david_schilling___chicago_

<p>Thanks Tom, I think the pop can be attributed to a curves adjustment, the extra light (digital fill) that I placed over the bride and her dress, sharpening her face, along with old-school burning the edges and softening the highlites of the fireplace.</p>

<p>I really like Marc's version and the removal of the arm, although it's not likely that I would ever take the time to remove the arm. I'd like to think that I would have done the pose with and without out the arm extended. I used my usual tweaks in the image below, softened the fireplace, a little digital fill, sharpened the brides face, some vignetting, and a frame.</p><div></div>

<p>I really wish there were some facial details that could be pulled out from this image......</p><div></div>

<p>Thank you Stacey...........</p>

<p>I added a starburst vigenette, burned in some more texture around the couple, and knocked down a few bright spots in the background.</p><div></div>

<p>I got one.....I just ignored it, didn't make much sense. However, blown highlights is a serious issue to some :-)</p>

<p><em>"A contract is the primary vehicle by which to establish a relationship of respect and trust." </em> :)</p>

<p>Despite the smiley face, I think this statement is just plan sad.</p>

<p>@Dan, if your studio was hired to shoot a wedding and you allowed an assistant to take a few photos and paid him as an assistant, then him representing himself as the wedding photographer for client A in his public self-promotion/marketing then it is indeed deceitful.</p>

<p><em>"But if the second shooter took the photo, then what's the harm in them claiming that they took the photo? It's a true statement, is it not?".......</em><br>

<em></em> <br>

<em></em>Even if this was true, there would still be harm in a person representing that they were hired to cover the wedding when in fact another studio was hired and they were simply 2nd shooting. Still, if you hire 2nd shooters with who you can depend on their integrity/honesty, this doesn't become an issue.</p>

<p>A contract isn't always the answer, work with people that you have a relationship of respect & trust with. Bob B's suggestion about handing out the cards and collecting them at the end of the evening is a good one.</p>

<p>My suggestion about following closely with the videographer was sincere....if you really desire a constant light source you can take advantage of his light. I do see a photographer with an assistant carrying a constant light source as intrusive and it could appear to be an artificial "spot-light dance". I have seen shooters use an assistant with a remote strobe produce some neat images....Parker Pfister immediately comes to mind. However this would not be a constant light source.</p>

<p>My suggestion is to use flash as needed and if possible use the videographers light as an accent light or for some rim-lighting as in my image below.</p><div></div>

<p>I can't think of anything that would be more intrusive..... If the videographer has a light you can tag along with him. Personally I prefer to use flash as needed.</p>

<p>@Yvonne, "Blaming the victim" is a common form of criminal thinking, especially in cases of sexual assault,...... minimization & over-generalization are also common thinking distortions.</p>

<p>Really I think this incident is rather pathetic, I hope the offending photographer has learned something (I also emailed her a link to this thread) however the issue of copyright infringement and theft is a major issue, especially online.</p>

<p>I have photos that appear in more than a dozen books, at least half of these have been scanned to pdf files and a google search of the book title along with the words free download will provide at least a couple and sometimes more, links that will give you an online dump of the entire book. My wife's book has several free online download links and I have a sense that it has seriously impacted the annual royalties. One of the offending websites (filestube) has a Facebook fan page with a following of more than 547,000 fans. You tell me, more than 547K people who think it's cool and totally OK to steal???? Solutions??? I guess it does provide an opportunity to rant/vent,.....bottom line, the unbelievable sense of "entitlement" by many, many, many people.</p>

<p>I like Booray's response above. My other suggestion would not to refer to professional photography as a "game",......... a craft, a business, but never a game.</p>

<p>Instead of taking this shot at her knee level, find a way to get about 5-10 feet higher so that your angle of view comes in at a more pleasant angle....</p>

 

<p>I don't know, she doesn't seem to be a typical shooter. Judging from some of her personal bio information she appears to be a bit of a free spirit on her own unique personal quest and rather naive in the ways of commercial art and photography.....doubt there's any real malice in her actions, perhaps we can allow her a little more latitude and consideration</p>

<p>Shawn, I never said to ignore other marketing avenues....I said that successful, established studios thrive on WOM and that personal relationships/networking is the key to referrals. Google searches may generate hits and attract the "looky-lous" which don't often translate into contracts.....just sayin'</p>

<p>I think it's easier/cheaper to back-up all your files online and off-site. I also doubt that many care about 100 years of storage, with the tech revolution pace I suspect that the tech from 10 years from now will be much superior, 20 years will be more superior still. I also do not see the need to have that many gigs of storage for a single wedding archive.</p>

<p>I do believe that teckies looking to back-up personal and/or professional data will appreciate the device.....I just do not see it as a practical wedding upgrade.</p>

<p>Take a peak at the thread below this one on marketing. IMO, SEO is over-rated by most new shooters for the reasons I've already mentioned.</p>

<p>Also, since your bride was in the out-of-town niche that I originally referenced, I would suspect that would create a more favorable relationship to online activity.....<br>

If you take a look at my comments in the below threads on "cross-promoting with other vendors" and in "approaching wedding coordinators", you'll notice that I emphasize personal relationships rather than superficial online links. Website and google "hits" do not necessarily correlate to booked weddings. In fact with all the newbies in the field many of the hits are actually new shooters "shopping" your website to gage the price market and their established competition.</p>

<p>BTW, agree with Marc 100% on his comments above.</p>

<p>"After<em> the date not lining up for the photographer that was her first and second choice, she ended up connecting via facebook with her third choice, and saw she had a mutual friend who had used her, which weighed heavily in her final decision, after she established that this person met her other criteria." -Nate</em><br>

And I rest my case.....there's the personal connection that I was speaking of.</p>

<p>For years I've echoed the not-so-new business mantra: "Better, cheaper, faster" and yes there's plenty of amateurs breaking into the field and "craiglist" shooters and plenty of brides that will trust someone like this to photograph their wedding. (BTW, referring to someone as a "craiglist shooter" is often in and of itself considered a derogatory term) You can likely find some that are OK with putting disposable cameras on each table and leaving it at that. However, there are still plenty of brides that are more cautious about who they'll trust with recording one of the most important events in their lives. And I believe that these discerning brides need to have a personal connection that google hits and online accessibility does not provide.</p>

<p>And a cheek-to-check portrait is generally a must have shot: <a href="../photo/7552381">http://www.photo.net/photo/7552381</a></p>

<p>Second try to attach image............</p>

<p>Browser glitch prevented photo attachment. Garter group shot can be seen here: <a href="../photo/15296394">http://www.photo.net/photo/15296394</a></p>

<p>The MOH is almost always my "go-to gal" to help with the garter shot....a close-up will also typically feature her hands on/near the garter.</p>

<p>IMO, many new photographers and most marketing guys over-estimate the value of online marketing for local studios. Most established, successful studios generate lots of WOM from former clients, their families/guests, other wedding vendors, officiants and others with a personal history with a specific studio. The online presence can serve as a convenient showcase of images and information. Studios which primarily serve out-of-town clientèle or do destination weddings would be a different niche than most and would likely benefit directly the most from online marketing strategies.</p>