larry schaefer - chicago,

Actually when I looked at the site. It gave me a feel that, that is the place to go if you want to start out in the porn business.

And I was being facesious about the modelling request you know.

Kimberly,

I looked at Craigslist last evening; for my very first time. I just think a lot of discretion and deciphering is required in its use.

Personally, it also looks like it is riddled with scams and other gimmicks too. Like 2ND PRODUCER NEEDED - $12,000. I did see a solicitation for a second shooter in Chicago which appeared to be ligitimate.

I agree with you concerns 100%! Would you like to model for me for $5.00 per hour.

Good luck and if it sonds shady it probably is. Be careful.

How did the images appear before you PS'd them or uploaded them?

Read the following thread and see if that situation might apply.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00E42J

Nic,

Do you think some of the problem is due to tungsten light. I have implemented good advice from the forum by using a little more flash to over power the tungsten. I haven't tried using gels on the flash though.

I am sure all the experts will berate me for some reason but I stumbled onto a pretty good method to get rid of that puky peach veneer. I shot a small party and my images were drenched in tungsten; here goes

After opening the image in PS (I used elements 2) select ENHANCE then ADJUST COLOR then SATURATION/HUE decrease the saturation until the peachy look is decreased. You must leave some color in or there will be nothing to adjust in the next step.

With LEVELS make your subjective adjustments. I can get a result in RGB but at times I must go back to red chanel to knock down even more red. If you want my examples email me

In the mean time I am sure there will be several E-manuals created in the thread to help you.

Good luck.

Its great how everyone responded in a literal sense, take this, take that, push your Portra, and so ON.

She may be awsome with a tripod on an assignment but I think the people who intends to shoot for should get someone to nail the formal at least. Mary could probably grind out the rest.

There woul would be far more embarassment and angst if she shot the whole thing and messed it up. Being honest about this will make it good for everyone

Kari how deep is the altar from the subjects to where the fild terminates. If you could post the postcard too.

I support the suggestion to go there and see what you can test shot with what you have. I did this recently at a surprise party where I had a hang up about catching the couples expression of surprise. arrive early stood up on chairs, booths, etc and shot until I liked what I saw. Not as easy with film tough.

So after all that I did not factor in the deluge of tungsten in the place.<div></div>

Todd I am in agreement but isn't it odd how tradition prevails in a rapidly changing world.

Personally I indict the churches themselves. No longer do they take a modest stipend to avail themselves for the wedding ceremony.

The church/temple/whatever is also in the wedding "industry" they sell space for MONEY. then go heretic with trying to tell you how blessed the events are . . .weddings, baptisms, etc. and stifeling the joy by prohibiting flash.

No doubt doofus photographers over time have flashed things to death but a few key shots would be nice as an assurance.

I'll stop now for everyone's sake and spare further rage as I underwent 12 years of catholic school.

Errol

By studio work do you mean commercial, catalogue, and ad type stuff.

I was a photographer's asisstant back in 73 (1973 I meant, if anyone was confused) 90 percent of the time we used continuous lighting for furniture and room shots while shooting low ASA aarrrghhhh rather low ISO transparencie film.

Does the electronic flash work out to be more portable?

Mary !

You know I was only kidding. Besides I don't have big enough ego to be a hero.

Your buddy

Lar

Okay I understand.

Now what about about my hero guy?

Stacy-

What did the dialogue with your "gut" say the first few times you spoke to client A ? Did she seem like a good possibility that you were looking forward to seeing?

Sell and deal with people the way YOU like being sold to and dealt with.

Todd nice craft as always on your promo card but having been raised in a Catholic evironment I'd say your promoting a ceremony of "last rights".

On the other hand if its getting good response thats all that matters.

Not clear on what the "new" policy is.

I don't supose I'll get a little hero dude for posting pertinant, exemplary, and universally beneficial questions?

C'monnnn Mary just for a week.

Hey I am not twisting a stick in anyones eye here. I read your post rather late. So if you sh - -hammered me about all this vendor stroking why did you even make the post in the first place?

That said ITS OVER. Hope it works out great.

In no way am I trying to discourage goodwill among vendors. I am a huge proponent of cooperation under almost all circumstances. I may have also missed something here as well. I simply grasped the copyright issue tied it in with anothr thread I was reading.

Thus I set out to challenge all the legalspeak that flys around in this forum. I was calling on some one to enforce their copyright rights here and I hit the wrong place.

It seemed as if Ferchu was questing the use of his image. In such context I will plead ignorance. Still I maintain that it may be a bad idea to muse over heresay legal issues when the simplest and best way to get a legal question satisfied is to contact an attorney.

I rest my case.

I don't believe that any matters of law should be discussed within the forum. If there are lawyers that post here I doubt if anyone has seen theier credentials.

COMMON SENSE should dictate that one should see an attorney regarding such matters. Gleaning LEGAL advise on the internet from a bunch of random do gooders and self proclaimed experts is a waste of time that results in a recommendation to talk to a lawyer anyway.

Seems like in spite of the bride's good intentions the shot is going to be used for the florists commercial gain. You have no way to ensure that the florist will give out your literature.

All the bravado that flys around in here about copyright, releases, and other elements of business law makes one think that . . .

Its nice of the bride but its your creative property, you have rights to it SO MAKE THE FLORIST PAY YOU FOR THE USE OF THE PHOTO if all of this is easily enforced.

And I doubt the florist would have ever promoted you photography busines shy of a watermark.

I want to see all this "law" they talk about put to use.

For a Bank thats easy.

Charge them by fees and penalties.

Dave - Thanks as always I think todays's venue will resemble that which is in your composite.

Marc - I value the spectator suggestion I only hope that the anniversary couple stands out from the crowd. Thanks Marc

Michelle - It would have been a while before I figured out the 2 left hands but that is good info for me. This particular couple most likely will have new wedding jewelry, I'll be watching.

Thanks Michelle.

Larry - what an awesome thread. The Cake Shot Primer has been established thanks to you.

From now until forever I will fear no cake. I appreciate the help.

I would have bet that Dave would furnish the cavalcade of cake cutting guide. Thanks the upper left is exceptionally helpful.

I'd still like to see a few from the rest of you.

Okay comrades and you too Conrad (I like it! Comrade Erb) I'd like

to see some solid cake cutting setups.

REMEMBER this is a 30th wedding anniversary only and the cake will

not look like the Empire State Building. I do not anticipate cake

smearing either. A couple of suggestions for some effective poses

would be much appreciated.

Thanks