danmarchant

Paul Ron's answer is spot on. She simply won't win a case for a refund based on one photo not printing - especially when you have offered to help and she has ignored you/refused.

When a client ignores repeated polite requests for payment you should promptly move to the next step.... legal action. How you do that will depend on the law in your country. Generally the first step is to send a recorded delivery letter giving them a final chance to pay (usually a 7 day deadline) and informing them that if they fail to pay in full you will commence legal action. If they don't pay you then have to commence legal action.

<p>Even if the ink is good quality you would almost certainly need to create a custom profile for them as they wont be exactly the same as OEM inks.</p>

<p>You said "a couple of years" so that would lead me to believe you are using Lightroom 4 or 5. As both of these are using the latest process engine nothing will happen to your old images if you upgrade to the latest Lightroom CC. All you old processing will remain and LR CC will be able to read and display it. Your old catalog will be upgraded (or more accurately a new version/copy will be created) and the old one will remain on your HD.<br> <br />The only problem that may occur is if you later decide to cancel your CC subscription as older versions of LR can't read catalogs/adjustments made by newer versions. So, you couldn't open your LR CC catalog using your old version of LR 4/5. You would either have to buy a copy of stand alone LR6 (if a stand alone version is still offered for sale) or use your deactivated LRCC to export TIFF versions of your processed files (with changes baked in). </p>

<p>It's what is known as vanity publishing and its a very old business model/scam. Poetry and short story publishing were a common examples where this was used. Any submission to a publisher was accepted and then all the people whose work was accepted bought the over priced books.... in fact they were the only ones who did as the books were never actually distributed to book shops as the poems/short stories were often pretty bad.</p>

<p>1. It depends what country/state you are in. Laws are different in different parts of the world.<br> 2. It depends what you mean by commercial use. Many people use the term to mean "earn money" but the law defines commercial use in a much stricter manner as "use to advertise, promote or market a cause, product, company or service". Selling prints for example is not commercial use.</p>

<p>I can't see any reason why you would need two catalogs to achieve what you want. If you want to separate personal and professional simply... <br />1. Create two folders. One personal, one professional.2. Set up an Import preset to import images to the personal folder (and apply any other settings you might want applied) - this could include adding a "personal" keyword and putting the images into dated sub folders.<br />3. Set up a second Import preset to import images to the professional folder (and apply any other settings you might want applied) - this could include adding a "professional" keyword and putting the images into dated sub folders.<br /><br />During image import simply select the preset you want and LR will do the rest.<br> To view either set go to the LR Library Folder panel and simply click to hide the contents of the folder you don't want to see and do likewise to open the folder you do want to see. You can switch between personal and professional in one second, which is a massive saving of 9 seconds each time you switch, compared to using two catalogs. A more serious advantage is that you can search through all images (if you want to) and you don't need to maintain two separate keyword libraries.</p>

<p>As Craig says. Whatever software you are currently using to edit/post process should also be able to add watermarks.</p>

<p>I have PSE but I seldom use it. I do 99% of my editing in LR and only use PSE for the occasional job that requires layers or more detailed cloning. I expect that people who do more compositing and other digital retouching would use it more (or use PS).</p>

<p>Did you export them all as a batch or each image individually? I have used F2 to rename a batch of images in LR before and had one of the images fail to rename. Similar thing has occurred when batch moving files, with one refusing to move. I doesn't happen often and I have never been able to work out why. I assume it must be a temporary permissions issue with the file. It always moves/renames when I retry.</p>

<blockquote> <p><em>My first two tasks were painting the whole studio as well as the kitchen area (he lives in his studio).....<br /></em></p> </blockquote> <p>If he was teaching you Karate then this might be useful. Wax on, wax off, paint the fence.....</p>

<p>Does Michigan not have a minimum wage law? If you aren't being paid and you aren't learning anything then there is really no point being there. You would be better off at KFC. At least there you get free "food".</p>

<p>I would point out to the Realtor that if the seller is paying then you have to do what they want, which may not result in the sort of images the Realtor needs to get their job done.</p>

<blockquote> <p><em>I would like to get folks to pick some lavender, so can I make it a minimum number of bunches per shoot instead of an amount of money?</em></p> </blockquote> <p><em><br /></em>I would suggest sticking to money. If they are there to photograph the lavender/clients standing in the lavender they aren't going to want to spend time having to pick the lavender and they probably won't want it once picked.... they are there for photos. Better for both parties if you keep it simple and just charge a fee.<br /><br />I don't know what a good fee would be. Assuming this is landscape or wedding photography anywhere from $25-50 for up to 2 hours. If it is a big commercial shoot for a shampoo ad campaign probably more. If there is a national park near you check their site and see what they charge for commercial shoots.</p>

<p>Lightroom's Import dialogue allows you to automatically change the file name at the time of import. I have mine set up to add "DM852-" then the date in Year-month-day format to the file name; EG DM852-2012-02-19-5367.CR2.<br> When the camera does finally loop around to 5367 again the year will be different so the file names can never clash (unless I get a job photographing for Time Traveller Weekly).</p>

<p>Have to agree with all the above.<br> When I first started out I shot JPEG. Once I discovered RAW, and how to edit them, I was fed up that I didn't have the RAW files for my early photos. Then as time went by I got better and better with Lightroom and learned new techniques (and developed a better photographic eye). Yesterday I was re-editing images I took back in 2011/2012 that I didn't have the skill/eye to do justice too then. <br /><br />Even bad photos are worth keeping as they act as a reminder of the stupid things you did when you were learning. </p>

<p>Getty is renowned for being brutal about copyright infringement on their stock photos.</p>

<p>Not sure why you would be unhappy with the result of Lightroom watermarking your image as it will do exactly the same thing you have in your second image. It allows you to have text or images and to move them around to your preferred location. You can also save multiple watermarks so you can have one with the mark at the bottom and one with it at the top, for use on different images.<br /><br />As to the watermarks themselves the second one is more intrusive but then that is what a watermark is... it is a partially transparent mark across the image.</p>

<blockquote> <p><em>The thing is, why does Flickr waste time installing an auto-tagging feature in the first place? Most users are quite capable of putting in their own specific tags, or none at all if they choose.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Because there is a (in their opinion) a good business reason to have tags and they don't want to rely on users actually adding them (or not). If an image can be auto tagged then they can show better targeted advertising. Look at pictures of <em>Angkor Wat</em> to get an advert for an airline that will fly you there.</p>

<p>Another vote for Photomatix. I don't like over-cooked HDR and it has good natural look options. I also really like the fact that you can draw around an area to select it and then tell the program to use a particular exposure in the selected area.</p>

<p>Another vote for Lightroom. All the images on my site were done exclusively with Lightroom - <a href="http://www.danmarchant.com">www.danmarchant.com</a>. The Nik software is good too but I no longer use it as I found that I could get the particular style I wanted with just LR. What I like most is the ability to dodge and burn (or adjust contrast, clarity, noise, sharpness, etc) on just parts of the image, using the local Adjustment Brush.</p>

<p>The article was updated as the Rep's comments were nonsense.<br /><br /><br> <strong>Update</strong>: Facebook tells us that the representative’s response was incorrect. Here’s what a Facebook spokesperson tells us via email:</p> <blockquote> <p>"The information given in these emails is incorrect. <a title="" href="https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms?_rdr" target="_blank">Our terms</a> are clear that you own the content you share on Facebook, including photos. When you post something, you simply grant Facebook a license to use that content consistent with our terms, including displaying it to the audience you’ve shared it with.<br> In addition, we prohibit people from posting content that violates someone else’s intellectual property rights. If a rights owner believes that content on Facebook violates their rights, they may report it to us. Upon notice, we stand ready to respond including by removing the content from Facebook."</p> </blockquote>

<p>It is also what you see on the camera LCD when you preview an image shot in RAW.</p>

<p>My post above should of course have read...<br> "provided that you AREN'T prominently displaying their trademark"</p>

<p>The answer is "yes, but...."<br> Taking a photo of a dish isn't a breach of copyright or trademark or any other IP right and neither is using them in an advert (provided that you are prominently displaying their trademark or including text that might be construed as the dish manufacturer endorsing your product. In cases like this people often talk about Property Releases (like a Model Release for physical property) but in law there is no such thing. (Which doesn't stop stock photo agencies from requiring them).<br /><br />However, even though there is no legal basis for someone to sue that doesn't mean someone wont try. If you want to avoid any potential problems then your client should really contact the manufacturers to get clearance from them. <br /><br />You should probably have a clause in your contract that your client will indemnify you against any loss as a result of a legal suit in the event they don't get permission.</p>