rick_chen

<p>When tragic things like that happened, I know other photographers just have the professional insurance handle it, they will try to compensate the bridezilla.<br>

You shouldnt feel bad, just relax and recover well. We are all glad you are still alive</p>

<p>Incredibly useful treads from professionals here, very nice examples and info A+</p>

<p>Wow I like it...fun dynamic, nice pictures, and they are making me hungry</p>

<p>Looks really good, but it takes forever to load with my high speed internet<br>

so i would assume mobile takes longer?</p>

<p>ERRmmm...wake up! You are not going to get your pictures using legal route for a $100 with no agreement. You probably spend that $100 paying for gas to drive to the courthouse, filing the small claim fee, paying ridiculous parking fees for 2 visits, trying to track down the photographer's information, and taking hours off work. You are not thinking right when you hire someone in this manner for your big wedding day, and after this is over using another set of expectations on this individual. And then thinking about suing him you are STILL not thinking right.<br>

Agree with everyone else's comments on here. Apologize, be nice, give him his entire lifetime to work on the pictures because he is not obligated to give you anything, offer some additional cash to try to get them back QUICKER for your own benefits.<br>

Again, we are not talking about 3 hrs. It's several hours at the practice shoot, 3 hours at the wedding, 1 hr equipment prep, download and backing up, and edits and screening for 1000 pictures. PLUS mileage and gas expenses, 1000 click wear on his camera, flash and lens. Easily 3 times the amount of time agreed.<br>

Obviously you dont value photography very much because you think pictures for your wedding day is worth $100, so why bother about the pictures now? Be good to your wife and have a great life together. The pictures? offer $300 to get them back, and hopefully the photographer will show up when he is short of cash, some day</p>

I read somewhere vr does little help, if not degrading the sharpness, once the shutter speed goes above 1/500. I would

leave vr on for shutter under 1/500, and turn it off for anything faster

<p>I agree with David Haas<br>

Technically you are not an appointed or paid 2nd shooter, you are a guest taking pictures of the wedding like every other guest would do. It's a nice courtesy you asked the main photographer for permission, but you dont really need to unless you start to get in her way or start getting too involved or looking too professional.<br>

Guests always post their unedited photos of the wedding, or even edited ones from better amateur photographers, on social media the next day, sometimes even the very night. This is something we photog get used to. So there is nothing wrong with doing that, but watermarking it and promoting it as your <strong>business</strong> to the family prior to "official pictures" from the main photographer is insensitive, even if she is the groom's mother (if i understand you correctly, I am confused with the relationships you described) and the contractual relationship is more informal. I dont think you need to ask anyone's permission if you post it on your personal page.<br>

Put yourself in her shoes. You must know this better since you are a photographer yourself. If today the groom and bride come to you weeks before the wedding to ask you to shoot their day, and letting you know there's another professional shooter (it's not totally uncommon to have 2 photog companies at the same wedding), then things are different. But it sounds like you are an enthusiastic guest like Uncle Bob who happens to take good pictures, and didnt put yourself in the right seat. If I were you, I would put all the awesome images I took and put it in an album and gave it to the B+G as a gift. You can also use that album as your portfolio, but I would not use them on the website or professional page since you are not the contracted photographer. If you have better skills than the main photographer, I am sure everyone around you will spread the word over time. No need to make the main photog look bad and offend anyone in the family, not worth it.</p>

If u shoot for money u should at least get sandisk or lexar that's more reputable with lifetime warranty. Watch out for fake

ones on eBay only buy from trusted e tailers, lots of fake out there.

It affects speed and reliability shouldn't affect image quality at all

<p>I typically tell clients 3rd shooters provide additional angles and coverage, but I still have to do all the post processing and touchup. They are pictures under my company.<br>

Would never tell them how much I pay my shooters, just tell them upfront how much a 3rd shooter will cost, depending on the experience of the shooter. I know photogs with 20 years experience, 10 or 2 years. I bring in a 3rd shooter, or even a 4th shooter sometimes that speak the client's language which I dont happen to speak, to communicate better with their family</p>

<p>Michael, I am about 15 miles away. The traffic in that area is really bad though, compared to where I am at. Took 1 hr to get through 15 miles. If you are on the West Side the drive is probably easier.<br>

Also, sometimes I think you might get lucky when you bring stuff in. I know if I mail this lens in, they are going to assume I did the damage, says it's not covered under warranty and just bill me and charge shipping. I hardly use this lens not to mention abuse it, it's really weird why I have this issue out of nowhere</p>

<p>So one day my 16-35mm f/4 VR suddenly refuse to disengage from the D4 body. After wiggling around and I managed to get the lens away from the body, I discovered the aperture lever is bent. So I have to hand adjust it to wide open, and it stays that way unable to stop down and I shoot at f/4 only. Finally have time to bring it down to Nikon USA in Los Angeles, anxious to know how much they are going to charge. I brought my warranty card, receipt and box, lens and D4 and head to the counter to let them know the problem. They took it in, didnt even look at warranty card and receipt, came out 5 minutes later fixed the lever and also glued in a stop screw which was missing. Best of all there was no charge, wow! Positive experience from Nikon USA for a change. Just wanted to share the experience</p>

<p>Miachael,<br>

Thanks for sharing your experience dealing with Sigma. Glad it's a positive experience for you.Yes I had my share of horrible experience dealing with Nikon. Never dwelt with Sigma yet<br>

I just thought that sigma 300mm 2.8 is 5 years old without warranty, so I am didnt follow through with that purchase</p>

Shun

 

Yes I do have 1.4 and 1.7 TC. Just the weirdest thing is they exceed the af fine tuning limits by a big margin when I slap

them on any body I have, must be bad luck. I can send them to Nikon for calibration but that also means I have to fine

tune every lens from scratch with each body, so I haven't pulled the trigger on that yet. Plus I am losing f stop.

But yes I forgot the sigma is 1lb heavier than the Nikon 300 2.8, I owned that lens before and mobility is definitely an

issue. Perhaps the 300 f/4 with vr would be worth waiting for, that thing is lighter than a 70-200

With all that said I tried a sigma 300 2.8, surprisingly good image quality and very light for $1500 but since it is an old

used copy and its a sigma I don't want to put up with any reliability issues down the road.

You also brought up a very good point about theft, that's why I am eagerly looking into insurance...

<blockquote>

<p>"I have shot a couple of weddings with a 300mm/f2.8 and 200-400mm/f4, both on a tripod. In one occasion the church only allowed the photographers to shoot from the very back; in the other I was shooting from the balcony"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for your comments. This is exactly why I think I might need a 300mm, not very often, but once in a while when I do need it. There are also times when I tried to take portraiture which is also a landscape picture (if u know what i mean), and there is this huge cliff, or a river between me and the couple. I want to compress the background but 70-200 or 200 f/2 is too far out. There are also times when I try to catch moments from far away and not disturb anyone or try to make the subjects forget about my presence. Appreciate the comments about the weight and mobility, definitely something to think about.</p>

 

<p>Just out of curiosity, would you guys buy a Sigma 120-300mm F/2.8 OS Sport or a Nikon 300mm f/2.8 VR II? assuming there is no budget consideration, you cannot get BOTH lenses, and it's NOT used for sports or wildlife. It will be used for pet photography, weddings, portraiture and some events in low light. Bodies are d4 and d800e. And at the same time, you already have workhorse lenses such as 70-200 II<br>

Then if you go with the Sigma, do you think it's worth paying $1500 more for the new sport version or take the previous version as a bargain with the exact same optics? (minus cooler styling, usb compatibility etc.)<br>

Looking forward to what other photographers think, thank you</p>

<p>Oh wow...we pay them all these insurance money and they are really good playing with words when it comes to claims. That really sucks. So it covers "forced entry" and not mysterious disappearance, like someone took the whole case at the venue etc. Ok so we're supposed to think of all possible loss and theft scenarios and ask the insurer about whether that's covered or not...good piece of info here thanks so much</p>

<p>Ralph,<br>

Oh I see..that's good. So that's $400/yr for 40k coverage plus the 175 for liability? And that covers only theft at home and in the car? So they dont cover theft at wedding venue or public places where the shoot took place?<br>

But you are right...i have never thought of "armed" or "bodily force" robbery, sounds scary hopefully no one gets to go through that. I think we are all vulnerable to that lol</p>

<p>Hey Ralph,</p>

<p>thanks for thorough your input on photo.net insurance. Definitely sounds interesting, except I am concerned they only cover $15k and no accidental damage coverage. <br>

You mentioned break-ins only, how about if the gear was stolen at the venue etc?</p>

In backup mode, the Sd card in the d800 is the limiting factor so u dont need anything faster for the CF slot, a 600x or

400x can probably keep up with the fastest sandisk extreme pro 95mb/s

Same thing as the d4, nothing can match the xqd so u want the fastest cf u get get , such as the lexar 1000x.

I really dislike this design from Nikon, makes no sense to have a sd in d800. The d4 maybe, since xqd is too new and

some might not want to jump media until its more affordable. The point of having 2 slots is for backup, and now we have

to deal with diff cards and speeds , and reader

I am disappointed with the current value or d800 as well, use less than a year since delivery in 2012 and it has

depreciated too much. Definitely gotta do with the whacky AF accuracy, and Nikon's crazy desperate discounts and

debates throughout the year to fight with Canon share. My d800e slightly better, but still, that's big depreciation. From 3k

to 2k that's 33% in a year, even the d4 isn't as bad and it's 6 months older (6k to 5k) at 20%.

 

What surprised me is why are people buying d700 for more than $1000. 1750 is crazy selling price. The market average

is more like $1300...d600 is selling about 1500 refurb after u sell that kit lens. IQ d600 is hands down better. D700 is great

camera, but it's shouldn't be valued close to the newer models. I got one about 1k early this year for a friend and to me

that's fair

<p>Lots of useful info here by others. Noise reduction, additional flash, knowing what you are doing , doing a test print etc. I would think a refund would be a little extreme coming from the couple, after all you spent the time and it's not like you didnt have any pictures of it. You can offer to re-process it, and perhaps post process in such a way that looks good (e.g. B&W?)<br>

Often times we add noise/grain on purpose for the film look. I never had a client complain. ISO 1600 should be easy for modern cameras to handle.</p>

<p>Bob..thanks for your input. Yeah I am asking my insurance agent about the RIDER thing...hopefully that is available for my insurance company. As far as I know, they wont cover any camera in my house for more than 5k..not sure why (part of business? exceed coverage limit?)<br>

Yeah exactly...$500 isnt bad at all..but if I am only getting a few grand a year, i have to think twice. I guess i am a bit concerned about getting burglarized after what happened to my neighbor 2 houses away, that's why i am looking into gear insurance</p>

<p>Does anyone have experience with Hiscoxusa.com for photographer insurance? Very first thing showing up on google and every search engine<br>

Their quote is $500 a year comes with 45k equipment coverage plus a $1M general liability...rated A+ on BBB<br>

I looked into PPA per your suggestion, it's $330 a year but liability insurance is $100 additional a year and it covers only 15k in gear. Their quote is coming out to be $800 a year...not sure by signing up as a member how much will I save</p>

<p>Hi all,<br>

Curious to know what do you guys have for insurance of your gears and equipment? Please refer me some great companies that has a easy claim process, wont break the bank and suit my needs.<br>

I am a part time wedding photographer, sticking with my main job but does about half a dozen weddings a year. I talked to my home and auto insurance company (same co.) they wont cover any cameras or lenses for more than $5000 at home, against theft or fire. Then I talked to business insurance people and it gets kind of complicated...because I use the equipment 50% for work and 50% for pleasure, and they are 90% stored at home and 10% in the car. And my business address is technically at home doing post processing or at the wedding venue. I want coverage against theft/fire at home, against equipment failure and breakage at the wedding venue, and maybe (not a must) equipment damage in times of a car accident on the road (I only have general liability insurance for the car).<br>

I believe I dont do this often enough to need a business liability insurance, as the couple typically purchase $1M event venue liability insurance to be able to use the wedding venue. Still that insurance doesnt cover my gears. Even though I know it's better to have liability insurance, I am not sure if it's worth it for the amount of income I am making off these gigs. I am charging not very much, and is doing it more of a hobby from referrals. My neighbor recently got broken into, and that's what put me to consider getting insurance, since my equipment current value easily exceeds 45k. Would be horrible if i am to lose them and my homeowner's insurance only gives me 5k.</p>

<p>Any help is greatly appreciated!</p>

Wow, not sure if it has something to do with 16-35 f/4 vr in particular, but just this morning it's stuck to my D4. It happened

to my d800e for a couple of times, but I can manage to remove it after a few tries. Upon closer inspector I noticed the

aperture lever on the 16-35 is bent slightly, so even tho it has no trouble opening up to f/4, it doesn't appear to close all

the way down to f/16. This doesn't bother me as much since I never shoot past f/8, and since there's a lot of weddings to

be shot i figured I could wait sending it to Nikon.

Crap I put it onto one d4 yesterday and this morning couldn't take it out. I can still press the release pin freely, the lens

doesn't rotate past 12 but I can't remove it from the mount.

I have never abused any bodies or lenses, this is the 1st time it happened. The flimsy 16-35 f/4 vr always kinda bother me

a little being all plastic, but never expect such mount problem to occur.