Simon_rooster: the strange thing is that the co-shooter is only paid 200$ :-)
But shooting is generally the ONLY thing he or she does. When the Wedding is over, the job is done.
fransams: If you are a Pro, and photograpy is your job, you should have to work at least about 1800 hours a year. Then you can do about 50 weddings or other orders per year. So US$ 1500.- is more realistic. There is no reason why the client should pay for an 8 month holiday each year.
And if the Pro would not be a Pro, would he/she not have a car, a computer and internet?
Wow, I bet you pulled that 1800 hours out of your a**.That $50000 that she makes is before taxes AND before her business related expenses. Plus, she indicated that she takes other jobs the rest of the year. Also, living in Erie PA, it would be impossible to do more than the 20 or so jobs she does, due to weather concerns.
Does this have IS? $1700 seems awfully high for a camera body only which doesn't have the added cost of a mirror and a flapping shutter.
fmian: Since when does 'quality' and 'superzoom' belong in the same sentence?Apart from that one...
+1 on that, brother.
shaocaholica: I really like where the industry is headed but Reverie was pretty crappy. I don't know why they keep talking about it.
Full manual controls did come later in May of 2009.
Where does this guy find these critters? Bravo!
This is one of my favorite pictures ever. Too bad it didn't win the Challenge. Hard to describe its appeal; it is just so expressive.
maddogmd11: Interesting. While I don't expect the ACLU to state them there are reasonable limits also; which a photographer should understand. If I am in a public park and start photographing children, while totally legal, it is only reasonable to anticipate that some parent may take exception to having their kids photographed.
The same is true at some other public venues. If I decided I wanted to camp out and take lots of shots of a nuclear plant I would HOPE that someone would at least question why.
Lastly they do not address the commercial use of photographs of people which falls under different rules even if taken in a public place.
In short I think it is great for photographers to know what their Legal rights are. They should also understand that sometimes legitimate questions can and in fact should be asked and they should not be offended or surprised.
Ha hah hah hah hah hah! Well-said!
Looks like lunch!
Yeah, like you can tell voters how to vote.
Tom Goodman: Registration is a simple, free method (in this site's case) of requiring a minimum commitment on the part of visitors. It should be required for anyone wishing to contribute to the site's content in any way. The democratization of the internet should carry responsibility so that someone cannot denigrate or misrepresent a product simply because it only came in yellow or took two weeks to deliver!
Agree that registration should be a requirement.
There was no attempt to hide the fact that this was an imitation. There i really no problem here. In fact, what mitigates this entry even more is that, while the photo captures the 'look' of the original, no attempt was made, or even possible, to capture the fear and anguish, not to mention the age, of the Afghan Girl.
While undeniably a great photo, I am not sure this is in keeping with the rules, since it is not a building but a ROOM in a building, a room that does necessarily as an indicator as to the decay of the building as a whole.