michaelchadwickphotography

Zenfolio and SmugMug are popular. I know Zenfolio (which I use) has a way to do self-fulfilled products. I do not know if SmugMug does.

Seconding what Michael is saying, I never require a watermark. I do contractually require they provide a photo credit whenever electronic or print publishing occurs. That said, I always keep three things in mind: 1) There is no real way to police that, and it's really not worth my time to do so. 2) My business model does not base profit on print sales, so the stress of my photos being "out there" is reduced to almost nothing. 3) Most importantly, I keep my clients happy so that I know they will refer me to others. Think about it: If someone sees a photograph online and wants to know who the photographer was, is there any reason your client would not give your name out? Now, that's on the CLIENT end of things. If you are sharing photographs with vendors (especially venues who are posting multiple gallery photographs from various photographers), a watermark is an important way to let the viewer know who took the photograph. You should absolutely insist on photo credit in this case, and ideally, a link to your web site to help with SEO.

My advice is to check with the designer. Did the cafe grant the designer rights to have their private space photographed? If not, the struggle over rights might be between the cafe and the designer, and may have little to do with you. The designer might have it in their contract that photographs for marketing purposes may be taken, but might not spell out rights beyond that. I would check with the designer first and find out what was agreed upon between the designer and the cafe.

I shouldn't have to use another browser to access photo.net. I use Chrome for everything and I'm not going to continue to fight with this because the site administrators cannot get their acts together. I have installed Ad Blocker, to no avail here. I have disabled sandboxed plugins, I have whitelisted photo.net for sandbox plug ins, and I have tried every extension and setting I can think of. No help. Someone from photo.net can email me when this is fixed. Until then, I won't be back.

The narrow depth of field is something you'll have to live with in those situations, because it's just the way to get your balance of ISO/aperture/shutter speed into a manageable range to deliver a good product. I use Mark III cameras which have improved in the ISO graininess a bit over the Mark II. When I used Mark II cameras I felt the limit on my ISO was 800, or 1600 in extreme situations. If you're shooting in RAW you can at least decrease the noise in the RAW Editor during post-production. That does help a bit (and can even smooth the skin) but if overused can make people look like dolls instead of people. So, you have to be careful with its use. Your best bet is to make sure you're using a slightly faster shutter speed and meter for a darker environment. That way the shadows are maintained and you can bring the exposure up a bit in post. Underexpose a little if you have to and correct the grain with the noise reduction tool. Stay away from angles where there is back light as well. In a worst-case scenario, it's better to have a higher ISO and grain, than motion blur. I can tell you that the Mark III is better in that area, and I've been able to safely use 1600 ISO when things get really desperate.

It is happening to me as well, and it is making me not want to use the site. VERY frustrating.

Bring Out Your Dead... 6 year old post. Relevant anymore?

If they can get into an argument over copyright ownership based on who took a photo because of a monkey selfie, I'm pretty sure that without a contract, you have the copyright. It's the studio's fault for not having a contract with you. Where it might get dicey is, the couple didn't hire you, they hired the studio. If you received payment from the studio, they could argue that you did that work as an employee versus as an independent contractor, but that would only be provable if they were able to show they paid you as an employee and not as a contractor. Interesting problem, but based on the whole monkey selfie argument, I'd say the copyright is likely yours since the studio was stupid enough to not issue a contract to its contractor. That said, be sure to insist upon a contract with any other studio you work for in the future. As for trying to get damages, like another poster stated previously, what financial damages are there? How would you prove that? Treble damages times zero is still zero. I would just use them in your portfolio and marketing, and leave it at that.

Refusing to scout a location in which you will be shooting because you don't think it will be worth your while and because you will not invest in proper lenses and strobe units which will get you through just about any situation, is short sighted and putting yourself through much more stress. If you are being paid as a professional, it is incumbent upon you to have the proper equipment to handle any situation properly. If you don't want to scout a location outside of the shoot, then just going to the shoot a couple of hours early is sufficient *if* you have the proper equipment. If you won't make that investment, you are going to have to scout and do very difficult workarounds and potentially come up with an inferior product. Make the investment. It will pay off sooner than you think if you are doing good work in any lighting situation.

Original post is from January, this is not likely being actively watched anymore.

Draw a number on their head with a Sharpie. Then have your assistant hand them a wet wipe on their way out. Of course, I'm kidding. There aren't many fail-safe ways, unfortunately. Your idea to have the guests fill out their number card (it can be as simple as an index card and a Sharpie) is probably the best method. Another idea if you want to make it "fun" for the guests might be to have your assistant use a Hollywood-style clapper before each, with the number and client name written on it.

I doubt the OP is catching any of these latest responses since the original post was from February and the poster is no longer a member here.

If your problems stem from shutter speed rather than auto focus issues, I agree with others here that a faster lens is going to be a better solution to your problem. You don't have to purchase a camera body completely on speculation that it will solve your problem. I recommend renting one instead and trying it out. This is a very low cost way to make sure you're getting what you actually need before spending hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. The same is true with lenses. You will also find that quality L-series (if you stick with Canon) lenses will give you a crisper, better image than the cheaper kit lenses will. There's a reason those lenses are more money. And not to be too brazen, but I actually have a book on getting started in wedding photography if you're interested. You can get it cheaper through my web site directly, but you can find it on Amazon as well. It's called Balancing the Art and Business of Wedding Photography. My web site page for it is www.chadwick.photography/press

I recently wrote a blog post on this ever-growing problem. If any of you have encountered similar situations and haven't known how to deal with it, I hope you will find it beneficial. Advice for Wedding Photographers – The Vendor-Photographer Problem

Seconding what others have wisely said here, you must choose how much of your energy is worth fighting them on this. Yes, you probably did very nice work and having a Sikh wedding in your portfolio would be excellent to have. One possible solution you might consider is to ask the couple if they will give you a list of photographs from their wedding, especially details where there are no actual people in them, that you might be permitted to use for your portfolio. You can tell them that contractually you have every right to use their images, but you also want to respect their wishes for privacy. Let the couple know you want to be able to show other prospective clients that you have experience with Sikh weddings and would like to use a set of images that the couples approves of you using.

Yes, this is absolutely correct. One way to look at it, however, is that the PPA membership does include equipment insurance as part of the membership. So, if you can get *both* liability *and* equipment insurance for under $600 a year, then PPA's deal isn't as good as what you might find elsewhere at that price. PPA does offer other benefits that help offset that membership, though I must confess I have not taken advantage of them myself.

I know this is a somewhat bad play on words, but based on the image above you seem a little out of your... depth. Puns aside, I mean depth of field, of course. If the point of this image is to ONLY get their names, then fine. If you're trying to get the date as well (and why wouldn't you?) then you missed. If you really want to use a narrow depth of field you have to know how close to the subject you can get before you start to lose the kind of depth you're looking for. 1.2 when you're four feet away is much different than 1.2 when you're twenty feet away. Like any tool, its capabilities are only utilized properly when the user knows how to use it. I highly recommend doing some reading up on depth of field, as well as general photographic technique for low-light shooting. It is vital to fully understand depth of field and how distance, in addition to aperture, both play into getting the proper focus. To second what others have said here, the proper "technique" for capturing any moment depends on your technical understanding of the equipment you are using. Once you have that, and I mean *really* have it, only then can you approach the logistics of capturing certain moments through anticipation and knowledge of your environment and logistics.

The PPA membership actually includes equipment insurance as part of the membership, so it's very much worth it.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/solar-observing/ci/33818/N/3583558376/sba?origSearch=solar+filter

It's all about managing expectations. If you shoot 50-60 weddings a year full time, your turnaround is likely very different from someone who shoots 5 to 10 and doesn't have them stacking up on each other. A photographer might also have a day job and can only process in their off hours. Ultimately, you know what your workflow is and if you set the expectation up front that it takes a certain amount of time, no one is waiting around and wondering. A year, though? Yeah, that's too long. If that photographer told your nephew up front that it would take a year or more, I doubt that photographer would have gotten the job. I prefer to under-promise and over-deliver. I tell my couples six to eight weeks and even in the busiest times of year never take more than four or five. :-)

I left Brown and Brown after a couple of years. They did honor a theft claim when I had one, but other than that there was no customer service at all. As for the specific certificates of insurance, they are actually correct that the generic one will suffice. Unfortunately, not every venue knows that and they will fight you on it. You will have to explain to the venue that the certificate is an umbrella certificate that covers you at all locations where you shoot. I found a less expensive policy through my PPA membership, so if you're a member of PPA it's worth looking into. The underwriting company is Lockton Affinity, LLC and I pay just under $300 per year for my general liability policy

There are professional companies out there who do this properly, who have the equipment and who have gone through the practice to become really good at it. There's no reason to reinvent the wheel. I recommend Bay Photo, Millers, or MpixPro. A "fair price and profit" is always relative, and the profit you make is up to you.

You could also work with your online site to create a custom package. Some of them do offer such things, so it's worth asking about.

Most of the printing companies out there have options for such books. I would look first at Bay Photo, Millers, MPixPro.