martyphotoarts

<p>Landrum,<br>

One would think, if judging by nothing more than the sheer volume of your own posts, that you might have managed to answer your own question by now. If not, I fear none of us will be able to take you any further down the road toward finding that illusive answer.</p>

<p>I'm reminded of a scene from "Quiggly Down Under" where he shoots the bad guy and two of his enchmen dead with a Colt, and then remarks about a comment made earlier in the movie - that "I said he never had use for one (the Colt, that is), I never said I didn't know how to use it." My point? Learn how to use the flash. You are ham-stringing yourself by not utilizing the D300's CLS system. </p>

<p>So, Sandeep, if your goal is not just to fill up your bag with more gear to lug around, then spend some of that seed money on a class or workshop or books about artificial lighting. I can only imagine how many shots you've already taken of your little girl that may have greatly benefited from knowing how to fill with flash.</p>

<p>I think it's quite obvious what is going on here, William. Both you and the SS agent are dead and, as such, you are not nearly as opaque in pictures as you are used to. The real mystery is why are you still here starting threads on PN? And if that isn't it, then I really have no idea what the heck is going on with your camera.</p>

<p>I once had an artist friend - now deceased for many years - who produced some of the more beautiful ink & colored pencil pieces I'd ever seen. But for some inexplicable reason, those never seemed to mean much to Dick. What he would get him over-the-top excited were large abstract acrylic paintings that, to me, were God-awful. In fact, none of us in the circle of artsy types that I hung with at the time, could figure it out. I think you have the same thing going on here. </p>

<p>Of course, visually (or any) creative endeavors are very subjective. There is no accounting for taste as they say. And one person's taste is not the litmus test for whether or not something is visually interesting or inspiring. You have to admit though, some people seem to lack discretion over what they are willing to offer up here. My hope is that I won't be seen as one of those people.</p>

<p>Ruby,<br>

After spending a few minutes perusing your portfolio, I have to agree with Devon that the wedding shots demonstrate a more creative approach, at least much of the time. The theme is anything but consistent though. One thing that is consistent, at least in every shot I saw in whichever category, you seem to either be overexposing most of the time, or doing something in post that really throws off the skin tones. Some just seem to have blown highlights. Were those an attempt at high key? If they were they failed to get there IMHO. There are just about as many takes on what makes for a perfect exposure (depending on what you're trying to achieve) as there are photographers. For me, I find it works better to underexpose by stop. I can still recover the detail without creating too much noise. Once a shot is significantly overexposed there is no recovering the data, even shooting raw. At least not to the point that you can salvage the shot.<br>

I think Devon also mentioned about the soft focus on the eyes. I second that. We humans tend to connect with one another visually through the eyes. If those aren't sharp then the attraction of the portrait suffers. Keep working at it.</p>

<p>Craig, just saw your post... That is pretty much how I'm handling it at this point. After our last meeting where budgets (or the lack thereof) were discussed at length, I've decided to do the project for them with that as remuneration. I know the cause is worth, but knowing that last year they had a $2.2 MM cash reserve, and that the top admins make six figures, I'm left feeling a little angst at essentially being told that what I contribute is one worth a line in a program. I know I'll have to leave those feelings at the door when the project starts.</p>

<p>Thanks again to all for the input. Suffice it to say that we won't finally resolve the age-old controversy of when or when not to charge a client within this thread. I guess it remains in the realm of a personal choice.</p>

<p>As for me, I'm leaning toward charging at least a portion of my normal fee. Your comment, Tony, about not getting to "the point where you need their services" is a good one. After all, even charities have to have cash flow in order to continue doing what it is they do. And my work will help them do just that.</p>

<p>I have to say that you do sound a bit jaded, 2D. Maybe you have good reason though, so I won't accuse you of having a bad attitude. It seems to me, even with my limited experience, that nonprofits do spend a great deal of time, effort, and I'm sure money, on eliciting donations and support. And I'm guessing that most of them have paid staff whose job it is to get this done. As for the "time donation" not being considered a tax donation under IRS guidelines, well, I guess I've got more tax deductions than I want anyhow, so that wouldn't factor into my decision to do the work or not. This particular group's unprofessional demeanor and lack of communication/organization is beginning to wear thin with me and that, ultimately, may tip the scale in favor of passing on this certain-to-be-frustrating opportunity.</p>

<p>Thanks to all for your responses. I'll let you know if I end up taking the job and perhaps even post a few of the pics on PN.</p>

<p>That's very interesting, David. It's definitely not something that has crossed my radar screen. What you're talking about is the effect the human dynamic and work relationships can have on spending decisions. I'm a bit embarrassed to admit that, with all my experience in business negotiations (in the for-profit-sector) I'd never really given this any thought. Thanks for that. Now to figure out a way to empower my contact to have that conversation with the powers-that-be.</p>

<p>Hmmm, good point Barry. I wonder if they'd let me examine their books? Seriously though, it makes me wonder if financial data would be available somehow.</p>

<p>David & Neil - thanks for the dose of reality. Your point, David, about future expectations based on past experience is something I know all too well. Offering services for free is like loading, cocking, and handing the the client a revolver to shoot you with. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they dropped their sights a bit should I insist on remuneration, and settle for what they've had in the past - an amateurish looking presentation.</p>

<blockquote>Or the other permutation, which is if they're going to pay real rates then they're not restricted to their choice of photographer, and may choose whoever they want ..."This suggestion is uncomfortably plausible, if not altogether likely. </blockquote>

<p>I appreciate the advice, guys. For me it's all a learning experience and it's great to be able to learn from those who have a greater depth of experience than myself.</p>

<p>I really do appreciate your insight, Mark. You've made an astute observation, I am not entirely happy about what they've offered. Guess I'll have to have a talk about their budget and my fee. And Jeff, your succinct response cuts right to the heart of the matter. Thanks. While this organization feeds a great many homeless in the community, they don't feed my family and myself. But I get the feeling that should I get in the habit of working for "potential future work", they may soon need to.</p>

<p>I've been asked to produce a slide show using stills and, possibly, some video for a local nonprofit. It would entail some use of photos they already have, some I've already taken (pro bono at an event they sponsored this past holiday season), and would also require that I schedule time to shoot at various venues (again locally) that would show them in action. It may also require that I video tape documentary style interviews of staff, those who are recipients of their services, and current donors. At this point I expect it to require 2-3 days of shooting at various locales, but that could expand.</p>

<p>I did the earlier shoot for free because my wife was playing with the orchestra that was participating in the event. They have offered to give me a sponsorship in an upcoming event at which they would use this slide show. Ahhh, the promise of future work... My question is, since they are a nonprofit, would that be considered reasonable compensation, or is a discussion about monetary compensation warranted? I meet with them later this week to discuss specifics and wanted to bring this up at that time and see whether or not they have a budget for it. My gut feeling is that those who work for the organization, at least some, are compensated with their salary, so why should I be expected to just donate my time and talents? I want to be fair and they are, IMO a worthy cause, but not having worked for a nonprofit before I'm not certain how to define fair. Appreciate any feedback or thoughts.</p>

<p>Brian,<br>

What you can or should do in this example depends, like Kevin suggested, on how your business is legally registered. If you are a sole proprietor, then all income flows back to you personally and business expenses are deducted on Schedule C. It matters little whether for not you paid for those expenses from a "personal" or "business" checking account. The issue in that case is whether it appears to be a legitimate business expense for your type of business. If you operated a daycare out of your home and bought a 7D, uncle sam may take issue with that as a legit business expense.</p>

<p>Have to agree with Ed here, Andrea. Looking at the other software mentioned, most don't come close to Proshow (though I couldn't tell what in the heck Photomagico was supposed to be ~ I admit, I did not spend much time looking when it was not obvious). Animoto seemed somewhat comparable, but it appeared that the cost was a yearly expense and who needs that! Showit looked as though it would give you rudimentary tools but would have nowhere near the capability of Proshow. It's like this: A Chrysler K car is (or was) an automobile, and so is what they rage around NASCAR tracks in. Which one would like to drive in a race? With Showit you'll be fine...unless you run into competion who are using Proshow. : )</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

A Lake Erie evening at a break water in Luna Pier, Michigan.<div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>ABTW (anybody but the wife)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very funny, Benjamin. My wife is possessed of that same innate ability. Don't know if it's some kind of subconcious defense, sort of Freudian, or her just messing with me 'cause I'm subjecting her to something that, truth be told, she'd rather not be taking part in.</p>

<p>I found out the hard way though that the real trouble was not aiming my lense in her direction. It was getting carried away in pp. She nearly came to tears when I showed her the "makeover" I'd done in PS. She accused me of not being happy with her body (i.e. her looks). Perhaps my reponse of "How could I be, I've seldom seen it since our honeymoon" didn't help.</p>

<p>That was really too over-the-top for me with the crude language. Here's another one along the same vein, only not in cartoon form, and not so incredibly crude. But when all is said and done, these would be a lot funnier if they didn't hit so close to home.</p>

<p>

<p>Perhaps, Michael. I'm not so overconfident or arrogant that I would totally rule out having contributed to noise issues, at least at times. But I've experienced it often enough, and under such various and diverse conditions and situations, that I believe it's possible that it may be more than simple user error.</p>

<p>Since you are, as you stated, a professional, would you kindly share with me what aspects of user control I could take a closer look at in order to rule out my own contribution. I mean that sincerely because other than issues with noise, I really enjoy shooting with this camera. I never intended to dis the D300. So, if you're willing, enlighten me.</p>

<p>I've been considering upgrading to FX for precisely this reason. "All the noise, noise, noise," (A quote from the Grinch). At a relative's wedding recently, I toted along my D300 to take photos for my wife mostly. They had already hired a photog and I try not to do weddings, especially for family. I was asked not to use my flash during the ceremony to cut down on distraction. No problem, I'll just crank my ISO to 800 to get the sp I need. The noise was horrible, almost to the point I didn't even want to show them to my wife.</p>

<p>While this wasn't a surprise, it's frustrating and a bit demoralizing getting that kind of results, especially when so many tout this as a great camera for low light. The wedding photog had two D3s hanging on his neck. We spoke at various times throughout the night and he showed me shots taken at 5000 ISO. No noticeable noise - zip. I double checked the photos once he published them online and they looked incredible for that ISO. So Kevin, definitely feel your pain.</p>

<p>This is the age old question, Rick. The good news is, it's one you only have to answer if you last long enough in business, so for what it's worth, congratulations on your longevity.</p>

<p>I spent a number of years as a business consultant and helped many of my clients when they were right where you are - the point of transition. I can tell you from experience that most attorneys and accountants will not be of help to you in this process. Got a legal or a bookkeeping issue, then by all means consult them. Financial? Not so much. There are 3 primary ways to arrive at a value for a business: Liquidation (don't think you want that route), capitalization (some of the replies above have alluded to this), or fair market (what other similar businesses in your area are selling for). Many times the final number is a result of applying the latter 2 processes. Capitalization attempts to evaluate the income generating ability of the business and uses a multiplier to form the final number. It can often seem fairly arbitrary and even capricious. Fair market value is often the best way to determine value, as well as the hardest since information on the sale of private enterprise can be difficult to obtain.</p>

<p>The other "value" consideration was alluded to by Peter. Goodwill. It's something that definitely has an impact on the value of the business, but the argument for or against it can be dicey. For instance, you appear to be in good standing in your community and with your clients. But from the standpoint of value, the question becomes whether you or the business name are recipient of the goodwill. If it is perceived to be you, then the business may initially suffer when it changes hands.</p>

<p>One other thought, Rick. Since you already have a photographer working for you, have you thought about approaching him or her about buying the studio? Assuming they could come up with financing, it seems like a logical fit. If they can't fund the entire purchase, maybe you work out a down payment and installment plan with the business reverting back to you should they default. After all, they've got a vested interest in obtaining ownership since their livelihood just might depend on it. By the way, drawing up the purchase agreement with whomever winds up buying it is where that attorney of yours should prove useful. Anyway, my 2 cents. Hope it helps.</p>

<p>I guess that, ultimately, you're right, Tom. After all, Ben's approach isn't too acerbic, just self serving.</p>

<p> As for me, I suppose I'd be inclinded to be less critical if he were less inclined to stroke his ego with every thread he starts. That said, I still look to see just what, if anything, can be gleaned from everything I read on PN, including Benjamin's long-running infomercials.</p>