lindsay_dobson

<p>Thank you Pete, yes I think I will need to have a word with Pro photo. I've had this same template for many years and I have never run into a problem until now. It's very strange. I shall try disabling all comments as you suggest, and I'll have a look back over the last month for any which have any strange characters (it will be difficult to go beyond that as I have thousands of comments throughout the blog). I do use the spam filter which is very effective, although I've noticed in the last couple of weeks a few spam comments got through the net.</p>

<p>Hi Howard, this is the reply I received from my web host:</p>

<p><br /><br /><strong>Thank you for contacting us today. The error log is filled with the following error:</strong><br /><br /><strong>===================================================</strong><br /><strong>[29-Nov-2013 09:19:26] WordPress database error Illegal mix of collations (latin1_swedish_ci,IMPLICIT) and (utf8_general_ci,COERCIBLE) for operation '=' for query SELECT comment_ID FROM wp_comments WHERE comment_post_ID = 6934 AND comment_parent = '0' AND comment_approved != 'trash' AND ( comment_author = 'ガがミラノ時計' OR comment_author_email = 'tarvsnmoqxx@gmail.com' ) AND comment_content = '注目度の高いマークジェイコブス 財布 http://www.lyonsfirst.com/' LIMIT 1 made by wp_new_comment, wp_allow_comment</strong><br /><strong>[29-Nov-2013 10:47:01] PHP Fatal error: Call to a member function tags() on a non-object in /home/linds/public_html/blog/wp-content/themes/prophoto4/classes/seo.php on line 143</strong><br /><strong>===================================================</strong><br /><br /><strong>While the domain names in the errors may be different, these are the two errors that keep repeating. The first error has to do with the structure of your wp_comments table for your WordPress site. The collations need to be corrected. To answer your question about the error log, you can remove it without causing an issue, however as these errors continue, that file will continue to be written to. If you have any further questions, please contact us.</strong><br /><br /><strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>I have deleted the enormous error log file and I will scrutinise new entries when it regenerates itself. But I'm baffled as to why I'm apparently getting thousands of WordPress (with Prophoto template) errors which relate to a very short period of time. About a month ago I decided to restrict comments on my Blog, due to receiving a lot of abuse and trolling. All I did was uncheck the "allow comments" box when I constructed subsequent blog posts (of which there have only been about half a dozen). I can't see how this would cause the problems my host is describing, but I have no idea what to do about it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'll do that today Howard, hopefully they can shed some light on why this is happening and how to deal with it. I appreciate your input nonetheless.</p>

<p>Hi Howard, thank you very much indeed for the quick response. For some reason I can't view the contents of the error_log file (presumably because it is now so large, at over 8 Gigs) so I'm not sure what is causing the problem. What I want to do is clear it out, and then it will be much easier for me to see where the errors are, since they will presumably keep occurring until I resolve it.</p>

<p>I'm afraid I don't know how to halt the webserver - I'm a novice when it comes to managing website files unfortunately. But the fact that the error_log will be recreated is extremely helpful information - thank you. It seems I can simply delete it and start viewing a fresh log as the errors continue to accumulate, then hopefully identify the core problem.</p>

<p>Hello everyone, I hope somebody can advise me. In the last few weeks I've noticed that my website (which includes a Blog) has suddenly started to take up almost all of my available webspace. On looking at the files using C Panel, the culprit appears to be an 8.2Gig "error_log" in the Blog directory. I have no idea why in the last month this has accumulated such a huge number of errors (however my website has been extremely busy in the last few weeks, in terms of visitor numbers). My priority right now is to clear out the error-log to free up some much-needed web space, but I'm not sure how to do it. <br>

<br>

In my C Panel this error_log file is here: public.html>blog>error_log<br>

<br /><br />My first instinct was just to highlight it and then hit the red X (delete) key on the top menu bar in CPanel, however I don't think I should be deleting the log file itself, just the contents (ie thousands of error entries)? But I have no idea of how to access the contents of the error_log in order to clean it out. I am feeling a bit desperate, so any help will be appreciated. <br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>If Claire finds herself shooting a wedding in low light, where flash is not allowed, a 300 or 450D and kit lens isn't going to cut it. With all the will and training in the world, you are going to need fast class and bodies competent at higher sensitivities. Suggesting anything will do as a backup is folly - and an open invitation to a particular breed of client, who will find any reason to demand a refund should they set their mind to it. </p>

<p>It's surprising how often you need to resort to backups - in my view your backup equipment should be suitable for the entire job, not just damage limitation in an emergency. And as your business grows, one level of backup is insufficient, because if one item goes down you are still left with just one operational piece whilst you're waiting for the failed item to be repaired or replaced.</p>

<p>Claire, there is no need to be defensive. I think John is just recommending you take a cautious approach. We get so many posts in this forum from either photographers or disgruntled wedding clients, complaining about all the things which went wrong, and how under-prepared the photographer was, both with respect to their skills and occasionally kit which is not suited to the job. John has given very good advice however, which I would agree with. It is very true that not many of us can afford top-of-the-line equipment when we're starting out, but it is also true that somebody preparing to launch a wedding photography business shouldn't necessarily have to ask what kit they need. I think this is partly where John was coming from, and he does have a point if you think about it. There is a section of the forum dedicated to wedding photography primers, which is packed full of useful information, well worth going through. </p>

<p>Claire, you haven't said what your budget is, so my suggestions are based on guesswork. If you want to stick with Canon DSLRs then I would suggest getting a used 5DMkII or even a 7D (EF-S lenses won't mount on a full frame body, so bear that in mind when making your choices). Lenses are quite personal but you would cover yourself well with a wide to tele zoom and a longer tele zoom. Fast lenses are favoured for weddings, due to low light possibilities. Look at the Tamron f2.8 zooms for Canon, they are very good. You could also pick up a Canon 50 f1.8, these are cheap (there is also the excellent and affordable 85 f1.8). You don't need expensive Canon flashguns, there are some very good third-party options which still offer TTL (look at Yongnuo or Metz etc). </p>

<p>If you're going to be taking money for weddings then it is your responsibility to be appropriately equipped. You don't need top-of-the-line equipment, but it does need to be suitable for the job in hand.</p>

<p>I'm sure you've considered this, but (paid or not) you will need public liability and indemnity insurance.</p>

<p>Without personal projects I would imagine most professional photographers will start to feel jaded. When I adopted the Olympus OMD my attitude towards personal photography changed completely - suddenly I had a tiny and very competent system which I could easily carry with me. Carting around a big pro DSLR on a personal outing is no fun, and it's even risky, if you're prone to aches and pains. I've now added an EPL5 with a small pancake lens, which I can fit into a jacket pocket or waist pouch, and I can have it with me wherever I go. It's completely reinvigorated my interest in street photography. Of course the real problem is trying to find time, so dedicated personal outings are very rare, but just having a small camera with me every time I step out of the door (even if I'm going to the shops, out for a quick walk, or to a meeting) has proved very fruitful.</p>

<p>Eric, if you have physical problems then anything resembling a full frame DSLR, or even APS-C is going to be heavy, whichever way you do it. The problem is not necessarily the camera bodies, but the size and weight of the lenses. I have a number of health problems and a couple of years ago it became very clear that carrying my usual DSLR kit wouldn't be possible, at least not regularly. I now use the Olympus OMD system (EM5 and EM1) and the stunning array of Micro 4/3 fast primes and pro-level zooms. It's not just about image quality (which is easily on par with the better crop sensor DSLRs) but performance and speed, and this is where Micro 4/3 excels over other compact systems. I have set out my reasoning in this fairly frank article: <a href="http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/micro-four-thirds-vs-full-frame/">http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/micro-four-thirds-vs-full-frame/</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>William, I think the students are very sensible choosing Law!</p>

<p>Marc, a regulatory system need not be complex. All it requires is a form of registration where the photographer proves they are certificated, and if they are caught operating without the requisite qualifications/license they are fined. I think Germany has a similar system, although I don't know the specifics. </p>

<p>I have spent years trying to educate the public. It's a losing battle - why would the public be open to education about photographers? They don't care. Bodies such as the BIPP (The British Institute of Professional Photography) have been trying to work with venues, magazines, the media and brides to encourage them to consider accredited photographers rather than a cheaper alternative. It's not having much effect. Remember that society has changed a huge amount in the last 20 years, there is far less of a sense of responsibility or accountability nowadays. Educating the public doesn't work. And education for photographers is currently optional.</p>

<p>It doesn't matter how many talented or effective photographers there are if the public will not or cannot tell the difference between a competent professional and a hapless newbie, other than price of course, which is the one common denominator which repeatedly crops up in these discussions. It's not that most brides cannot afford a decent photographer, they simply don't think it's a priority because in their mind all photographers are pretty much the same, if they have some fancy kit in their hand. Adjusting that thought process can be near enough impossible.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>"As a result, we get a culture of 'any capture will do' and the ‘craft’ is ALL in the computer skills, which of course is the area where so many are more adept"</strong><br>

<br>

Very much so, and I also know many photographers adept at making a sows ear from a silk purse, all in the name of art of course. I also think that part of the reason why the vintage style became popular a few years ago is because the particular tints and treatments were very good at masking critical focus or a lack of attention to colour balance. I know a couple of vintage style photographers who simply cannot produce a well crafted and well processed photograph. I wonder what will become of them when the fad for vintage starts to wane. <br>

<br>

I believe that one of the things which sets apart the successful photographers from the transient ones is the ability to diversify somewhat (perhaps into commercial photography, corporate photography, or fine art photography) which requires a fairly well rounded skill set. This might partly explain why many of the more established photographers have also added training, or consulting, or judging to their repertoire. </p>

<p>Yes, having given this further thought I do think you're right William - there most probably are far less half decent photographers than they used to be, taken against the whole. It's not uncommon to encounter working wedding shooters who really don't know the basics - they simply buy the biggest camera and whack on the fastest lens, set to the widest aperture. There is also a pervasive belief that camera craft is not an absolute necessity, given the high ISO capabilities of modern camera bodies, and dynamic range. This means that most shooters may feel they don't need to learn anything about lighting, and if things go wrong the errors can sometimes be disguised under the mantle of "creativity". 20 years ago wedding photography was fairly standard, there were a very elegant photographers out there but one would pay a fortune for them. I recall reportage was very new and considered to be a fad - and that is another area which is being misused by newer photographers nowadays - why worry about posing, direction, or control when you can tell the world you specialise in candid picture taking.</p>

<p>I sometimes wonder what would happen if our industry became regulated, by that I mean some kind of central body being set up which any working professional would need to register with (pallbearers substantial fine if caught operating without the requisite licence), and they could not register unless they had one of the recognised industry qualifications. In the UK this would likely be an HND or above, or Licentiate standard and upwards with one of the four main institutions (RPS, BIPP, MPA, SWPP). The problem is that photography doesn't need to be regulated in the same way that other trades might, no one is going to die or become maimed as a result of malpractice.</p>

<p><strong>"What's ONE of the first things people scoop up when they are forced to evacuate their home ? Their family photos"</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

I'd love to know where this notion comes from. Having been evacuated at very short notice from two war zones, I can tell you now that grabbing some photos was the last thing on our mind (likewise the many other families I knew who faced the same plight). Instead we grabbed documents, jewellery, and cash - and perhaps a coat if we had time.<br>

<br>

As for the state of the industry, proportionately speaking I don't think it's that different to 20 years ago - what I mean is the majority of wedding photographers have always been either bad or mediocre. 20 years ago it was quite difficult to find somebody consistently competent. The same can be said today, there are just far more of them to choose from. The really good photographers I know (providing they understand business and marketing) are busy and are doing well. The majority might prefer doing it part-time, because these days to run a full-time business is gruelling and would necessitate even longer hours and that horrible thing called responsibility. In general, most people simply want the easiest life.<br>

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Paul, I hope you've learned a valuable lesson from all of this - the value of a worthwhile Contract and the value of communication. Since you have no Contract is very difficult for you to define what has or has not been agreed. However I would be very surprised indeed if you had agreed to shoot this wedding for free (if that were the case) and had not mentioned portfolio use to the clients. If so, then you have embarked upon a largely pointless exercise, apart from getting some practice.</p>

<p>It appears to me that you have two options. You can accept their decision and leave it at that, or else you could have a polite and very friendly chat with the clients, with the aim of resolving the matter. There is nothing wrong with talking to your clients about this, providing you go about it the right way and provided you are not visibly defensive. I would start by asking, out of interest, why they should wish that the images are kept private. It may be that their concerns are based upon misunderstandings and can easily be allayed. I would also put it to them that it is standard practice that the photographer retains the right to use their photographs to promote their business, since without examples of recent work it can be difficult to get new customers. You could perhaps negotiate the different usages which would be acceptable to the client. Most people are reasonable, and if you put it to them in the right way it is quite possible your clients will understand where you're coming from. If you photograph a wedding for free then it is only fair you should get something in return, but that does need to be specified in writing before you do anything.</p>

<p>Interestingly, it only appears to be photographers who feel they're being "rude" if they stand by their Terms of Business. Firstly, it should be explicitly clear in your Contract that the photographer is and remains the Copyright holder and any digital files which are sold to a client are accompanied by a User Licence for personal use only. You might want to elaborate on what that means. For me, if I provide digital photographs I do so with a plain English Licence and a Copyright information sheet, so there can be no question of the client remaining ignorant of the law, or any other limitations which accompany the files, such as the fact they cannot be altered in any way save for overall resizing.</p>

<p>As William has alluded, the vast majority of problems which photographers encounter can be entirely avoided with good communication and defined operating procedures. Otherwise you're making life very hard for yourself.</p>

 

<p><strong>Marc said: "Did you go to a first year pre-law student to handle this legal matter? I'll bet you did not."</strong><br>

<br>

I think she might have ....<br>

<br>

Curious Customer, I have attempted to read your account of the proceedings but found it somewhat long-winded and a bit melodramatic. I could understand your feelings if you had spent thousands of dollars on your photo shoot, but I would wager you may not have run into three figures. Nevertheless you appear to have 23 photographs in your possession, which is quite a good number. Your original gripe is apparently because the photographer has failed to provide more pictures than you expected - I would guess this is because she failed to create a high number of passable shots.<br>

<br>

Chalking up legal fees over something like this is likely to be counter-productive. As has been said, I think you have to put this down to experience. As was also said, you hired a cheap inexperienced photographer and with that there are usually some risks.</p>

<p>To add to what Tom and William W have said, I sometimes use a small Rogue Flashbender with an on-camera flash, it does a good job of softening the light and can be bent into your favoured configuration should you want to push more of the light forward or if the ceiling is very high. </p>

<p>I totally agree, Jennie. The feelings of the couple throughout this saga suggests that the outburst of the officiant was a surprise, and he clearly hasn't earned their empathy. </p>

<p>Nobody is disputing that the sound of the camera set off the officiant. The point under discussion here is that the officiant's reaction was disproportionate to the 'crime', and very much about his own vanity and sense of importance, which seemingly eclipsed his consideration for the couple standing before him. I agree he should apologize, but officiants (particularly the religious sort) aren't known for that.</p>

 

<p>Debbie, the church is in grave decline in the UK and throughout most of Europe - it has not grown, so I suspect you may be speaking for your own location. </p>

<p>I entirely agree that the ceremony must be directed correctly but to a point at least that is in fact largely at the discretion of the officiant - not every marriage ceremony is a solemn as you say, some are warmer than others, more relaxed than others, and more welcoming than others. With church decline in mind "in a number of locations" I think it is perfectly valid to complain about some practices, since those practices are largely responsible for the fall in popularity of church weddings. I sometimes feel that if the clergy really cared about the continuation of most parish churches, then the need for a degree of change should be a priority, as that will keep the doors open, and importantly the revenue coming in because without that the church buildings cannot be maintained. And so I stand behind my belief that certain attitudes really should be addressed. I fully agree that if the rules have been breached then a caution should be issued, in an appropriate way, which will not further alienate public opinion. </p>

<p>The behaviour of the officiant under discussion here was questionable - and my view was clearly echoed in the faces of the bride and groom.</p>

<p><strong>"The reason why there are so many rules now is simply because a lot of photographers have abused, misapply the rules.</strong><br>

<strong>So we are at fault. Not all of us of course, but we caused this problem. It only takes a few photographers to wreck it for everyone. I know people may say I'm wrong. I can say that in the film days very few places had these rules. If one photographer and second and 3rd shooters starts running around a church or a place of worship banging out 500 shots it surely promotes new rules."</strong></p>

<p>It's easy to blame photographers Bob, but we did not single handedly cause the problem, nor is this issue limited to picture-takers. Many officiants are by nature unreasonable, inflexible, rude even. Sometimes their rules are set to satisfy their own sense of importance, no matter how much one respects and adheres to the 'orders'. I have seen that enough times, and it has nothing to do with photography. However it should be noted that I say this from the other side of the pond, and things may be a little better elsewhere (but I suspect the nature of the clergy is what it is).</p>

<p>The discussion should not really be about mistakes made by the photographer, because mistakes should certainly be pointed out where they exist. But they should be raised with a degree of politeness, and with the bride and groom in mind. Whilst the words used by the priest in the video clip could certainly be viewed as polite, the fact that his body language, tone, and expression was confrontational should not be overlooked. That is best illustrated in the expressions of the wedding couple. He handled things badly - with all the pomp which has made the church so unpopular (in my neck of the woods).</p>

<p>Ilkka, anybody attending a wedding is going to realise that most of the attendees will have a camera in their hand, and a lot of those people are going to share their photographs online in some way. So if you don't like having your picture taken, then a wedding is probably not the best outing for you. And by attending a wedding, and being made aware that photography and filming is taking place, you are consenting to your likeness appearing in those images and their likely usage (with the exception of commercial usage of prominently recognisable individuals). So if the videographer decided to flog that piece of film to a psychologist promoting anger management classes, then he would indeed require the express consent of the key personnel.</p>

<p>I'm suspicious of the notion that the priest would not know how loud a camera is at close quarters - I would guess he has conducted weddings before. To imagine that the sound of the camera eclipsed his voice and that of the couple is far-fetched. And he did a little more than simply interrupt the proceedings - his outburst was completely disproportionate to the situation - that is not how you speak to people, that is not a professional way of getting your message across (unless you want to look rather silly of course). Instead of publicly balling at the guys, a swift private word is likely to have been far more effective, and would certainly have prevented embarrassment on all sides. </p>

<p>I imagine this will fade away in 20 or 30 hours, let alone 20 or 30 years! </p>

<p>Thank you for clarifying that William. I'm sorry if my prior response sounded accusatory - I should have made it clear I was speaking in general terms. </p>

<p>Luckily the couple seemed cool about the clip being aired. </p>

<p>Hi William, if there were no specific restrictions on filming or the publishing of filming then I will continue to feel that there was nothing wrong with showing this clip. I think it's an important clip in many ways. After all, the Internet is full of wedding clips, I do not see why this one should have been withheld, irrespective of whether the ceremony was conducted by a religious or civil officiant. It's provoked a valuable debate, and has given all sides some food for thought. </p>

<p>One thing which does cause me considerable disquiet is this - there is often a knee-jerk reaction when members of the clergy are involved in anything which might be deemed controversial. There is a tendency to defend churchmen, often from the most unpalatable transgressions. I do not feel that, because this man occupies the role that he does, he should be afforded an entirely different level of consideration (or privacy) to the rest of the populace. That mindset tends to prevail throughout much of the Anglican and Catholic church - hence there is rarely any sense of accountability. Now this incident is in many ways trivial - but there is an underlying principle, worthy of discussion.</p>

 

<p>William, there would not be a question of a breach of privacy for something like this - privacy laws generally relate to capturing individuals engaged in "inherently private acts" (such as intimate acts, bathroom stuff, nudity etc) and a wedding would not be seen as such. In much of the world the item would be classified as newsworthy. And clearly the venue permits wedding photography, which by its nature tends to reach a fairly wide audience.</p>

<p>If the bride and groom had restricted publication of the photographs or filming as part of the contracts entered into with the photographers, then I think that would have become very clear from the outset. And of course the bride and groom agreed to be interviewed, on film. I think it is fair to assume they clearly have no objection to this being aired. </p>

<p>My take is that the bride and groom were quite put out, even upset, by the actions of the priest and were possibly involved in the decision to broadcast the video clip - or at the very least they did not try to curtail the broadcast in any way, which I feel is quite significant. That view is upheld by the fact they were happy to be interviewed about it on film, where the clip was shown once again. They were I suspect responding to the number of questions which were raised about their feelings, and so made their own video for the airwaves. A good move, actually, as I think it helped to put the record straight and diffuse things somewhat with no histrionics.</p>