ash_laidlaw

<p>I'm not a lawyer. But my two cents:</p>

<p>Are you still a subcontracted photographer? If not, the contract doesn't seem to apply. Perhaps if it said "As a former subcontracted photographer..." The whole contract operates under the assumption that you're currently a subcontracted photographer. If you're not, then the contract, again, doesn't apply.</p>

<p>Also, what's defining "professionally?" If you don't make the bulk of your income from photography, then it could be argued that you're not professionally shooting.</p>

<p>Also, does XYZ photographer shoot weddings? If not, than you're not competing.</p>

<p>I use a Domke bag with my FM2N, and love it. It's bigger than you need (fits more than just the FM2 and 50mm), but it's quite small (zipper bag with one pocket, came with a "splitter" to turn it into two pockets). I got a tan one. Very well-made, and good classic look. It fits my FM2N, one or two small primes, and I squeeze a microfibre cloth and some film in there too.</p>

<p>Basically any of the f/2.8 primes. I'd go with AI or AI-S for the build quality, but they are metal, so heavier than their AF-D equivalents.</p>

<p>The arrogance is impressive. The <em>vast</em> majority of wedding photos I've seen are pretty average. Not bad, but stuff for which I wouldn't care to pay more than $500-$1,000.<em> </em>And from people charging $2,000 or more. It's quite stunning what marketing, equipment, and that "professional" attitude can get you, while the actual substance somehow falls aside.</p>

<p>That said, I have seen some absolutely <em>stunning</em> wedding photos, although I'm not sure what those photographers charged. Too many weddings photos are so mundane (a silhouette on a beach sunset! the shadow of a heart from the ring! the couple kissing under a cherry blossom! over-editing!).</p>

<p>Get over yourselves. If you can't compete with a $500 wedding photographer, perhaps you're only worth $250.</p>

<p>EDIT: I'm not entirely serious.</p>

<p>Marketing, and the people that buy into it and attempt to justify Leica's high cost (bring on the flamers attempting to do just what I described!). However, Leica M lenses often have very pleasing bokeh due to their many aperture blades (often nine or more).</p>

<p>Leica makes some of the best lenses on the market; however, as for their "look," I would be willing to bet money that on a print, people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a Leica M lens and a high-quality Zeiss/Nikon/Canon/Voigtländer lens.</p>

<p>This is in respone to Alin's photo.<br>

I don't find that there is any particular area of interest - both in terms of a focal point and the subject matter. The architecture in the back distracts the viewer from what I believe you intended to be the focal point - the women chatting. Also, the foreground is a bit dark, although that could easily be my monitor or other variables. I just don't find the photo particularly interesting - it comes off more as a snapshot of a building with people in the foreground.</p><div></div>