CharlieDIY

CharlieDIY

Lives in United States Central, VA, United States
Works as a writer/photographer
Has a website at www.chazself.com
Joined on Jul 19, 2004
About me:

Live long enough to finish half of what I've started.

Comments

Total: 20, showing: 1 – 20
On SDIM1187 in the The best Sigma SD14 Image for photokina 2010 challenge (11 comments in total)

I agree with Harri. Stunning, great colors, composition and subject.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 28, 2012 at 00:22 UTC as 2nd comment
On Leica M-Monochrom preview (449 comments in total)

"But then there are many cameras that offer greater capability, flexibility and (in most respects), image quality than the M9 (at a fraction of the cost), but that doesn't make the Leica any less desirable."

To whom? I find the whole Leica thing somewhat goofy, but, then, I've felt that way for something like 50 years.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 09:55 UTC as 97th comment | 1 reply
On Leica M-Monochrom preview (449 comments in total)

$8000 and synthetic leather trim. Oh my.

I think not.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 09:53 UTC as 98th comment
On Uploading your avatar article (104 comments in total)

Fantastic!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 29, 2012 at 09:01 UTC as 46th comment
On Escaping the city... in the Typically DUTCH, as seen by local Citizens challenge (7 comments in total)

Really great image.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 9, 2012 at 09:03 UTC as 1st comment
On Pentax reveals K lens roadmap for 2012 and 2013 news story (101 comments in total)

The super tele sounds interesting. I prefer not to use an all-in-one lens, though so another 18-200mm isn't interesting to me. Probably is to thousands of others, though.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 2, 2012 at 21:40 UTC as 22nd comment
In reply to:

Antonio RS: 1. The response is not calm at all.
2. He makes $50,000 in four months,not bad at all. And,8 months left.
3. I did not know you could add the price of your rent/mortgage, car, car insurance, shoe wear out, etc. that is, living, into "related" costs to justify what you charge. I am going to tell my boss to pay me more because my clothes wear out when in contact with the office chair :-)
4. He was doing so well (or maybe not), and then he ends with "on why we charge $3,000 for one day of your memories that are going to last you forever". And with that proved the bride completely right. Pity, after such long "calm" thought response.

My wedding was photographed by my uncle (he had a decent camera at the time). Now that I pay attention to others wedding pictures, they all look the same (similar type of background, same positions, etc). I saved a ton of money, plus, my pictures may not be the best but for sure are unique and kind of candid. Glad I decided to not hire a "real photographer".

You need to check the costs of running a business: even with a personal car, IRS allows a centers per mile for business use. If you don't figure in wear and tear on clothing that occurs when you're working then you're paying taxes on money you use to make money, which you should never do.

On a salary, you expect, or hope, to be making enough money to buy your britches when they get holes in them, but for on-the-job clothing that is seldom suitable for other wear, wedding, and other, photographers need to at least consider the tax deduction...and talk with their accountant about it.

I don't imagine you're buying insurance on your boss's office gear, you you can bet he is, unless the company is so large it self-insures. Talk to him about business expenses one day. You might be surprised.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 16:52 UTC
In reply to:

thinkfat: Seeing how a lot of responses here give "well-meaning" comments to actual wedding photographers confirming statements, how backing up data on dvd costs only that much and post processing a whole set of wedding footage can not last 25 hours.

In envy you all. Ignorance is bliss.

Yeah, of course, you can absolutely control shadows and zits and...pfui!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 16:47 UTC
In reply to:

zxaar: "That would technically leave me with about $7,000/year to feed myself, " ------------- He is very stupid to live on this. Any sane person would change his profession if it is that un-paying as he claims it to be.

Four month seasons aren't the entire year. Most wedding photographers I know do portraits, events, senior photography and a host of other types of shooting.

There is an incredible amount of hostility shown here to a small businesswoman (in case you hadn't noticed) who is trying to make a decent living by working hard, sort of in the American mold, or so I was told many years ago.

One has to wonder what generates that hostility. Is it misunderstanding? A dislike of small businesspeople in general? Not liking someone who tries to make it on her own?

I don't think this photographer provided a really top response, but it was a lot better than the semi-literate diatribe from CL.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 16:43 UTC
In reply to:

skrulm8: As a businessman I feel that if the wedding season lasts only a few months, the gentleman is not supposed to make a living from it. It's a part time job and he should be doing something else for the remaining 67% of the year. I'm not saying $500 per wedding is the answer, but $1000 is more than enough if you ask me.

I mean, for $3,000 I can buy two 550Ds, a Canon 70-200 f/4.0 L, a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and rent the two flashes out. I'm sure there's relatives of mine with hands that have fingers on them, who would gladly take the pictures for free. For the few potos that need post processing, I'll do it myself.

And, yes, I've done wedding photography myself.

Little things. Insurance. Advertisin...ah, what's the use.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 16:37 UTC
In reply to:

Poul Jensen: $50K/yr for 20 jobs of ~30 hours, and she complains that she has to take on other jobs to make ends meet? Even worse, somebody at DPReview posted this as "an excellent response"?

Some people need to come down to Earth. The world median income is about $2K/yr, and the "median job" is not somehting as luxurious as taking/processing photos. Please take a moment to think about just how privileged you are.

Yes, $3K for wedding photography is definitely too much.

I don't do weddings, but I think you need to quit worrying about the median income of the world. Try understanding that photographers in the U.S. cannot live on $2000 a year. Hell, you can't even replace worn out or broken gear for that. Too, 50K is gross, not net. Way different.

This has nothing to do with world median incomes or privilege. It has to do with making a decent living with a small business in the United States--and I'd guess much of Oz, NZ, and Europe, as well as Canada and more places in our hemisphere.

And to think that 20 weddings equates to 30 hours is goofy. It may be around 30 hours for each wedding in some cases, and probably no fewer than a dozen for the efficiently run ones.

Many years ago, I did a few weddings. It wasn't for me. Too short a season; too many mothers-of-the-bride (and sometimes the groom) who should be working in a SEAL training camp, and so on. But those who develop the skills and choose to do it should be able to make a decent living.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 16:33 UTC
In reply to:

aleckurgan: That "Bride" clearly has some problems with logic - she wants to hire an "exceptional, amazingly talented, fun" person for the price of an "average" one.

Or simply a mediocre one. It's likely she won't be able to tell the difference.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 16:25 UTC
On Firebird in the Blue, Silver, White: General Motors' Past challenge (1 comment in total)

Would you believe..my mother had one of these shaker hood versions. She bought it from a friend of mine, and she and her younger sister drove to my sister's in Maine (from Virginia). That was when Mom was maybe 72 or 73 (well over 30 years ago) Her younger sister is soon to turn 97 and still in pretty good shape. She always thought it must have looked weird to see two old broads in that roaring demon of a car.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 19:24 UTC as 1st comment
On Olds 88 in the Blue, Silver, White: General Motors' Past challenge (2 comments in total)

Great! Nice framing, good use of what appears to be poor light for that kind of shot.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 19:19 UTC as 1st comment
On CES 2012: Sigma Interview article (152 comments in total)
In reply to:

Francis Carver: Gee-whiz, thanks for (almost) nothing, Sir.

"DSLRs will always stay at the top' Yamaki told us - 'the benefit of a DSLR is of course the optical viewfinder."

Interesting. Of course:

1. DSLRs will probably go bye-bye in 8-10 years time.

2. You do not have to have a mirror in a camera for it to have an optical VF. Doesn't Mr. Yamaki know this, I wonder?

Re. the SD1 -- that is probably the most crazily priced DSLR body out there at the moment. What were they thinking, for cripe's sake?
Also, how about putting some VIDEO FEATURES into your cameras, like everybody else is already doing for quite some time, Sigma?

It /will/ get to that point, but most of those who denigrate DSLRs write as if it had reached, and passed, that point. No one can be sure of that 8 to 10 year date, either.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 19, 2012 at 01:22 UTC
In reply to:

GeoMaree: Can't download the file on this site or on rapidshare. According to rapidshare this link does not exist. Tried over and over on this site, but nothing!

I just tried, with the entire link, and got zip; fourth time.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2011 at 19:57 UTC

That one is not working either.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2011 at 19:56 UTC as 147th comment
On Roundup: Third-party Lenses for Enthusiasts article (169 comments in total)

I'd love something like the Tokina, though. I'm currently using the Tamron 10-24mm on my Pentax K20D, but the constant f/2.8 aperture would help on a number of shots. Unfortunately, Tokina thinks Pentax owners won't buy, I guess. Or they were afraid of being incestuous before Pentax because part of Ricoh.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 17, 2011 at 12:01 UTC as 34th comment | 4 replies

I like the article, but, unfortunately, it won't work with my dog. She can be sleeping, but as soon as I pick up a camera, she's up and moving. For her, though she's old and a bit tubby, action photography may be essential.

She settles down nicely when she's on my lap--small dog, even with extra avoirdupois. There are some great shots there, but my wife doesn't like to shoot even with her P&S and won't touch my K20D.

Thanks for the article.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 2, 2011 at 20:22 UTC as 32nd comment
On Preview:nikonp7100 (108 comments in total)

No photos in album.

Posted on Aug 25, 2011 at 04:11 UTC as 42nd comment
Total: 20, showing: 1 – 20