amy_elliott3

<p>As a working pro who regularly delivers dvds to clients I've spent way too much time preoccupied with this over the years - tried various Epsons and the R220 (discontinued but sometimes available NIB on ebay and places like that) has been great for basic work. Good clean lines (on the right discs of course) and still working like new (though mine is dedicated only to dvd printing so hasn't had a ton of wear and tear). More expensive but the best I've ever used for images and more intricate design work on discs is the Dymo Discpainter.</p>

<p>I know of one serious and quite famous pet photographer, Paul Walker: http://www.pawspetphotography.co.uk/ I promise after looking through his site you won't think all pet photography makes the animals look cute but stupid. Very cool, real portraiture going on there.</p>

<p><!--StartFragment--></p>

<p >I use a program designed by Hill and Usher - their Package Choice, which is specifically for media professionals. Last year I damaged a video camera body beyond repair. I got my check within days for the fair market value of the camera (which is what I had insured it for). It was my first equipment claim so I didn’t know what to expect and was pleasantly surprised with how quick and painless the process was. (And though I know you only asked about claims – they also have been really responsive and pleasant with issuing additionally insured certificates, making changes to my account, etc.) Based on my experiences, I highly recommend them.</p>

<!--EndFragment-->

 

<p>Roy,<br /> Since you asked for opinions from users - I've been using the Arctic Butterfly for about five years. It works great, though the original model was a bit flimsy. The plastic handle broke quickly. To their credit, Visible Dust sent me a replacement right away, no hassles. As such, the company won my trust. The newer models are a big improvement, design and quality-wise, so I'm glad I stuck with them. An effective tool, especially while traveling.</p>

I have an expodisc and agree it is good for difficult mixed light situations. Though I will tell

you, an old trick that predates this is using a Pringles lid - and I have to admit the results are

similar.

Pamela makes a good point - and I think Dupre's lawyer is only going to be able to go

after unauthorized commercial use of her likeness (per his statement).

 

I was referring specifically to Gerald's post about only needing copyright clearance: "If, and

only if, the photos were used in a advertisement or commercial. If the images, posted on

the Internet, were used for 'news' -- good luck in getting anything done in court over

violating a copyright."

 

Not true, at least when it comes to reputable news organizations (Zuma didn't even have

to go to court, I believe), and when we as photographers start thinking that way we're

aiding the erosion of our intellectual property rights. And I'd argue if something's stolen

off the internet that's more of a reason to assert ownership, not less. The digital age is

heralding new challenges to copyright - whether it's proposed Orphan Works legislation,

the ease with which images can now be copied, the culture created, etc. - educating

ourselves and the public about the issue is more important now than ever.

You bet the photographer/copyright holder can stop unauthorized use of a news photo -

arguably the most famous case of this was the JonBenet Ramsey school photo (pink sweater)

that everyone ran. After Zuma made its claim AP and Reuters not only stopped using it, they

pulled it from their archives. And most other news organizations ended up licensing it.

I have an expodisc as well and think it does the job - just about as well as my old wb

solution, the Pringles lid.

 

To the op - if as you say, your images are consistently well-balanced and you're not

spending a lot of time in post fixing them I wouldn't worry about it. I only do in mixed light

situations that are particularly ugly - not usually the case with weddings. There's often less

light than we'd like - but it's not usually "conference room with windows" bad.

I think Nadine makes a good point that should not be overlooked - figure out what kind of

blurry it is so you can fix the right issue. Is the focus off because of DOF or is it shaky? I

think 1/60 should be fine handheld so if it's shaky, practicing may be a better investment for

now. Either way, identifying the specifics of the problem is the best way to solve it.

Jeff - I already stated in my post I know about the new answers feature - it's just one extra

step that every other forum I visit doesn't make you do. These little things (I listed many

others) add up to a format that is in my opinion, outdated.

 

Great information is on this site - I found photo.net after Googling for answers to pretty

sophisticated technical questions and threads from pn kept popping up - but it is not

assimilated and organized well (the limits of the search function especially illustrate this).

And unfortunately, that's where the wheat seperates from the chaff so to speak, on the

web - it's not just about providing a wealth of information but helping people access it

quickly and in a way that is not frustrating.

 

Personally, I find having to navigate the technical limits of the site makes me less

interested in participating. Others may not. But there is no doubt it does drive at least

some potentially valuable contributors away, which I think speaks to the original topic of

the thread.

Along those lines (wish I could've just added this to my last post, case in point), I don't

believe it's realistic to hope to significantly change the type of questions coming in, and

not even neccessarily neccessary. There will always be some interesting situational topics

and more dealing with critiques and gear. Practically speaking, what can be changed is

the forum's format to make it easier and less time consuming for people to find and

access what they are interested in.

 

My suggestions for that - list threads automatically by latest activity (no good reason not

to, newest ones still appear first, obviously), allow editing of posts, improve the search

function by allowing the option to limit it to one forum of photo.net and (most

importantly) break up the wedding forum into subcategories. Topics shouldn't be, as

someone else put it, all plopped into one area. Seperate bins would be so much easier -

and they're already established! Threads already get archived by subcategory - very

adequately, I think. Anyone can see how many there are, that just proves the point that

there are too many types to combine on the main page. Even if it's just a few bins, it

would go a long way to streamlining the forum.

Marc - I know about the new answers sorting option but most other forums do this

automatically, allowing the less popular threads to naturally sink off the main page. I think

that's far preferable - especially to newcomers who want to see what a forum really is about.

Also, I don't believe you're able to edit posts once posted (or if you can it's been too hard for

a simpleton like me to figure out.) These are just little things that add up to make this a less

user-friendly and easily navigateable forum than others I've visited.

This has been mentioned but let me reiterate - why can't the format be changed so recently

added-on-to threads jump to the top of the list like very other forum I've ever visited? There

must be a (badly, imho) thought out reason as it can't be the technology. Who has time to

sift through pages to see if an interesting discussion has caught fire? That's close to a

dealbreaker for me and a seemingly simple change.

I do! I shoot both at most every wedding - film for the b&w. I still favor the look of film for

b&w prints and love the darkroom. That's seems to be a selling point - it's offered as one of

my package options and 90% of people choose it. I also pride myself on custom printing the

b&w by hand - which past clients have said was a major factor in landing me the job.

Yeah, you very well may not be able to shoot the ceremony itself - in which case I

recommend a portrait in the temple before or after, with the Torah. You can even set it up at

the reading table - not so stagey as to think you're recreating the event but you know what I

mean - an environmental portrait with the text. And the party - there are lots of dancing

shots to be had of course, the cake, toasts...

I checked this forum for what I suspected would be one of my last times this morning and

was encouraged to find your post. I'm new to photo.net and was excited to come upon it

a few months ago. As a working pro for the last 12 years I feel I have much to contribute

(and even more to learn). I've been so disappointed and wondering if it was worth my time

- found many posts repetitive and even some that reflect no interest in actually learning.

I've seen advice offered by pros dismissed (sometimes rudely) if it's not what the op wants

to hear and do wonder where the more stimulating, situation-specific (as opposed to gear,

website critique) questions are? Not sure what a practical answer is - the forum does

seem to be broken down into adequate subcategories - but if enough people are

commited to raising the bar I'll hang on a little longer.

I love my 85/1.8. I always bring the 80-200/2.8 as well and end up using it way less.

I shot a baptism there a few years ago and ran into very few restrictions - I was able to use

flash and get quite close to the font. However, this was a private ceremony (not a mass) and

not at the main altar.

You might want to try Baboo - 212-727-2727, they're decent, and they do a lot of work with

our local ASMP chapter. But as someone who's been working here in NYC for over ten years I

can tell you unless you refer an enormous amount of business most pro labs are not going to

give a discount.

I'm a long time member of ASMP - even served on my local steering comittee. Of course the

two can't compare - one is the closest thing working photographers have to a union the

other is a paid marketing tool/website listing service. I wasn't using the term exclusive to

mean elite - my point was at least the WPJA tries to differentiate wedding photojournalism

the slightest bit by reviewing applicants to see if they are indeed doing that. As many have

pointed out (sometimes disparagingly on this forum) it's not the same as traditional wedding

photography and it's also not the same as shooting a lot of candids.

That's fine (joke or not I really didn't understand it), but I think my point is still worth making.

I think the exclusivity is good - not only as a marketing tool but also as a standard bearer for

wedding photojournalism (which needs it!)

I've been a member of the WPJA for years - it has brought me business. I think it's very

helpful for the right type of photographer - perfect for me, for example, a working

photojournalist who happens to do weddings as well. It really is for clients who are

looking for that particular style so slanting a website just to get accepted isn't going to

help land them if it's not what you do (there are enough members who do do that

exclusively).

 

That said - I think your work (if it's representative) falls in that category. I especially like

how you've organized the portfolio to tell a story - all the different wedding moments

adding up to one universal one, chronologically ordered. My only suggestion would be a

few less portraits - not just for the WPJA but they are similarly shot (close, composition off

to one side) and get a bit repetitive.

 

Re. the post about not wanting to join a club considering for membership or whatever -

I'm guessing that has something to do with having to apply and the fact that they do reject

people - which some may consider odd for a paid listing service. Personally I appreciate it

- I've read posts in this forum disparaging photojournalistic wedding photography and I

think that's because some people think they can just take a bunch of lousy candids and

call themselves pj shooters which makes the rest of us look bad. Having standards for the

community is a good thing.

I usually close it down, and that's a big selling point for me. It's a killer way to do things

though! And to be fair, I don't do it every weekend - I'm primarily a photojournalist and limit

my weddings to six a year. But, late night is when I've shot some great album-ending images

- one comes to mind of the bride and her mom from behind, arms on each others' shoulders

surveying the almost empty room and post-party remnants.

I use the D2X and D200. You can do great up to 640, ok at 800. I swear by Nikon and was

intent on sticking with them after my switch to digital four years ago, noise issues and all so

I've done a lot of experimentation - I really believe it's largely (though not solely) a RAW

processing issue. The noise in ACR is tough - the Nikon processor is much cleaner. But

yeah, with NEF - 800 is just fine.

Patrick - if only I hadn't invested the last decade in Nikon lenses, flashes, etc.! Seriously, I

love my D200 (and all my Nikon gear) but boy do their software issues make me mad (not

mad enough to ever switch to Canon though).