tom trinko

tom trinko

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Dec 15, 1999

Comments

Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4

This is just the latest example of the media exploiting innocent people to make money.

How many times have we seen family members of people who have died being ambushed at their front door by TV crews?

The bottom line is that while this is offensive it is no more so than the way the media have treated people in the past.

It's clear the major media only cares about their own profits and most major media reporters only care about their career advancement. The suffering they inflict on innocent people-- relatives of killing victims, relatives of people who die in disasters, people accused of crimes but with no criminal record, etc-- apparently means nothing to them.

On a less severe note are the paparazzi who refuse to acknowledge that even famous people have some right to privacy, at least when they're in their own homes.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 7, 2012 at 01:58 UTC as 20th comment | 3 replies
On Photoshop CS6 Beta: New Features for Photographers article (154 comments in total)
In reply to:

openskyline: I have stopped using Adobe Photoshop for sometimes, LR is all I need.

No need to be rude! Sheese to each his own. I heavily process most of my "good" pictures and I really like what Photoshop can do but I know that some very good photographers can generate better pics than I do by just using LR.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2012 at 18:29 UTC

Oh yeah one other thing. If she's right about all her expenses then all but 7k of her 50k income is effectively taxable since you can deduct business expenses .s I realize the tax situation is insane but I really doubt anyone pays $15k of taxes for a business that makes $7k of profits.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 30, 2012 at 05:14 UTC as 44th comment

the numbers in the response are very odd.

1) 15k taxes on 50k income is a 30% average tax rate that seems high
2) It appears that the photographer lives in the same place she processes her photos so unless she would otherwise live in a box under an overpass she really can't count that $7200
3) unless she only uses the car for business she really can't count the full $7200 car expense
4) i suspect the fraction of the time the photographer shoots weddings vs the time she wears those shoes is pretty small.
5) I have no idea why she pays 2500 a year for high speed internet. I'd suspect something more like 50-100 a month
6) the equipment cost is reasonable but when you add it up it's $11,300. Amortized over 24 weddings/year and 5 years that's $94/wedding.

On the other hand she is effectively charging ~$100/hr which is what you pay an automechanic who has a much higher overhead.

As a potential father of 3 brides I can assure you I won't pay $3k/wedding for photographers.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 30, 2012 at 04:51 UTC as 45th comment | 4 replies
Total: 4, showing: 1 – 4