surfidaho

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>"Schmuck" is a Yiddish word, with the same meaning as "Putz". Both words refer to a portion of the male anatomy, and are not used by knowledgeable people in polite conversation.</p>

<p>I'm going to give David the benefit of the doubt. I think that if he was aware that he was using an obscenity (albeit a colorful one), he would not have done so.</p>

<p>I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV. However, I do know what I would do if I were in the OP's situation. I'm not advising anybody to do it, I'm just saying it's what I would do.</p>

<p>Unless there is a specific penalty clause, a judgment on a non-compete would probably be limited to actual damages, meaning the money the other photographer would have made if they had booked the job(s). I would take whatever job I wanted, and if I thought that there was any sort of exposure on a particular job, I'd put the money aside in a savings account. If McGreedy sues and wins (and that's a very big if) I'd turn over the money, but keep the interest.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>Indoors and After Dark Outside: 75% manual flash and manual exposure, 20% auto flash and manual exposure, 5% Shutter Priority with auto flash.</p>

<p>Outside with Plenty of Light, Action Subjects: 100% Shutter Priority</p>

<p>Outside portrait: Manual flash and exposure, all the time.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>Maybe Bob was trying to say:</p>

<p><strong>"After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true. "</strong><br>

<strong>Mr. Spock</strong><br>

<strong></strong><br>

Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky<br>

<strong></strong></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>I did a wedding once for a bride who developed an acne spot directly in the middle of her forehead just before her wedding. It was very red, and very visible.</p>

<p>I didn't even ask. I edited every picture.</p>

<p>Another time, a groom came to me when nobody else was around and shyly confessed that he was embarrassed by how one of his teeth looked crooked. I fixed every picture where the crooked tooth was visible.</p>

<p>People don't hire me to record the truth about their wedding day. They hire me to capture the ideal.</p>

<p>It's actually pretty easy to fix mouth stuff. Just copy and paste an equivalent area from the other side, flip horizontally, move it where it needs to be, adjust color to match (if necessary) and layer mask the edges with a very soft brush.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

<p>Howdy!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry to disappoint you but a 200mm lens remains a 200mm lens whether it's on a FF camera or a crop. A FF lens on a crop body simply gives you a different FOV (Field of View). A 200mm does not physically become a 320mm lens (or whatever the crop factor is) because it's on a crop camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On full frame cameras, the pixels are bigger and less dense. Cropped frame cameras have more reach because the pixels are smaller and packed more tightly together. Therefore, a 200 mm lens has a greater magnifying power (and potentially more ability to resolve detail) on a 12 megapixel cropped frame than it does on a 12 megapixel full frame.</p>

<p>On the other paw, this is also the reason why full frame cameras exhibit less noise.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

<p>Howdy!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Dont worry about the cold. Your cameras are not going to break.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have never tested a camera for -20 degrees, but my mountaineer friends have, and they only pull them out from under their jackets long enough to take the picture.</p>

<p>Cameras are precision instruments. Precision instruments have tolerances. Tolerances are affected by temperature. Battery life is also heavily affected by temperature.</p>

<p>I wouldn't push it. Keep it warm until you are ready to shoot.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>Many people discuss full frame vs. crop frame, noise, pixel peeping, etc.</p>

<p>How about peace of mind with a sealed body?</p>

<p>I got a tiny bit of water on my 40D during a very light rain, and I stupidly pressed the * button. The camera still works (mostly) but the focus point select and * buttons are shorted together, so when you press one, you get both. So it's off to the factory service center in Irvine for a hopefully not too costly repair.</p>

<p>Will any prosumer camera work down to -20 F? I don't know. I've seen several 20D's freeze up at about +24 F, but my 40D and XTi work reliably down to the teens. -20 might be pushing it. Weather sealed doesn't necessarily mean cold tolerant.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky </p>

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>It's New Years. The Yoga studio will probably call on Monday.</p>

<p>It's a stunning photo. You should be flattered not only that she found it on her own, but since she found it through Google, a lot of other people must like it too.</p>

<p>As an imaging software engineer, I can tell you that if somebody wants to grab an image from a website at the display resolution, they can. All they have to do is capture the monitor image and crop. Smugmug, MPIX, and other such sites (all of which are very good) protect full resolution images simply by not allowing people to display them. There's no other way to protect them other than watermarking.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>Somebody mentioned that the difference in sharpness between the IS version and the non-IS version is anecdotal.</p>

<p>That is incorrect. The non-IS version has been proven sharper by www.photozone.de. It's on their website under lens reviews.</p>

<p>I'd still rather have the IS version.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>I have owned both. My non-IS version was ripped off, so I used the insurance money to replace it with the IS version.</p>

<p>The non-IS version is sharper, particularly on the long end. However, the IS version is SO versatile that it more than makes up for it's comparative lack of sharpness. If you shoot hand held, the IS version is the way to go, no question about it.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>Too late! It has a life of it's own.</p>

<p>Nobody misquoted you, or picked your words apart. You simply said some things that you shouldn't have.</p>

<p>Maybe you were just trying to impress us. If so, it was pretty lame.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>I have to agree with Double-W. It is EXTREMELY unethical and unwise to put something on the table with the intention of never delivering it.</p>

<p>Your argument about making the album dependant on whether or not you have the images is completely invalid. She can simply give them back and demand the album. As for time, she can sue you for the time.</p>

<p>It is ironic that of the two clear paths we all suggested, delivery on the original contract, or delivering a disk based on a new contract, you chose a third option that encumbers you with this person forever, whether you realize it now or not. I don't believe that ANYBODY in this forum recommended the route you took, and for good reason.</p>

<p>In short, you blew it. But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you are an incurable people pleaser who just cannot say no.</p>

<p>Learn to put your own interests first. Don't suffer on account of your clients.</p>

<p>Good luck. You are certainly going to need it if you keep doing business this way.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>Many people have suggested abiding by the original contract and delivering an album. The trouble is, if Heather retains the images, she will never be rid of this person.</p>

<p>I stand by my last post. It's time to cut the cord.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>Like Marc said, this question has been raised and answered many times. But in the interest of one-stop-shopping, let me offer you a summary of the most common answer I've found:</p>

<p>Few (if any) people shoot entire weddings on film anymore. Brides are just demanding too many images these days for film by itself to be feasible.</p>

<p>However, there are things you can do with print film that you simply cannot do with digital, due to it's wider exposure latitude. People (like Marc) who understand film use it as another arrow in their quiver, particularly when they want to prevent blowing out the highlights, or capture a scene in true black and white.</p>

<p>I would encourage you to enroll in the darkroom class. It's a great education, and it is sure to give you an appreciation for the digital darkroom. No messy chemicals for one thing.</p>

<p>Me, I'm a 100% digital guy (but I look remarkably human).</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>Mike, let's not confuse the poor girl. ;^<)></p>

<p>Heather, regardless of what the bride demands, tell her she gets one of two things: An album, or a disk.</p>

<p>If the bride says "Both", say "No."</p>

<p>If the bride says "Album", say "Yes", bite the bullet, and deliver an album according to the original contract.</p>

<p>If the bride says "Disk", modify the contract to exclude all prior terms and deliver just a disk with full distribution and printing rights. Don't let her talk you into anything else. No albums, no wall prints, no t-shirts, no baby outfits, no coffee cups. Just a disk. Make her sign the addendum first and return it to you, then you sign it and send her a copy. Then you send her a disk, and say goodbye <strong>forever</strong> .</p>

<p>I don't think it can get much simpler than that.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>Prepare an addendum that gives the bride full rights to the images, get the bride to sign it, and send her the images.</p>

<p>Any loss of whatever "copyright" benefits you may have had from the images will be more than compensated by peace of mind.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>Not to quibble too much, but there is no right to happiness. Otherwise, most people would have grounds to sue the government.</p>

<p>The Declaration of Independence guarantees the right to the<strong> pursuit </strong> of happiness, but that's not the issue here. The issue is the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of expression, and freedom of the press.</p>

<p>H.L. Mencken said that "<em>freedom of the press</em> is limited to those who <em>own</em> one." In the past, only persons with sufficient capital or influence could afford to publish, i.e.; own a press. Now that there are blogs galore, everyone can afford to publish. Kay simply took advantage of the fact that she owned a press.</p>

<p>When one party attempts to seize freedom of the press from another party by force, the agressor is beneath contempt, regardless of the circumstances. That's what the studio allegedly did. However, Mother Teresa said, "If you want to make <em>peace</em> , you <em>don</em> '<em>t talk</em> to your <em>friends</em> . You talk to your enemies."</p>

<p>Kay missed an opportunity to leverage her First Amendment right by not talking peace with her enemies. They could have come to some accomodation that would have been best for all.</p>

<p>Also, when I mention the studio, I do so as a corporation. It's quite possible that the action taken by the studio was done so without the knowledge or consent of of the owner. If so, then the owner has an opportunity to rectify the situation.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>I see your pair of deuces, and I'll raise you on my three kings showing.</p>

<p>I'm willing to bet that the studio already has a link to this thread, and that they are avoiding it like the plague. They have absolutely nothing to win by posting here. Firstly, they would identify themselves to this online community, most of whom do not hold them in high regard based on the information provided here. Secondly, if the publisher they were going to advertise with was dragged into an online fight, the studio would never publish there again.</p>

<p>Thirdly, contrary to the old adage, there is such a thing as bad publicity.</p>

<p>I don't think we'll be hearing from them anytime soon. ;^<)></p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>Nadine, I do agree with you that nastiness as a response to nastiness is inappropriate. Most people on this thread, regardless of their position on the matter, urged Kay not to send a haughty response. This includes Josh, you, and me.</p>

<p>Where we differ is whether or not Kay should have given in to the studio on their terms after she received the letter. I say no, because regardless of whether or not posting the images was misleading, she still had every right to post them. They were obtained legitimately by a guest, and she has just as much right to post them as any other guest. Any request to take them down should have been directed to the Kay, accompanied by lots of sugar.</p>

<p>Of course, Kay could certainly have responded to the studio's letter with a counter-offer that didn't read like an ultimatum. The door was still open for a win-win. By sending a flaming response, that door is probably closed, which means everybody loses.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>Well said Nadine, but there is one key point that changes everything. The studio did not ask for professional courtesy. Instead, they used heavy handed intimidation. The fact that they were nice later when damage control seemed most prudent really doesn't change things much. Bullying is unacceptable, and it doesn't get any better when the playground thug thanks you kindly for your lunch money.</p>

<p>Kay seems like a reasonable person, and I doubt she meant any harm. If she's guilty of anything, it's naivete. If the studio had contacted her directly, and tried to work out a fair deal, this whole thing might have had a different outcome altogether. Kay might have even made a little money off the deal in exchange for declining to publish for a while, and everybody would have walked away happy.</p>

<p>I do agree that Kay's letter was probably better left unsent, But the only way people learn to avoid the Poison Pen is to suffer personally from it when words written in anger come back to haunt them. The pen is truly mightier than the sword, but like the sword, it cuts both ways.</p>

<p>Tuppence,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>Almost forgot. Please post your images on photo.net and offer them for critique ASAP. You deserve it.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>Your pics look lovely. I'm very impressed that you were able to get such quality without moving around much.</p>

<p>I can see why the big studio would feel threatened. It would appear that you covered every meaningful moment in an artistic, sensitive, and technically proficient manner. When you throw in the teaser that these images constitute a "preview" of things to come, and the fact that every picture has a huge signature on the bottom, the overall impression conveyed is that you were indeed the paid principal. It's a subtle (and quite masterful) bit of saleswomanship. Kudos.</p>

<p>However, these facts remain:</p>

<ul>

<li>You weren't the principal.</li>

<li>You were not paid.</li>

<li>You made no verbal claims of either being the principal or being paid. </li>

<li>You shot so well that a big studio is running scared. </li>

</ul>

<p>To this, I have only one thing to say:</p>

<p>AWESOME!</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>I tend to agree with Nadine on most things. Allow me to elaborate further on what she said.</p>

<p>I have a liberal attitude with my associate second photographers. I allow them to post pictures from weddings where we worked together in order to promote their own careers.</p>

<p>One associate stepped over the line by posting his pics from a wedding I booked as if HE were the principal. His pictures were accompanied by verbage such as "When I shot this wedding, I had a wonderful time working with (bride's name deleted), we got along fabulously!" While true, the statement conveys the mistaken impression that he was the only person there, or at least the principal, which means that he didn't shoot any more weddings with me.</p>

<p>I prefer to post pictures with as little verbage as possible. By using verbage you might say something that would drive away a potential customer, or damage your reputation with other photographers. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, it should stand on it's own.</p>

<p>Now if you had used verbage in your blog that conveyed the impression that you were the principal, I could understand the studio's position.</p>

<p>My position on verbage also applies to flaming responses. I agree with Nadine that any response to the studio at this point could only hurt you, and possibly provide them with motivation to take more aggressive action against you. However, I do believe you have a right to publish your photos, sans verbage, in whatever manner you see fit, and I look forward to seeing them on photo.net.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>In the age of ubiquitous digital cameras, exclusivity clauses are silly, unenforceable, and promote bad feeling at a wedding. I only ask that people refrain from shooting photos while I'm posing people, because I don't like it when everybody looks every which way except at my lens.</p>

<p>Here's a thought: If Kay was the bride's mother instead of the bride's friend, no doubt the studio would have gotten an earful from the bride by now.</p>

<p>I have followed David's remarks for many years. Although like him as a fellow curmudgeon, he would probably agree that we agree to disagree on many things. This issue is no exception. I concur with the majority opinion that you have every right to publish the photos in any manner you see fit.</p>

<p>However, I disagree with some posters who believe that a written response to the studio is necessary. You would be talking to a wall, and you might say something that would get you into further trouble. The most effective response would be to publish the photos in your gallery on photo.net. We'd love to see them.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>My vote is for the 7D, 17-55mm f2.8 IS, and 70-20mm f4. Then take the money you save from not buying a 5D Mk II and buy yourself a couple of plane tickets to the honeymoon of your dreams.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>