mark_t5

<p>I tried tinkering with firing the slave without firing the master a while back, and I think somewhere someone said that was impossible..so what i did was to make a cover for the master to fix that issue... :)</p>

<p>then again i use my flash in Manual mode..so I dont have the problem of underexposures like you do, but if you simply bump up the flash compensation on the slave that should fix the problem somewhat?</p>

<p>oh...between the 50 1.2 and the 85 1.2 i opted to get the 85 1.2..... partly because i already have the 50 1.4... but also because i felt i rather have a longer focal length lens for portraits instead of the 50...but that is more of a personal preference.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What I am wondering is, why does anybody NEED to claim to have been published? I've never been asked by a potential photography client if my work has been published or where.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is all about marketing and hype, especially for wedding photography....when brides see "being published in X" they automatically assumes the photographer is good and willing to pay more.. same reasoning applies to the words "award winning". They see those and they'll pay more even thought that award was at a local strip mall.</p>

<p>That is why you see a lot of wedding photographers wanting to be "published" and "won awards"<br /> I see a lot of photographers that say they are published, but don't mention that it was in some wedding microblog with 10 followers....but i guess at least that is still more honest than buying an ad and then saying they are published.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How do you know that this photographer hasn't been published outside of an image in the paid ad that you speak of?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let's just say I know this for a fact :)</p>

<p><br /> What exactly constitues "being published"? I always was under the belief that being published means that the publication, being a magazine or a newspaper, published a piece/photo of yours on their publication for a story of theirs.<br /> <br /> <br /> This person is advertising that they are published in the Knot because they paid for an ad spot in the magazine. Really? it sounds a bit like false advertising to me. or is it just me...</p>

<p>the zoom will smooth out as you use it more...mine started fairly tight...now it's pretty smooth.</p>

<p>do it in a blue screen and photoshop it :)</p>

<p>just get a flash light and attach a diffuser ( piece of paper ) to it..much cheaper than 400 bux.</p>

<p>rather than care about what stuff i'm going to get for X price... the more important issue is what are the qualities of the images..</p>

<p>if the images are awesome i'll pay a good amount...but if the images are lame and yucky..you can throw the kitchen sink for all i care and i'll still not pay anything for them.</p>

<p>its my opinion that rather than include stuff in your packages and see how much you can charge for them...concentrate on the images, and the rest will follow.</p>

<p>as for the "how many images would you take" question..you take as many as needed</p>

<p>when do you ask for the money? uh...when they book you?</p>

<p>insurance is always good..unless you got deep pockets to cover accidents.</p>

<p>i know some shooters that have a fairly good bookings but don't care for insurance. </p>

<p>i also know ppl that are paranoids and get insurances even though they have very limited bookings.... it is kind of a personal preference thing if you ask me.</p>

<p>i tend to compare it to a health insurance.</p>

 

<p>is it just me or does that make you look stupid?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Dude, your post doesn't make any sense, thats why you can't understand what I'm saying.<br /> SO, is a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 a fast lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>now i know you are the one with the issue here.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Mark T my question to you is:<br /> How fast was that lens, since you find it amusing?<br /> How fast is a lens?!?!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>well.considering i don't know what brand of lens she has i can only speculate. but i would assume she has the canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 from her other lens choices... <br /> when someone asks me how fast is a lens..i usually assume they want to know about the aperture.</p>

<p>and i really have no clue what the rest of your post is trying to say.</p>

<p>its tv...</p>

<p>maybe the photographer thought she had a case and it would be good publicity for her business to show up on the show... she made a bet and it went bad.</p>

<p>i tried googling her...</p>

<p>she has a couple ghost listings in some photographer listing in Michigan..but her website is no longer in service and is taken by a cyber squatter.. i guess she shut the biz down.</p>

<p>i do agree that the judge was kind of bad...and i do think that if this was in a "normal" courtroom this would not happen..or at least probably will get turned on appeal...</p>

<p>but it was just priceless to see that photographer's action in the courtroom.</p>

<p>charging $1300 for that attitude and work is just beyond ripoff. Just to show that price does not reflect quality.</p>

<p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7RzcdDcMs</p>

<p>my favorite line:</p>

<p>"how fast was that lens? uh..I don't know"</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yeah right, that'll happen. Like there's thousands of top name wedding photographers just waiting to part with secrets and dying to train their future competition. I have news for everyone - they don't exist (or they are rare finds at best).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>they do exist...it's just that they train their friends/relatives that will help/take over their business.. not random strangers.</p>

<p>so you want me to pay for your rental so you can 'practice' at my wedding.... tell me, why should i pick u vs going to my uncle bob and my 3 cousins that are going to be there and shooting for free anyway?</p>

<p>what makes you more special than him?</p>

<p>if you want to do weddings for free, then do it for free....asking for rental reimbursement is lame.. might as well just tell them you charge $200 bux and don't tell em that's for you to pay for your rentals.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As has been said so many times (!), in light of the low cost of memory, what could possibly be the harm in shooting RAW/JPEG. The possible benefits <em>should </em> be obvious.<br /> I don't intend to get into a car accident, but I still wear my seat belt.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is not just a space issue. Shooting in JPEG speeds up the postprocessing workflow for some people. And if a person is proficient enough in his/her craft to not use the advantages that RAW offers, then why bother..</p>

 

<p><em> I admit that there are lots of people out there who just does it for "some extra cash" and are not interested in art at all.</em></p>

<p>It always gives me a good laugh when "newbies" always say that established pros are always in for the money and how they the new breed are the only ones that are interested in the "art".</p>

<p>give me a sec while i go laugh</p>

<p>it seems to me you already made up your mind about what you want to do by the time you posted this. might as well go to CL and get one of those persons that's willing to shoot for free... what you have to got to loose.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>in some sense i kind of compare to the sudden rise in the number of "pro photographer" in the 2000s to the sudden rise of realtors in the 90s...</p>

<p>everyone wants to make "easy money"...in the 90s it was the housing boom and suddenly everyone wanted to be a realtor since it seems they did little and made pretty good money.</p>

<p>now that that well dried up, everyone flocked to the next thing..they see wedding photographers charging a lot of money and all they seem to do is just walk around and click a button and say.. "hey..i can do that too".. cheap good cameras further cut down on the barrier to entry and now you got everyone and their uncle thinking they are all professional photographers.</p>

<p>hey..if you are indeed good at photography then more power to you, but i think after a while most of the wannabes will realize it is not as easy as they thought and will simply move on to the next "easy money" thing.</p>

<p>i even know of (not personally) some former realtors that are suddenly now "wedding photographers"</p>

<p>you going to have to pay tax regardless. you could try to get a reseller permit so zb don't charge you tax when they sell the albums to you but you will still have to pay tax later on...</p>

<p>that is unless you are planning on making look like the sale never happened and skip on the taxman.</p>

<p>xti is pretty good....get better lens... bodies are a depreciating asset. only upgrade if you absolutely need something that the new body can give you that it is not available on your current body</p>

<p>oh...you might also want to remove the link to this post from your "home" portion of the website.. I don't think that's gonna get you brownie points with potential clients</p>