gabewalker

<p>Hey guys. I have a serious issue, I think it's with my 70-200mm f4. I keep seeing the faces soft, but the center is ok, usually at f4. It's really frustrating because I thought it was camera shake, or motion blur, but it's clearly not. I'm attaching an example. Is there a way to fix this? I also read that Ken Rockwell had a 70-200 f4 that he borrowed from a friend which was totally soft on the left side.<br>

<img src="http://img08.deviantart.net/f0b7/i/2016/351/f/b/untitled_by_arjuna72582-darwljb.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="1536" /><br>

Look at the waist line (relatively sharp), which should be aligned with the head and face, which is totally putty. It's not motion blur cus the swinging hand and feet are sharp.</p>

<p>Hey there,<br>

<br />I had a large race buy-out the photography side from me, and this definitely isn't out of the question of sales. You have to figure in all your costs and expenses first then mark it up, to what it's worth. Sometimes you will make out ahead quite well, but in the worst case scenario you will make a little profit above break-even. I had a code that I emailed all the runners which enabled them to download a small resolution jpg for free, then they had the option to purchase other images, prints and products. It was actually very financially beneficial for me because there was no gamble, no risk since I had the RD company pay out for the photos. However, if the event is very large (rock n roll marathon, Boston marathon) they expect photography companies to compete for the rights to shoot their events. Money is power, well in this case, runners = power. I think one company paid Boston Marathon $30K to shoot the most prestigious running event in the world. But, the made 8 times that back in sales. If I was smart, I would be an RD, that's where the money is. Those guys are making it hand over foot, especially since they get tons of sponsorship from local business in exchange for tax right offs and advertising. The only form of payment I give to RD's is a percentage of profits after expenses are taken out. 10%-20% should make them happy if they greedy. But Eitan, I think that one gentleman sent you a link to an Israeli company that is doing exactly what you suggested. However, I'm not sure that they have the ability to print, and offer different printed product packages. I use Candid Color Systems, they are pretty solid and take out between 18%-20% of sales and handle customer service, printing, shipping. You still have to ID all the photos, which can be quite time consuming, but you can train your sister, cousin or friend to help you outsource it. </p>

<p>What ever happened to Wedplan.net? Now it's wedfolio? I was reading a thread that goes back to 2011. LOTS of dissatisfied customers (photographers) who were targeted and lured in with false leads. <br /><br />http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=276643 </p>

<p>I signed up with Wedplan.net a few months back. You don't have to pay for leads when you pay the monthly $19.99. And I have received a bunch over the months. But the funny thing is, I've emailed and tried contacting the 'newly weds to be' and not so much as a response. I am starting to believe I have been hoodwinked. Maybe some of the leads are legit, but I would not be surprised if they had some kid making email addresses at $1 a pop. Another thing is when I search the emails in Facebook (I mean everyone has FB right?) or google, nothing comes up. Facebook is quite good at finding people within your area, through 4.74 degrees of separation. I mean I've searched for them by maiden names and groom's name, nothing. One couple was getting married in my town, of about 10,000 people. You would think one of my 680 friends were connected to someone who knew them. Apparently I am 3.84 degrees separated from everyone of FB. The point is I can find just about anyone online and seems none of these couples exist. I'm going to give wedplan one more month, if nothing after May-June season why stick around with them?</p>

I just posted something similar to this. Please . . please . . please change the arrows :/ Below the photo and lighter toned would be nice. Thanks!

Just curious what the response was to the new photo.net layout. I feel the buttons to browse between photographs

are rather large and distracting. Does anyone else feel the same or have similar qualms?

Can Photo.net do some fancy programming so that every time the gallery page is loaded, 20 random photos appear for that folder?

I think it would be a good idea to go to the critique page once in a while, pick

5 -10 photos (I choose the ones that grab my attention, I try not to lie and

speak the 'sweet; truth' but sometimes there isn't much too say :/)and write

something about them. It will be appreciated and it's good for the soul. :)

yeah ditto on the copper-hill method

Thank you for the detailed response! :)

How do I rearrange my photos in an album. Does anyone know?