crashdog

I have to wait for the conditions to be right, and then drop what I am doing to get the image. There are many conditions that need to all line up for the shot to be considered successful. It's also a shot that requires a certain amount of skill and knowledge that I have shown I have. That is why I am being asked to take the image. The client has taken several other shots that do on require as much "skill", and is coming to me for this one to begin with and possibly more for future releases of the app. If I price too high, I won't get this or others (and that wouldn't be the end of the world).

I have been asked to produce a specific photograph for use by an individual to

include in an application for the new iPhone/iPod touch. Apparently Apple is

requiring that the programmer have exclusive rights to everything included as a

part of the application. Normally I charge $75/image with unlimited

reproduction rights with me retaining the copyright. I know that is not a lot,

but for the jobs I have taken on so far, I feel it has been a fair rate for me

and my customers (not heavy usage).

 

Now if I truly need to sign over exclusive rights ( I would still retain

copyright to be able to display in my portfolio, but could not sell/grant rights

to anyone else) I know I would would want to charge more, but am unsure how much

more to charge.

 

Any recommendations?

 

George

Is the show still being actively produced? I haven't seen it for, hmm, about 15 years or so...

<p>Tony,</p>

<p>I was just checking out your site and the url converted Not sure if I am misunderstanding what you were saying, or if something is not working correctly for your site right now.</p>

<p>George</p>

Ok, I gotta ask because google was no help. What does OSP stand for?

For showing my proofs on the web, one requirement I try to always maintain is that the final images, regardless of size all look basically the same. To achieve this, I try to crop to the 8x10 or 4x5 ratio. Then I let people know that if they order a different size, the shorter sides of the image will be cropped in more to make the image narrower as needed. If an image cannot be cropped to an 8x10 format, or, if it looks much better at a custom crop, I let the customer know that I can provide a mat for the image so that it can fit in a standard size frame, or I can provide a custom frame for the image. This will incur a small additional charge.

 

George

It's not a shade/no shade issue, it's some in shade, some not, in the same image.

Hi Tony,

 

Don't know that I would be considered a wedding pro after just one, but I have done portrait work for a number of years. One thing that stood out to me in many of the "formals" is that some of the individuals are standing in shade and others have full sun hitting them. That is a situation that makes it difficult at best to get a good even exposure across the image.

 

George

Hi Anne,

 

I like the page, and the navigation was easy enough to figure out. The page loaded quickly enough for me, but I am on a high speed connection, so am not a good reference for that.

 

The problem that everyone has noticed is that the page is hard coded to be centered on a screen with a resolution of 1280x1024. At least that is one resolution that shows it centered. I looked at your source and you are using divs, which is good, IMHO. Here is what I would do to allow this to center up on most screens:

 

<div align="center" width="800"> (or what ever the width needs to be)

 

<div float="left">put your wedding content here</div>

 

<div float="right">put your art content here</div>

 

<div>put your lifestyle content here</div>

 

<div>put your logo here</div>

 

</div>

 

You will then need to play with the margins and padding for each of the divs to get it to look right, but it can be done with out too much work.

 

Let me know if this doesn't make much sense.

 

George

Having just done my first wedding this past weekend, what I thought were the hardest shots to get were the processional/recessional shots. If you can, practice these shots during the rehearsal. Those with experience may not need it, but I found the practice during the rehearsal invaluable.

 

Script out the day for yourself as much as you can (times, order of shots, must have shots) and stick to the script as much as possible.

 

Good luck,

George

Yes, I had my film camera along with plenty of film along, a mix of color (Portra NC) and B&W.

 

I only went on the stage once, and only because I could not get a "must have shot" from any where else. Prior to the wedding, the couple said the pastor was very easy going, and as long as I didn't produce a major disturbance, he would be ok. They told me to do what I needed to do to get the best shots for the "must haves", so that is what I did. Believe me; I got in and out as quickly and carefully as I could.

 

Now the question to me is ﾓWas it worth it or not?ﾔ I had a chance to talk with the groom after the wedding, on the way to the reception. He said he only noticed me a couple of times and that he was glad I was "a little aggressive" in getting a couple of the shots I did because they were moments he really wanted captured. The parents of the bride said that I had done a nice job and was not obtrusive at all. Now I realize these are the words said to me directly, and not from their private conversations, but I have no reason to doubt what they said.<div></div>

When I started my photography business in 2002, I was asked almost from the

start "Do you do weddings?". At the time, and until recently, my answer was

"Nope! I don't want to take the chance of messing up someone's 'Big Day'."

Last fall, after much consideration, I decided to say yes to one such request,

figuring that I knew my equipment well enough, and could a respectable job.

 

The request came from a friend of mine. He had seen me work at a couple of

events, where I was just doing some pj type work moving through the crowd trying

to capture the story of the evening. He said that he and his fianc頬iked the

work I had done. After the obligatory conversation about how I had not done

this before, he still wanted me to do it. They were trying to keep a tight

reign on the budget. They were hoping for something better than just having a

bunch of people with typical cameras taking what ever shots. We negotiated a

price (more of a gift from me and a chance to gain some experience than a profit

making venture).

 

Ever since, I have been reading here to learn what I could without actually

doing it. I didn't post, because I didn't want to get flamed and I didn't know

what I didn't know, so I didn't know what to ask. I still don't know what I

would have asked that was not covered in other posts, so I figure I know more,

and know more of what I didn't know. Kind of like a little saying I go by "The

more I learn, the more I realize there is to learn, and the less I feel like I

know." Anyhow, I still don't have a specific question, so on with how it came

together.

 

Short Story:

 

It was fun and a lot of work. I learned a lot and plan on doing more weddings.

If the bride and groom like the pictures as well as my wife did, it was a good day.

 

Long Story:

 

I met with the couple about a month ago, to try to nail down what shots were on

their "must have" list. They didn't want the photographs to be "all about them"

but instead wanted to have mostly shots that showed them with the people the

invited to share the day with them. For the formals, shots with them and each

of the bridal party individually, as well as the group shots, parents, immediate

family shots, and then if there was time some shots of the two of them.

 

Friday night was the rehearsal, and I was asked to take a couple of pictures

there, and was told that was where I would learn about some of the "special"

shots they wanted during the ceremony. I also had an opportunity to meet the

videographer and find out about his plans and where he was going to be during

the ceremony. I had an opportunity to try taking some pictures in lighting

similar to the actual wedding. That was a big help. The biggest problem of the

night was with the videographer who almost stepped on me and my equipment

several times, as he would just go where he wanted paying no attention to who or

what was around him. "I've been video taping weddings for x years and have done

y weddings in that time." Truly not one of the most professional individuals I

have had the pleasure of working with, and close to one of the most arrogant.

To top it off, he was the grooms boss. Not much I could do there other than to

try to get along.

 

I was able to get back into the church on Saturday with my wife and played

around a little more. I felt like I was as ready as I could be, which is good

since time was up.

 

The day started around 10:30 taking some shots of the bride getting ready, and

trying to get some shots of the dress. My creativity was short a little, and it

was tuff since everything (dress, walls, closet doors, curtains, etc.) was

white. Everywhere I tried the dress, it just wanted to blend in. Sigh. I was

feeling discouraged and the day had just begun. I got some fun shots of the

bride getting her hair done, being fed grapes by a brides maid, and having her

make-up put on.

 

I left her at about 11:15 and went off half way across town to find the groom

and get a couple of shots of him getting ready. I was able to get a couple of

shots there, that at the time I thought "OK, this is going ok". I took off for

the location where we were going to be taking the formals at about 11:45 and was

there right around noon. (Note: Rochester, MN is not very large, and the travel

time from one place to the next was in the neighborhood of 10-15 minutes).

 

The formals were taken at the Plummer House. We started the formals with all

the guy, getting all the desired shots. As we finished our last shot, the bride

showed up with the bridal party, minus one car that was about 5 minutes behind.

We started taking some shots of the B&G with parents and immediate family.

When the last car showed up, we took the pictures of the Bride and attendants,

got the rest of the family shots, and the shots of the whole wedding party. The

only shot missed was with one grandma who did not show up, and was going to be

going directly to the church. Not too bad, we still had about 30 minutes to

take pictures of the B&G alone. As we finished up with those, and were heading

to the cars, the care taker of the house stopped out and greeted me, checking to

make sure I followed protocol (making sure there was not an event scheduled at

the house when we wanted to take the pictures) and parted by saying "Good Job

with the pictures. I wish we would have found you when my daughter got married.

You would have been better to work with." Nice way to have that part end, but

the thought that kept going through my head was "but you haven't seen the

pictures!!!".

 

Now, off to the church for the ceremony. When I read comments about how fast a

ceremony goes, I didn't really get a feel for it until I was there. There were

time where things were easy, and other times where I was frustrated my camera

wouldn't focus faster. The first hurdle I had to jump was the videographer. He

set up with 3 cameras: stage left, stage right, and back of the church right on

the isle. I found that I was able to get shots when people were close enough to

me and between me and the cameras that they blocked the camera out of the image.

I probably won't do this again, but for one shot of the couple receiving

communion, I was on the stage, between a couple of the brides maids. I wouldn't

have done it then except this was one of the shot's on the must have list, and

the B&G told me to do what I needed to get the best shots I could (flash,

no-flash, location, etc.). The hardest shots of the day were the

processional/recessional shot. There was no "stately pace" for this wedding.

It felt just short of a sprint down the isle. After the recessional, I was able

to capture some great candids of the B&G being congratulated by the bridal

party, parents, and grandmas.

 

Anyhow, so far no major misses from what I could tell, and no major blunders.

There was one near blunder, however. I was changing cards about 3/4 of the way

through the wedding and pulled it out too soon. The little green light on the

back of my D100 was still on and the camera kind of got stuck in a loop saying

the card was full. I just about lost it right there. I stuck the same card

back in, and the camera appeared to pick up where it left off and the images

were ok, even the last one. <Hugh sigh of relief>

 

I took one last formal with the grandma who did not show up for the formal

earlier, and then one of the Pastor with the couple, and then we took off for

the reception. I only had about 50 pictures left for the reception, but figured

I could stretch it out and should be fine.

 

Taking pictures at the reception, in a very dimly lit hall, was a serious

challenge. Not so much for the lighting as for the videographer. It seemed

like he was always trying to get an opposite view from where I was and was

shining his great big flood light straight into my lens. Try to get any kind of

camera reading with that going on. I asked him to try to pay a little attention

to the shots I was setting up and to try to not shine that big light right at

the camera, and he responded "That's why I shoot video and not still, don't have

to worry about!" adding an evil little chuckle after he said it. Then for the

cake cutting, he planted himself 4 feet in front of the B&G, zoomed out, and

blocked everyone else from getting a shot unless they wanted him in it. He sure

wasn't going to let anyone else get in the way. I got the best shot I could,

hoping I could crop him out later, and put my camera away. I was too steamed to

see anything else to shoot. I left shortly after, since the night was almost

done anyhow.

 

Anyhow, loaded the images on to my computer to take a look with them a little

larger, and overall, was pleased with the results. The formals looked pretty

good (maybe not exceptionally creative, but clear, well exposed, and nicely

composed). There are a number of shots from the ceremony that I liked, not

including the recessional and processional where there were only a few that

turned out well. The candids at the church were nice, and the reception photos

turned out nice also. Overall, 8 1/2 hours from the timestamp on the first

image to the timestamp on the last image.

 

My wife who attended the wedding, after looking at the images said "I'm glad we

had a good photographer for our wedding." My heart sank, and I felt sick. She

saw that and finished her thoughts, "Otherwise I would have been jealous at what

they have to remember their day by." She said there were a couple of images

that brought tears to her eyes as they really captured the day. Always my own

worst critic, I'll post some to get some other opinions.

Esme,

 

I just shot my first wedding yesterday (5/21/2006). It was a lot of fun, and a lot of work. I bought what I thought would be enough cards to make it through, and found that I had been wrong. I brought 4 1GB cards and one 256MB card, which allowed for 432 images, and filled up earlier than I wanted to during the reception. I ended up needed to delete a couple of definitely bad shots to have some space for the couple's first dance and cake cutting. There were more shots that I would have loved to capture, but was not able to. Before I do another wedding, I will have at least twice as many cards as I do now...

 

I'll be posting more about my first wedding experience in another post.

 

George

I have ordered the cards from WHCC.com, and for the most part have been impressed. The cards are press printed, and come with envelopes. They offer three options for the stock to print them on: glossy, linnen, and watercolor. So far I have ordered the glossy and linnen. The glossy is glossy all over, not just the cover, so is a little hard to write on. The linnen is no problem to write on.

 

You layout the card by designing the four panels needed front, left/top, right/bottom, back. They are not cheap, at over $1 per card, but they are classy.

 

God Luck

Rochester, MN

I'll second the vote for WHCC. They also do press printed folded greeting cards (4x5 and 5x7) on either glossy, linnen, and water color stock. I have done birth announcements and thank you cards in 4x5 folded cards on the linnen and would say they look really nice.

 

George

Hmmm, where to begin....

 

1)The menus: They change depending on where you are. Not good. They become confusing and are not intuitive.

 

2)The galleries: The images are small, take a long time to load, and the thumbnails don't all show up in either IE or Firefox (the top and bottom rows get clipped).

 

3)The colors: Dark and dreary. They do not pull me in. The background color of gallery does not match the background color for the rest of the site, and therefore does not look integrated...

 

Sorry, not one of the better ones that have been put up to be critiqued.

 

George

One other little pet peeve. The menus should always be the same. Maybe have the text different and not be a link, but it should always be there.

 

George

<p>Actually, there is some bad code on your site. I cannot view the large images at all with my browser of choice, namely Firefox. I get an error that says: </p>

 

<p>Bad Request<br/>

Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.<br/>

Client sent malformed Host header<br/>

Apache Server at prizmphotography.com <br/></p>

 

<p>Looking into this a little more, I see the following code that is likely causing the problem:<br/>

HTTP-EQUIV="refresh" content="%6;URL=%7"

 

<p>What is that for?</p>

 

<p>Anyhow, you may want to do a little more cross browser compatability testing before you make this your main site. One check you can do is to test validate your html at <a href='http://validator.w3.org'>http://validator.w3.org</a>. Yours is not currently valid. The site will give you somethings you can specifically do to make it valid. Valid HTML will more likely be compatible on most browsers.</p>

 

<p>BTW, I respect that you are trying to create your own website on your spare time. It is much harder than buying a template and using that. However, it will make your site more unique. Now, if that will be good or bad for business, I cannot say. I am trying the same thing, and will post for some opinions when it is ready.</p>

 

<p>Good Luck,<br/>

George</p>

Here's another one with mom & dad. I was at work earlier and didn't have access to this image when I posted previously. Same lighting, making sure that dad was far enough behind mom so that he didn't cast a shadow on her.<div></div>

Hi Elaine,

 

I have only done one shoot for a pregnant mom, and I waited to get permission before posting this. I like how this shot turned out, and so did the mom. I set the shot up with one light into a 36" umbrella camera right and behind the subject about 12". At first when looking through the lens, I could see some flare from the light, so I put a screen inbetween the light and the camera. To get the back ground to fade to black, I had another screen between the light and the background. The opening between the front screen and the back screen was about 36". Also, the light was pointed up a little (I think it was about 2-3 feet off the ground.)

 

I have a few other studio shots from this session as well, but this was my favorite. I am showing studio only because that is what I assumed you were looking for. I also have some of this same mom that were taken outside, earlier in her pregnancy. Let me know if you would like to see a couple of them as well.

 

George Grabrick<div></div>

In photoshop, working with layers is like working with overhead transparencies (to a point). Each one you stack on top of the others, has an effect on the total composition.

 

A layer mask allows you to "cut out" part of the layer you apply the mask to. The area you mask, or "cut out", will not affect the total composition.

 

Hope that helps,

George

1. If the effect you noticed was in fact done with Javascript, it may not work in some browsers and may cause some pop-up blockers to view it as a pop-up. The problem with javascript is that a browser can be configured to not run it, as a security measure.

 

2. You cannot save a jpeg file with a transparent back ground. The only formats that support transparency are gif and png. The problem with gifs are that they can get pretty large and use a restricted color pallet. They are, however, supported by all major browsers. PNGs on the other hand are smaller, similar to jpgs, but the support is not great on all browsers. PNGs can have the background be transparent by using "Alpha Channel Transparency", but IE does not support this feature as it is only an optional part of the png specification. There are hacks to get it to work, but once again, they use some scripting, and slow down the page response a little.

 

Hope this helps a little.

<p>Last time. If this doesn't work, I quit. :(

<p>I have been very happy with the price/quality I have received from <a href="http://www.americanframe.com">American Frame</a>. I have ordered from other places that were cheaper, but I was not pleased with the quality (framesbymail.com for instance).<br><br>

 

Good luck,<br>

George</p>

"<p>I forgot to close a quote on the first posting of this message. Hopefully this will clear it up.

<p>I have been very happy with the price/quality I have received from <a href="http://www.americanframe.com>American Frame"</a>. I have ordered from other places that were cheaper, but I was not pleased with the quality (framesbymail.com for instance).<br><br>

 

Good luck,<br>

George</p>