William Michael

<blockquote> <p><strong>I am curious as to where you think we both stand legally. I havent received a contract</strong> as I have read in other posts but received an invoice.</p> </blockquote> <p>I think that your legal standpoint probably mainly depends on two elements:<br> 1. where you are located<br> 2. what details/evidence you have of the alleged offer and acceptance</p> <p>A person who practices Law where you reside should be able to more precisely answer your question. </p> <p>WW </p>

<p><strong>The Situation:</strong><br> Your Niece or Nephew, is getting married in six months.<br> You will not cover this wedding as it is too far away and you will not be attending for a variety of other reasons. You don't know any particular colleague in their area whom you can recommend. You care very much for them and you want to assist but not stick your nose in other than giving then your very best advice when they ask you:</p> <p><strong><em>"What should we do and how should we go about choosing a Photographer for our Wedding? </em></strong><br> <strong><em>We know nothing. </em></strong><br> <strong><em>What problems might happen and what can we do to avoid those problems?" </em></strong><br> <em> </em><br> <em>. . . </em></p> <p> </p>

<p>William Porter's advice to: Newbee; Wannabee and Experincedbee Photographers is as usual is excellent advice.</p> <p>What I (and a couple of others who have commented to me) have noticed is: we get quite a few first time posts from Brides and Grooms, AFTER the Wedding, asking for advice to assist with a problem.</p> <p>Although Photonet is essentially and primarily about Photography for Photographers, I would hope that the word would be out there that there are many <strong>TENS of THOUSANDS of hours experience on this forum and I expect some members would be willing to answer a question here and there about Wedding Photography - for Brides and Groom BEFORE they even choose a Photographer.</strong></p> <p>And I am sure that would be more pleasurable for the members to answer those types of questions, too.</p> <p>WW</p>

<p>I am circumspect about their story. I think that they are probably being truthful in saying that they do not have the files of your wedding photos, but it occurs to me an unlikely tale as to how those files are now missing. I think that there are other parts of their version of the story which are also unlikely.</p> <p>I don’t think that you will get the photos. I think that you should arrive at that view and make your choices now based at that viewpoint.</p> <p>I think that you are in position of poor leverage without a contract to which you can refer; however (assuming that you reside in the USA) I suggest that you make an initial concerted effort to investigate the legal possibilities that you have: Virgin Islands is a Territory of the USA and as such there might be some (easy) US legal aegis in that Territory.</p> <p>I understand your OP to mean that there were images from other’s weddings that were ‘recovered’: and (as already mentioned) the cost of data recovery is usually quite expensive, so if the main objective is to have Wedding Photographs then it seems that there is no loss in you pushing for a re-shoot, as the costs of that would likely be far less than all the data recovery costs, per wedding, thus far.</p> <p>WW</p>

<p>The <strong>EF 70 to 210 f/4</strong> did not have a long selling period; it was replaced by the <strong>EF 70 to 210 f/3.5~4.5 USM</strong> reasonably quickly.<br> That quick replacement might lead to some commentators being misinformed and referring to the latter as the ‘MkII’ version, which it isn’t.</p> <p>WW</p>

<blockquote> <p>I did know that full frame allowed a shallower dof but I wasn't aware (<strong>and to be perfectly honest, I'm still not convinced) that f4 on full frame was actually shallower than f2.8 on crop. I'll be looking into that later tonight.</strong> . .</p> </blockquote> <p>It is about 1? Stops difference, so as I wrote, there is not much in it.<br /> But F/4 on a FF camera does allow a tad shallower than F/2.8 on APS-C Camera - for the SAME FRAMING of an image.<br /> It is good that you check my statements.</p> <p>*</p> <blockquote> <p><em>[i am]</em> always <strong>grabbing the do-it-all zoom</strong> so I ended up selling the primes. I do keep to the longer and of the zoom though, I tend to not care where I am as much as I care who I'm with. <strong>I always go in and grab people's faces more than the places.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Getting a good distance from Subject to Background makes an impact, <a href="/photo/16546073&size=lg">this is the 24 to 105 used at F/5.6.</a></p> <p>Have fun with your 6D.</p> <p>WW</p> <p> </p>

<p>Afterthought - Maybe the “F/2.8” is capturing your imagination regarding Shallow DoF for Portraiture? In case you were not aware, one also has to take into account the Sensor Size of the camera. Hence my above reference to ‘equivalence’, so for practical purposes, the F/4 lens on FF is capable of making a slightly SHALLOWER DoF, for any given FRAMING of The Shot’ – not much in it though.</p> <p>BUT - I think that the kicker is. . . IF you are really interested in exploring VERY Shallow DoF Portraiture then you can always buy a couple of inexpensive fast Primes (EF 50/1.8MkII and EF 85/1.8 spring to mind) – you’ll never, ever get that shallow, with any F/2.8 EF-S lens and APS-C combination.</p> <p>WW </p>

<blockquote> <p>I also find a deal for the same 1000€ for a 7D (I know, quite a different camera) + a 17-55 2.8 <strong><em>(a lot more interesting than my 24-105) . . I shoot mostly portraits.</em></strong>.</p> </blockquote> <p>Why do you think that you will find the EF-S 17 to 55/2.8 IS <strong><em>“a lot more interesting than” </em></strong>an EF 24 to 105/4 IS on a (modern) 135 Format camera (‘full frame camera)?</p> <p>A few quick thoughts -</p> <p>> Apropos FoV:24 to 105 has a FoV both wider and longer. (which would be a plus?)<br> > Apropos ‘Equivalence DoF’: F/4 on 135 Format allows a tad more Shallow DoF capacity than F/2.8 (which would be a small plus?)<br> > Apropos System compliance: an EF lens will mount to all EOS cameras, and EF-S will not (which might be a consideration, later?)</p> <p>The first two factors reckon to me, as the 24 to 105 (on FF) as being “more interesting” than the 17 to 55 (on APS-C), for shooting Portraiture.</p> <p>WW </p>

<blockquote> <p>"I realize that <strong>no one-size rule/guidance works for all photos</strong> and there is a <strong>subjective artistic decision to be made about the DoF/focus point</strong>...I'm more interested in <strong>learning the technical aspects</strong> of how best to use DoF in the right context <strong>so I have options available to experiment with.</strong>"</p> </blockquote> <p>Good. That is very good. That is excellent. You have made my morning.<br /> You were posting at exactly the same time as I.</p> <p>WW</p>

<p>Wouter,<br> You worry way WAY <strong>WAY</strong> too much.<br> The intent and meaning of your commentary was crystal clear to me.<br> I was merely clarifying a few points in regard to the (two) lines of discussion which are happening here. </p> <p>*</p> <p>I think that John should come away from this conversation with information and opinions that will allow him to critically question the <strong>premise</strong> and the <strong>content</strong> of the article to which he linked - and also allow him to critically question the relevance and application of DoF, for <strong>each</strong> shot that he makes. </p> <p>WW</p> <p> </p>

<p>The contents of the commentaries in this thread basically fall into addressing TWO topics:<br> </p> <ul> <li> <p> From an <strong><em>artistic perspective</em></strong> discussing whether or not it a good idea to have a big DoF, without much consideration for focussing on <strong><em>a particular</em></strong> Subject in the shot</p> </li> <li> <p><strong><em>Methods</em></strong> to achieve the above, without consideration for the artistic worth of the resultant image.</p> </li> </ul> <p>For clarity my comments <strong><em>only</em></strong> addressed the latter. <br> <br> To the particular point and answering the question asked by Wouter regarding the Bordeaux shot – <br> There was a reason to make that shot how I did, that reasons is: mainly because because I wanted to. <br> My reasoning doesn’t make that particular shot a good landscape shot, nor a better shot had than if I had made the shot with the sharp focus on the building: I simply wanted to do, what I wanted to do. <br> By the way, I did take two more shots from that same vantage point and for those other two I used AF on the building as Wouter indicated he would have done. So I came away with a choice.<br> The reality is, when comparing all the three on my 10x8 display monitor, the image above has noticeably sharper grey pavers in the foreground, and I like that on that little monitor, as the building look quite crisp too: as I mentioned I think it is very important to also know the USES for the image.<br> In the unlikely event that I would make a print of that scene, I’d most likely use one of the shots where I focussed the main building. <br> <br> ***<br> <br> Commenting on the worth of a Photographer addressing <strong><em>all</em></strong> Landscape shooting with the idea of employing the H.F Distance and having an overriding need to make all shots with a very large DoF – my view is: <strong>that’s just silly</strong>. <br> Photography is not a formula – it is about achieving one’s goal or the vision - for each shot.<br> <br> WW </p>

<blockquote> <p>As an example, here's one image where I'd like to apply this 'rule' but didn't: <br /> <a title="Link added by VigLink" href=" -<br /> <strong>If I wanted to achieve best DOF</strong>, should I have been <strong>focusing approximately near the woman at the left?</strong> (seems to be 1/3rd into the image).</p> </blockquote> <p>No. As previously noted, she is not one third into the scene. Only for the sake of addressimg this specific question - I'd reckon that one third in is a bit beyond the tree on the left hand side - but note I am not advocating that method.<br /> <br /> Also as previously noted the article has several flaws and or omissions of relevant facts: one flaw is the “method” described for calculating where ‘one third into the scene’ is located.</p> <p>***</p> <p>I think that you need to concentrate on the outcome that you want and then employ the easiest way, for you to achive it. I don't think that using this "one third focus technique" is the easist. <br /> <br /> I also think you have stated that outcome that you want and <strong>I have assumed</strong> what you mean by <em>“I wanted to achieve best DOF”</em>, you mean something like this -<br /> <br /> <em>“in this scene there is a lot of foreground grass that I want to appear reasonably sharp, but I also want the horizon to appear reasonably sharp too – and I want to achieve that all in one shot - in simple technical terms: I need to have a really big Depth of Field to achive this outcome - but I also want to use a suitable ISO and Shutter Speed - so I want to have a simple technique that I can employ in the field to suit a quick mental compromise of Tv, Av and ISO, once I have assessed the EXPOSURE that I will use for the shot" <br /></em></p> <p>*</p> <p>I could not retrieve the technical details from your image – but it appears to be made with a moderate wide angle lens – so maybe this working example below will be of help to you.<br /> <br /> The image below was made with a 28mm Lens on an EOS 5D (that is a ‘full Frame’ camera) and I think this is a reasonable approximation of the Field of View of the lens that you used, if anything perhaps your lens was a tad wider, I think, and that will assist:</p> <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17855284-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="416" /><br /> <strong>Bordeaux, near the Garonne River, 2012</strong></p> <p>Similar to your image, there is a lot of foreground, and I wanted that to be in reasonably sharp focus – but I also wanted the middle ground (the main building)to be in reasonably sharp focus – and I wanted the horizon (far right) to also be in reasonably sharp focus.</p> <p>Obviously those points in the scene CANNOT ALL be ”IN SHARP FOCUS”, that’s impossible if you only have one shot.</p> <p>*</p> <p>What I find handy for this shooting scenario is my <strong>knowing</strong> the Hyperfocal Distance for a 28mm Lens (on 5D Format Camera) at F/11 is about 10ft – so that’s about where I focussed using the camera's CENTRE POINT Auto Focus and targetting the grid lines made by the pavers at about 12ft away from the camera and the shot was pulled at: <strong>F/10 @ 1/1250s @ ISO200.</strong> Maybe, with 20/20 hindsight, I should have sacrificed shutter speed and moved the Aperture to F/16. As you should appreciate, it is all a set of compromises.</p> <p><strong>I also knew my image’s USES - </strong>it would be for screen display of my ‘holiday shots’ locted in an informal area on my home and at the screen’s resolution and size (10 x 8 inches) this image looks quite fine and is quite sharp throughout the foreground, middle ground and background – so it is important to know what the uses are to be for the image that you are making. (i.e. how big the final image will be and how it will be viewed or scrutinized later on).</p> <p>I do ‘know’ a few Hyperfocal Distances for different Focal Lengths, mainly just the wide angle to normal lenses – 24, 28, 35, 50, and mainly only at F/8 and F/11. That knowledge comes NOT from shooting landscapes but from shooting doorstops and similar situations employing, ‘hail mary’ technique: that is to say, with the camera held over the head and without using Auto Focus.</p> <p>I don’t think that there is much relevance for using Hyperfocal Distances except for some rare situations: and this shooting scenario is one where you might find it handy. A post graduate PhD in rocket science or pure maths is NOT required to memorize a few H.F. distances at F/11 for the few different focal lengths that you regularly use - and one can write them on a bit of paper and stick them on the lens turret if need be.</p> <p>*</p> <p>Another technique that you might use to achieve what I have <strong><em>assumed</em></strong> the goals are for your image: is to use the DISTANCE MARKINGS against the APERTURE MARKINGS on the lens barrel. But if you used a ZOOM LENS then it is likely that there will be no such markings and many modern prime lenses don’t have them either.</p> <p>Below is a 35mm lens which has an overlay of clear tape and markings, because I was using it for Zone Focus shooting, but if you use this method you need to set the “∞” (infinity) marker at the Aperture that you will be using and note approximately where the corresponding <strong><em>same</em></strong> Aperture marker aligns, on the distance scale:</p> <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/15671930-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="486" /></p> <p>Another issue with using the distance markings / aperture markings technique is that modern lenses tend to NOT have a large rotation from closest focus to infinity, which renders this method relatively inaccurate when compared to using the same method with older lenses, whose rotation might have traversed 270° or more.</p> <p>*</p> <p>What you can also use (for a static Scene) is “Focus Stacking”. This tecnique requires several shots t be made and also has some limitations; requirements and a few issues – you will need a tripod and a bit of time for each shot, but I will leave that for you to investigate that option, if it interests you.</p> <p>WW</p>

<blockquote> <p>This was communicated and written down on the contract but <strong>after 9 long months some people could forget they only get me for 8 hours</strong> and not 10 or more. When <strong>I remind them at the final meeting</strong> before the job, some were<strong> unpleasantly surprised.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Maybe all that is required is a change in the method as to how you initiate; and the content of the message for that ‘final meeting’.</p> <p>Maybe also there is need for additional ‘touch base communications’ during any long period that occur between booking and the final date of shoot.</p> <p>For a couple of examples:</p> <p>> you might just be sending the couple a general message informing them of the ‘final meeting’ – perhaps it would be better to be specific and indicate that one important task of the final meeting is to confirm the shooting time, you might refer that “you have booked 8 hours, but we should discuss if you think that there needs to be longer” or something like that. The point is if the content of any meeting is put on notice, then generally people are less aggravated by any topic of discussion when they get to the meeting, because there are no “surprises”.</p> <p>> if there is a 9 month period, it wouldn’t hurt to send an email indicating that you will phone them just to "touch base" THEN - in that <em>telephone conversation</em> remind them that there are additional hours available (at a price) if they require them and generally discuss the timeline and how they are progressing with their plans.</p> <p>In any case, when I charge a session by time any “additional hours” are charged at less than the “initial coverage rate”. My reasons are the same reasons that Marc has outlined.</p> <p>WW</p>

<blockquote> <p><strong><em>These images are from last yr,</em></strong> but I am shooting at the "Red" church again next month and really wanted to get better results. Usually with my 70-200 @2.8 works great, but I struggled a bit that time. <strong><em>Any suggestions with exposure</em></strong> setting then? (in Manual)</p> </blockquote> <p>My best guesses are all, or most of the following points <strong>apply to the two sample images:</strong><br /> > used an AUTOMATIC CAMERA MODE<br /> > used EVALUATIVE METERING MODE and not correctly applying EXPOSURE COMPENSATION for correct exposure on the SKIN TONES and Bridal Gown and Groom’s Tux etc.<br /> > shot in AVAILABLE LIGHT ONLY<br /> > used MANUAL CAMERA MODE - and used EVALUATIVE METERING and 'centred' the meter's led pointer for the exposure of the shots</p> <p><strong>The result of the above points will be that the images will be UNDEREXPOSED for SKIN TONES of the SUBJECTS.</strong></p> <p><strong>UNDEREXPOSURE is a main cause of GRAIN. (NOISE).</strong></p> <p>Note that there is only ⅓ Stop difference between the EXPOSURES of those two image sample: so changing the ISO for all practical purposes, made no change whatsoever.</p> <p>Also UNDEREXPOSURE may cause problems or add a lot of processing time to attaining an adequate Colour Balance, in Post Processing. This is so for BOTH these situations:<br /> a) - attempting to remove a COLOUR CAST from reflected illumination (i.e. the light reflected from the red walls)<br /> and/or<br /> b) - attempting correct White Balance concerning the COLOUR TEMPERATURE of the Illumination on the Subject (i.e. the illumination from what appears to be a TUNGSTEN SPOT LIGHT)</p> <p>*<br /> <br /> <strong>Commentary:</strong><br /> If one is shooting in AVAILABLE LIGHT and one is shooting INTO LIGHT SOURCES which are in shot (i.e. the bright light source top of sample one) then it is very important to ensure that the EXPOSURE for the SUBJECT SKIN TONE is correct (because the camera's TTL LIGHT METER can be fooled in that shooting scenario). If the exposure for the Skin Tone is correct, so will the EXPOSURE for the Bridal Gown and other dress, also be correct.</p> <p>Evaluative Metering, combined with an Automatic Camera Mode left unchecked by correct use of Exposure Compensation, will result in the camera’s automated system biasing the exposure to, as much as possible ensuring that the bright light source does not blow out. The same applies to using Manual Camera Mode + Evaluative Metering and just 'centering' the camrea's TTL Metering readout and using that exposure.</p> <p>A similar camera's TTL meter bias seems to apply in the second image, as the BACKGROUND is quite brightly <em>illuminated</em> when contrasted to the <em>illumination</em> on the Subjects.</p> <p>Another matter for consideration is the ISO that is chosen must allow for an adequate shutter speed to arrest SUBJECT MOTION whilst taking into consideration the MAXIMUM APERTURE of the lens which is being used.</p> <p>The next consideration is that for all practical purposes the output effective DYNAMIC RANGE of the camera is reduced as the ISO is increased, so in simple terms it is better to make the shot at the lowest ISO possible.</p> <p>Changing the camera’s WHITE BALANCE will have little practical effect, save that it allows all the files which were shot in the <em>same</em> lighting conditions (technically known as the same LIGHTING SET), to be opened for file conversion at same White Balance point. This assumes that one is capturing in <em>raw</em> format. If you do choose to preset the White Balance, then a MANUAL PRESET in DEGREES KELVIN using a STANDARD PHOTOGRAPHIC GREY CARD (or professional White Balance card such as ‘WhiBal’) held in the exact location and aspect as the Subject to the Camera is a much better method than simply guessing to use one of the Camera’s Preset White Balance Modes.</p> <p>I strongly suggest that you capture in <em>raw</em> files.</p> <p>If you were indeed using FLASH, then there appears to be no evidence of the flash exposure effect in either of the sample images, in which case I conclude that the flash unit(s) was (were) placed beyond the distance limit of the EFFECTIVE RANGE of the flash -this distance is determined by the GUIDE NUMBER of the FLASH</p> <p>All the key considerations which are outlined above must be taken into account for effective outputs when shooting Wedding Portraiture using only Available Light in lighting scenarios where there are:<br /> > Comparatively brightly illuminated backgrounds<br /> > Light sources in the shot<br /> > Backlit subjects</p> <p><strong>Solutions:</strong><br /> There are several solutions. Two common solutions, but not all solutions, are:</p> <p>> The first, and probably the most simple solution, is to correctly <strong>use FLASH AS FILL.</strong></p> <p>> Another simple solution, using only available light, is to ensure that exposure is absolutely nailed correct for the SUBJECTS and then deal with any overexposure of the background, in post production. I usually use SPOT METERING of a known object in the illumination of the main shooting zone and then I compute the exposure manually to suit that meter reading.<br /> For one example only – I meter the Bride's face and then open up about 1⅓ Stops if that reference Spot Meter Reading was on <em>‘moderately suntanned caucasian skin’</em> <br /> <br /> <strong>Conclusion:</strong><br /> If the above is a correct interpretation of the situation (i.e. it is correct that the images are underexposed for skin tones and that you are shooting available light only) and if you pulled those two shots at around; F/2.8 @ 1/60s @ ISO1000, then that area of the Church, at that time, was actually quite dark (guessing around EV = 4~5),</p> <p>So, for that shooting scenario you probably need to be prepared to bump to around ISO 8000 ~ ISO 16000 to ensure that you are in a safety range for the SHUTTER SPEED to arrest SUBJECT MOTION if you are using F/2.8 lenses.<br /> and /or<br /> You could consider faster lenses.</p> <p>In either case you do need to have <strong>a procedure to make the correct exposure for the Subjects.</strong> My experience and the samples tell me, that the problem is simply that you made these images underexposed. I have seen this often.</p> <p>So although above is an indicative regarding 'settings' that you will likely use for <strong>that particular sample shooting scenario</strong> (note that the LIGHTING <strong>might not be the same as a year ago, for the next shoot</strong>): the answer to your question cannot really be about suggestions for 'settings' using manual camera mode – but rather you need encouragement and advice for you <strong>to attain a correct procedures, protocols and techniques for identifying what is the correct exposure that is required for any particular shot. </strong>In this regard the nouns in CAPITALS are technical areas which you might research.</p> <p>WW</p>

<p><strong>MODERATOR NOTE: </strong></p> <blockquote> <p>Here is my question.<br /> Is anyone interested in editing my photos for me? i have 1600 RAW photos . . . I have full full permission to do what i want with them and would be really pleased if someone could look at them. . . So if anyone is interested in looking at the photos and editning <em>[sic]</em> them work me can you send me a likely ball park price please?<br> Cheers in advance</p> </blockquote> <p><br /> This request for a quote on professional work and all subsequent conversations relating, should be conducted directly with <strong>paul jacobson</strong>, via private communication.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"Can some[one] tell me when I use stabilizer mode 1 versus 2?"</p> </blockquote> <p>Simply -<br> Mode 1: is for general use to avoid camera shake when the subject is still or close to still.<br> Mode 2: is for when panning the shot either vertically OR horizontally.</p> <p>*</p> <p>Canon’s words -<br> <em> “Select the stabilizer mode.</em><br> <em>*MODE 1: Corrects vibrations in all directions. It is mainly effective for shooting still subjects.</em><br> <em>*MODE 2: It compensates for vertical camera shake during following shots in a horizontal direction, and compensates for horizontal camera shake during following shots in a vertical direction.” </em> <br> <strong>Reference: p 7 "EF 70 to 200 f/4 IS USM Instruction Manual".</strong></p> <p>WW</p>

<blockquote> <p>"Using the text tool in photoshop, looks like William was able to select the color of the text from colors in the image."</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes I did: using the hue from the little girls skirt. Thanks for mentioning that option is available I had forgotten that I did that.</p> <p>WW</p>

<p>I use the EF35 F/2 on several APS-C Cameras.<br> After considering all the options, I am happy with that particular lens for the purposes of: light weight, reasonably inexpensive, small, reasonably fast (aperture) "Normal Prime Lens". Note that when I bought my 35/2 the 40mm lens had not been released, but I have no requirement to replace my 35/2 with the EF40 F/2.8 STM at this time.</p> <p><a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=990381">Extracts of a field test when used on a EOS 5D </a>(tested on a 'full frame camera' to show area of vignette, etc) <br> <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=937138%20">Sample images when used on various APS-C Cameras</a><br> <br> WW</p>

<p>On a serious note: as already mentioned this forum is littered with tales of grievances between Client and (‘newbie’) Wedding Photographer. In essence the majority of those complaints come from the Client and the Photographer, each, not having a clear understanding of expectations and capabilities. Even if the Wedding is shot pro bono, it is a very good idea to articulate the key points of the ‘contract’ in writing.</p> <p>On a less serious note: I am quite familiar with “Little Britain”.<br /> Yes I did note the pun that you made – here is a pun for you:<br /> Roll on Saturday - Break a Leg.</p> <p>WW</p> <p>PS - You might come back and let us know how it all went . . .</p>

<p>Mark,</p> <p>Thank you for clarifying the situation. I assumed that you were employed by the Lead Photographer as a "second shooter" and my query as to why the Lead Photographer was not more active in the shoot took into account that assumption and was an answer to your broad question "<strong>Any help</strong> would be greatly appreciated"</p> <p>I am glad that you have detailed answers re exporting: and thanks to the efforts of Michael for his endeavour.</p> <p>Good Luck with your first solo.</p> <p>WW</p>

<blockquote> <p>"Im shooting my first wedding this weekend as the <strong><em>main photographer</em></strong><em> has broken his foot </em>(<em>i was just meant to be <strong>second shooting</strong></em>). . . <em><strong>Any help</strong> would be greatly appreciated</em>"</p> </blockquote> <p>Firstly - I would be asking why the Lead Photographer (assumed they being the person who still holds the contract with the Client) cannot work, or at least why they cannot attend and assist having <em><strong>only</strong></em> sustained a broken foot.</p> <p>***</p> <p>Yes - there are three (3) <em>raw</em> settings available on an EOS 60D, I think that it is wise for you to use the largest setting, but you need to have the card capacity and/or the number of cards so to do.</p> <p>I agree that you do not need to convert to DNG if you are importing to a current version of Lightroom.</p> <p>Finally I would suggest that you be sure that understand exactly what contracts are in place and what those contracts mean, apropos your responsibilities and liabilities. <br> <br> WW</p>

<p>Gidday Lex, you’ve probably experienced an older version of Picasa.<br /> ‘Picasa 3’ is quite good.<br /> ‘Picasa 3’ allows outlining text in a different colour and the changing opacity of both is allowed. The text is rotatable. Various symbols are available through the ‘Fonts’ menu, which includes Windings, Windings 2 and Webdings.<br /> One can write text and insert symbols in a word document and then cut and paste to the Picasa 3 text box, which allows other symbols to be used - this is how I did the copyright symbols below.<br /> I have not attempted to cut and paste a logo. <br /> Here –<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17850956-md.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>WW</p>

<blockquote> <p>"I suggest you think about how many bookings you have because people said "I read your reviews on Facebook" or "I found your page on Facebook." How many of your 40 came through Facebook?<strong> If you can get to that answer, </strong><em><strong>then you've solved your issue one way or the other</strong></em><strong>.</strong>"</p> </blockquote> <p>I disagree.<br /> The answer to the question <em>"How many of your 40 came through Facebook?"</em> does <strong><em>not</em></strong> solve the issue.<br /> In fact, basing a business choice predicated on ONLY the answer to that one question, might skew that business choice. <br /> Because, at the least, one also needs to seek to quantify how many people did NOT make the next step of contacting "Green Photog" <strong><em>because</em></strong> they had first read the Facebook page.</p> <p>***</p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>I think I will just take it down.</p> </blockquote> <p>On the face of what you have disclosed, I think that is a good business choice. Done and dusted.</p> <p>WW</p>

<p>Many Post Production Editing Programs allow for ‘text’ to be added in a text box anywhere in the image.<br> The text in the image below, was added using ‘Adobe Photoshop’.</p> <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17760340-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="680" /><br> <strong>Little Girl and her Dog – Venice, 2012</strong></p> <p>If you want to sign a print, then use a good quality permanent marker – I use Gold or Silver.</p> <p>WW </p>

<blockquote> <p>I can show other photos privately.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes. Under the terms and conditions of use, you cannot post those images here.</p> <p>WW</p>