should be taken seriously unless<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>You're free to to enbrace or disregard anything. No one is making you do anything.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"so you suggest they ask their friends, who weren't actual customers, to defraud future clients by writing bogus reviews?"<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>Anyone qualified to know of the work and services can provide a review of those. There is nothing wrong making, as I described, accurate reviews. No one said or implied that reviewers should falsely claim they are a client if they were not. The 'suggestion' that anyone engage in defrauding future clients is unfortunate and lacks any evidentiary basis.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"If they post anything malign just get 20, 30, 100, of your friends post something about how great you are."<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>That's a great idea. They need not attack the attacker but provide accurate positive remarks (including the same subject matter the complaint concerns). I bet if some friends and others that know the work ethic will be glad to help if they know of the circumstances.<br> <br />Bob comes through again!</p>

<p>I've thought about this scenario a few times and, ultimately, William's initial posting is the the best recommendation at this point. You can't be terrorized by this guy and let it cause emotional turmoil. The legal remedies have an uncertain outcome and are burdensome. If it was a business destroying matter, they would be worthwhile but I really don't think one review is going to bring the business down. People expect a disgruntled review. Those that don't may not be people worthy of dealing with anyway. A SHORT business polite factual account (with a passing reference that the person is not a client nor a paying party, if true, can be included) is a sound reaction. <br /><br />There are lots of articles on line on how to deal with threatening customers. Although this guy is not a customer and the articles mostly address emotional issues, reading some seems worthwhile.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"its not unusual to hear a vehicle braking sharply and then to be joined by a guy with a big lens asking "where's the bear?"<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>I had that happen once when shooting some interesting looking and hard to miss trees in a manicured roadside plot except the person had no camera. It was in Cape Cod where bears are not known to dwell. His family was in the vehicle and they seemed to slink down in their seats when I turned back to look their way. He was disappointed and even somewhat dismayed that there was no bear. <br /><br /><br /><br /></p>

<blockquote> <p>"Any restriction on your ability to take/publish images by a specific private location that is publicly accessible must be clearly stated to be legally enforceable. (ie. there must be clear signage posted that forbids photography for example)"</p> </blockquote> <p> <br />That's partially inaccurate. A private property owner can forbid photography (shooting) by visitors at any time while they are on the property although doing so may can breach a contract a contract allowed photography to occur there. Just like any other activity. It would be wildly insane business decision for a wedding venue to ban photography whether announced in advance or not but, technically, property owners can do that. Signage, itself, is not required. The only enforcement remedy for the property owner, however, will usually be to revoke the visitors license to be there and eject them from the premises. So notification that photography is banned generally means that engaging in photography is a likely cause for the owner to decide to kick you out. A photographer can still use images that they shot on the premises unless there was a contract to the contrary they had with the owner.<br /><br />This is just academic discussion. Wedding venues don't go kicking out photographers if they want to stay in business.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Is the venue allowed to get a cut of your work?</p> </blockquote> <p>If that is part of a valid contract with the venue, yes. The venue can impress potential clients by offering referrals to trustworthy vendors which may also reduce some time and effort for the clients to find one. Given how many talented photographers there are to chose from, some venues may only recommend photographers that agree to share a cut. Those photographerd, in turn, get more business.</p> <blockquote> <p><br />Can your submission on media like blogs, your webpage etc be canceled by the venue if you do not have such a contract in place?</p> </blockquote> <p>Can you rephrase? This is somewhat ambiguous and confusing. What do you mean by canceled?<br /><br /><br /><br /></p>