tolik_p.

<div></div>

<p>Hi everyone, <br>

After a long time, I have finally sat down and created a website for myself. I used wordpress as the platform along with prophoto blogs plugin for wordpress. I did the design from scratch, creating a simple layout that showcases different shoots in large format.</p>

<p>I decided to have the website in a blog format to save myself time; this way I didn't have to make too many pages and wordpress has pretty nice tools to create pages nice and fast.</p>

<p>Let me know what you guys think, I'd love to get some feedback. The site is very small so far, as I am still uploading all my shoots on it. Most of the static pages are also empty, as I only recently finished the design part of it. </p>

<p>Check it out here: <a href="http://www.tolikimages.com">www.tolikimages.com</a></p>

<p>Not really a Fanny Pack, but I use the NIKO Camera Bag by CHROME. Heres the link to it: <br>

http://www.chromebagsstore.com/bags/utility-bags/niko.html<br>

I can carry the camera and 3 lenses comfortably. Check it out.</p>

I can make a collage for you for free. Email me I can help you out.

Scott, thanks for the input, time is no factor for me, as I'd just print for myself in the evenings (better than watching tv) :)

 

I'll have to go test out papers now I guess, as I'll be folding all my prints in half with a creasing machine, so it needs not to

break on me. Challenges after chalanges :)

Scott, have you ever calculated how much it cost you to print say 16x 20"?

 

I'm leaning towards a roll based printer to save cost on paper.. So many options.

Hey David, thanks for the input.

 

Im also looking into the larger printers

that take paper in rolls? And also

printers that take bulk ink in jugs.

Curious on price comparison with that

route.

<p>Hello everyone,<br>

I am looking for a large format printer that will handle something in the 36" paper size, though 24" would be okay as well. It does not have to be the newest and greatest but its needs to print well. <br>

I will be printing 24"x 12" or 24"x10" prints most of the time on glossy photo paper. 90% of the prints would be in color and rest in B/W. I would be nice if the printer would print on canvas, but its not a deal breaker.<br>

My budget is around $1200-1500 for now. <br>

I want to compare and see if its worth it in "short" long run to have my own printer or just have it developed in a store. For comparison, Costco (not the best quality, i know) has 20"x30" prints for $9. now if im gonna print 25 prints its already $225... So I'm also wondering how much saving per print I would get if I would print at home. I know theres ink, paper and even energy cost involved, but still. Any help and input would be greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>Tolik </p>

<p>Well lets see here... As I am in a process in making a site myself, here's a few pointers / critiques that I can give.<br>

- First of all, Geoff says his pages load long; well im at a 35Mb comcast connection and it it loads real fast with no problems at all. I click on a picture and it loads instantly.<br>

- Picture info button is very interesting for "other" photographers, otherwise useless?<br>

- The logo is very "Weak"? it looks like its made in paint (about 20 years ago), not trying to bash at all, just my though. Maybe update the logo?<br>

- The dots in the background are very distracting. Kind of hurts my eyes and they get blurry after looking at them for few seconds.<br>

- The menu bar is very basic.<br>

- Your layout is in fact, large like Geoff said. My screen is 1600px resolution and your layout almost hits it to the fullest. The most common browser resolution used today is 1280x1024, So I would recommend having your website at 900px-1000px wide.<br>

- Slideshows do not work on mobile devices (flash). Use static pages, or find HTML5 or javascript to make the slideshows.<br>

Over all, everything WORKS on your website. Does it have "eye candy"? NO. It is very basic. Today, it seems like everyone want something flashy and "cool". So if you want people to remamber your site, then you will have to work on it. If you just want to show your pictures online without attracting "flashy" attention, then you are fine.<br>

I am not advocating for ProPhoto Blogs, but I just got it, and its EXTREMELY easy to use and get nice looking, modern websites/blogs. Downside, is that it cost $200. Im sure there are other products that will help you with making a better looking site.<br>

Best of luck, and its a good start, what you have. </p>

If you're on a full frame, then how

about a Sigma 85 1.4 ? It's about $800

and I would compare it to the canon 85

1.2L. It's an excellent piece of glass. I

have a 50mm 1.4 and barely use it, it's

just not the lengh I use often. For

something wider, I'd save up another

$400 and buy a 35mm L. Another

excellent lens.

 

Good luck.

A brutal critique? Okay.

 

Your website DOES NOT WORK ON A

MOBILE PHONE! Sorry but A good

portion of people use smart phones or

Ipads/iPhones. And you used flash?

That is totally like year 2000. People

use html5 and CSS right now. And a lot

of people use wordpress right now.

 

Stay away from flash if you want

people to view your site. If I stumble on

a flash site, I leave imideatly.

 

Hope that helps :)

 

I can't give you feedback on your site

as I can't see it as I am using an

iPhone for most of my web browsing :)

 

Good luck!

Prophotoblogs.com - best you can get right now without spending a fortune or having to code. Almost no learning

needed. And it looks great.

I've used the canon 85 1.2L and thought it was amazing (and it still is). Then my friend bought the sigma 85 1.4 and I

could not tell the canon and sigma apart! They are like over $1000 apart in price and quality is the same.

 

So now I would go with the sigma 85 1.4 (on a full frame body)

<p>Nadine,<br>

The thing is I was not the first to post any of the pictures up from the wedding. After the wedding, the paid photographer posted 1 image on facebook, the next day he posted another. after 5 days he had 4 pictures up. On the 5th day I posted a little over a dozen. But even before the paid photographer posted anything, there were already few pictures from other people of the wedding.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Second, (again, since you know the hired pro) I might have notified the pro about what I was about to do.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know the photographer, but I am not "buddy buddy" with him to say what or when Ill be doing things.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would have put a note on my Facebook listing that I was not the hired photographer, and name the person who was.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I did write that I was a guest to the wedding and that these are the pictures that i "snapped" on occasion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Personally, like Nadine, I don't post photos on Facebook</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are different photographers, and people do things differently. The people I know that do it; they do it as advertisement not as a package deal. They would just post some images and redirect the post to a blog and such. I would not have it in my contract either :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What is your friend's experience to quote "Photographers Etiquette"?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hes a fellow starting to persue photography (that likes to argue a lot) :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why would I, as the hired professional, rush home to publicly slap images up on a FaceBook page before the client ever saw them or had a chance to express an opinion of what they like or don't like?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As I said before, people I know that do this, is purely for advertisement for themselves. Its rarely under contract, and it just brings interest to the client (in my opinion)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think this is an example of one person inventing rules of etiquette that aren't.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I like that :)</p>

<p>Richard:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Did you speak to the photographer before the event or at the beginning?" "Did you ask the bride & groom in advance what the situation was with guests photographing during the day?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know the photographer enough that he contacted me few days before the wedding and asked if I can lend him a 16-35L since his was in service. He knew I was gonna be there and that I would take pictures. <br>

Within all the guest we were expected to have about 2-4 semi/pro/hobbyist photographers with pro cameras at the wedding (were kind of in a tight circle) So no one felt awkward about having their camera out. (free practice for all of us) and bride/groom did not mind one bit since they know they will get all those pictures from us (were all friends remember)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just think you could have done a little more.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What would that be? I stayed as clear from the photographer as possible and minded my own business and had fun like everyone else.. Why hold for 3-5 weeks as you say and wait till he processes his images? I just want to get this as clear as possible thats all :)</p>

<p>Thanks for all replies so far, very helpful.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But this post on FB was purely recreational and personal on my personal blog with very limited amount of people that could see the images.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I meant to say my personal Facebook page.<br>

Robin:</p>

<blockquote>

<p> There's not much the pro can do about it</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That what I said in my debate, he came back at me saying that it's not about what they can do, it's all about the etiquette and that I am lowering the photographer by posting my images. He also said, that if I post my pictures first, then the paid photographers images are now put at a scale, and should be at least as good or better than mine. Which is not right in his opinion... But now does that mean I have to lower my quality of pictures just so someone that got paid to do the job has a better change of having good images? <br>

I mean the paid photographer takes normal pictures, he is not bad. We just started talking in general at that point, as we had 3 wedding in 3 weeks of our close friends and i've posted images from each wedding. Bride and groom from each wedding loved my pictures and even thanked me for posting snaps so fast that can share until the pro photographer gives them his pictures.<br>

I dont see that I am doing anything wrong, but still; last nights argument got to me :) </p>

 

Nadine,

 

At no time I referred myself as the professional photographer. I am an acquaintance of the hired photographer, and

good 2/3 of the wedding guests knew who the main photographer is (as friends or other).

 

I do shoot for profit at times as well as design invites and other things for people. But this post on FB was purely

recreational and personal on my personal blog with very limited amount of people that could see the images.

 

I know of a lot of good Photographers that pick a dozen or so images the night after the wedding and edit them for

their FB or blog.

 

And Nadine, I shoot only raw, each file is 25-27mb and if you know your software well, it should not take more than 20

min to select and process a dozen images. (my personal opinion) but everyone works differently. If so, why should I

limit myself and have myself wait to post images on FB?

John, that's hat I said, but then my friend was like " there's etiquette that you aret following" and I'm the only one that

thinks that way.

 

I believe that I my snap shots from the isle are as good as the pro Photographers then I think the hired photographer

should try harder?

 

Am I missing something?

Hi all, I want to get your thoughts on this situation that happened with me. 

 

Heres the background story:

 

So I went to my friends wedding as guest this last weekend and naturally I brought my 5dmII and a 24-70 to snap some pictures of

the wedding party (mostly all are my friends as well) and to take generic pictures with other guests, my wife and such. 

 

The ceremony as well as the reception was at the same location, so when we arrived; the wedding party was still not there (they were

taking pictures somewhere with the hired photographer). So while waiting for the wedding couple to arrive, I went ahead and took

some images of the reception site and the ceremony spot. I was not alone, there was maybe 20 other guest wondering around and

taking pictures of everything there (parents of the wedding party were doing the something as us)

 

After a few dozen shots, I went and joined my wife behind the pews at the church. Wedding started, and as I guest I stayed seated

through out the entire ceremony, only took some shoots from my seat (no flash from me the entire wedding). During the reception I

took mire shots of friends and of cake cutting (along with a dozen of other guests). I tried to stay as clear from the hired photographer

as possible at all times. (I know it gets annoying when guests follow the main photographer)

 

So throughout the 6-hour wedding I snapped around 200 images. 

 

Here's where my story headed:

 

About 5 days after the wedding i got a chance to look at the pictures i took. I took about a dozen of the images, passed them through

LR, put a nice little border on them and posted them on Facebook. The images were up to my standard of quality. I tagged the groom

and bride and mentioned on the pictures that I was a guest at my friends wedding and snapped those images. A lot of people liked

and commented on the images. At that time I put out more pictures of the wedding on FB then the hired photographer. 

 

THEN, last evening one of my friends and I met up for dinner and he confronted me and accused me of not following "Photographers

etiquette". He said that since my photographs are not of a typical guest, and are of higher quality; that I should have waited UNTIL the

hired photographer posted all his images on FB. 

 

So here's where I stand: I was a guest, never acted as a photographer, never interfered, never used a flash. Didn't ever act as a

second photographer. I feel as I regular guest of the wedding that I have all the rights to post some images on FB. It was almost a

week after the wedding when I posted the images. The main photographer should of picked some of his best and showed it off on his

FB page. (He only posted one image saying more coming soon) This is the age of technology, why should I wait for who knows how

long to post my pictures that I just shot for my enjoyment. 

 

No images are used for advertisement, and were posted on a personal FB page. 

 

What do you guys think? Did I do anything wrong? Was it okay that I posted the images as a guest before the photographer did? 

Hi all, I got a 5D mII and a 24-70. I was thinking about selling that lens and getting either a 85L used by adding a couple of hundred,

or getting a sigma 85 1.4, having a few hundred left.

 

Later down the road I would get a 16-35L or a 24L to get the wider side back.

 

But what do you guys think? Canon or sigma? Sigma is getting lots of good reviews around and I would save almost a thousand. Is

the L worth that much more? I've shot the L but not the sigma.

 

I've heard sigma has a lot if bad copies around, but I can always return and get a new copy.

 

Your thoughts would be helpful? Thanks.

<p>I bought this scanner a few months ago. I had about 800 negatives to scan from my candid shots from my wedding, and all I can say is that this scanner had one horrible film holder... It really was a pain to use. I looked around but could not find anything good, so after scanning the set of film I decided to return the scanner. <br>

Scan quality was good, I had no problems with it after setting all the settings up; but holder lost my interest on the scanner.<br>

Good luck buddy!</p>

Hey Ray, I bought a epson 600 scanner, and I likes it enough to scan a couple hundred negatives. Results were good after messing

around with the settings for an hour or so. Paid $250 for it and it's worth it. It has digital Ice so it helps with scratches on film. Also

one thing I likes the most was that light was LED so it did not need to warm up, ever. Just turn it on and scan right away.

 

I did however return it, not because it was bad, but because it was big. And I mean it's huge for a stand alone scanner. Build quality

is great (except the film holder, little flimsy) but it was bigger in size than my all in one scanner/printer. And because I don't scan

often, it just didn't work for me.

 

Hope this helps.

<p>Ever thought about making it yourself to the end?</p>

<p>Well I shoot weddings as a hobby, as well as E-shoots. Also shoot nature and people gathering events (birthdays, anniversaries, parties..)<br>

Currently have a 24-70L and a 50 1.4, and a 70-200L IS. Also a 580II flash. Next lens will be a 16-35L II.. <br>

So ya... Don't know what to do.. The 5D II is almost new with not too many shots.</p>

<p>Hello, I have the opportunity to trade 1D Mark III for a 5D Mark II, as I've had the 1D for a couple of years now, and its in excellent condition and no flaws with it.. I just don't know what to do.. Any suggestions?</p>