wil13jak

wil13jak

Joined on Dec 6, 2007

Comments

Total: 16, showing: 1 – 16

just signed the petition and am looking elsewhere Adobe you may have just shot yourself in the foot.

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2013 at 01:07 UTC as 130th comment

Just found out mine arrives Tuesday. :)))0

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2012 at 19:29 UTC as 38th comment

Just found out mine will arrive Tuesday

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2012 at 19:29 UTC as 39th comment
On Photoshop CS6 Beta: New Features for Photographers article (154 comments in total)

there are indeed many many programs out there for all levels of photographers. As some photogs were simply satisfied to take their film to a local mall lab for developing and printing (and indeed I'm not saying this was bad or wrong) some of us loved to spend hours in a darkroom experimenting to our hearts content. The same holds true for Photoshop vs Elements etc. There is no set of rules as to what you use. If it serves your needs it's good!!!! :)))

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2012 at 23:46 UTC as 42nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

wil13jak: It has (I think) been eluded to that the cf cover and the rubber grip glue are bad on Nikons???? I have owned a D1, D2, D3, D700, D7000 over the years and currently and have never ever found either of these as problematic and I use my cameras alot and at times I'm not the most gentle. Hmmmmm

the 7k is indeed new but the other cams shooting weddings and location ports have seen a great deal of use as primary and secondary bodies. I'm just surprised that you had that much difficulty

Direct link | Posted on Feb 9, 2012 at 02:27 UTC

Any reasonable thoughts/comments on the 800E vs the 800. Very aware that there is not much out there to compare or see as yet. Would appreciate the comments being professional in nature.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 8, 2012 at 23:59 UTC as 12th comment

It has (I think) been eluded to that the cf cover and the rubber grip glue are bad on Nikons???? I have owned a D1, D2, D3, D700, D7000 over the years and currently and have never ever found either of these as problematic and I use my cameras alot and at times I'm not the most gentle. Hmmmmm

Direct link | Posted on Feb 8, 2012 at 23:56 UTC as 13th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

robogobo: ha. $3000 is CHEAP. What most wedding photographers don't admit is that their price includes pain and suffering from having to deal with brides like this one. Give me a break. One of the highest stress level jobs and MUCH more than just taking a bunch of photos and editing them.

Any budget photographer who takes her as a client will quickly learn their lesson.

Amen

Direct link | Posted on Jan 31, 2012 at 00:27 UTC
In reply to:

Anepo: She DOES have a point in someway's just hear me out.

Some people are poor and 3000$ is a no way in hell for them.

Here is what Photographers SHOULD consider:

Some photographers I Know of manage to do 3 weddings in the same day.

Photographers REALLY need to consider:

Are they low, middle or high income family?
Is it going to be 1000 people or 100?
Do I have to travel 10 miles or 1000 miles?

And calculate based on that not do a "standard" price that can't be changed at all.

As someone who has NEVER made 2000$ in a month in his lifetime and in fact was making 1500$(before 37% taxes) before he lost his job I must say I understand her pain.

Example in my country photographers rent a large area, bring they're own equipment and computers & offer free x-mas photography for the less fortunate.

& we are talking about professional photographers.
So honestly I think photographers who do weddings could show a little flexibility every now & then.

*gets ready for hate msg's*

I do and the my colleagues as well do We offer a wide range of prices and services as (as you say) not all can afford 3K. That's simply good business sense.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 30, 2012 at 02:09 UTC

If indeed you are a pro photographer you would understand. If indeed you are an amateur or shooting because you think you are a pro I can understand how one would take that attitude. It is simple people who are consumers that have no idea what it takes to run a business simply can not in any way fathom what it takes to do so. If you are a real pro shooting an all day wedding is tremendous work, stress, and the post production can be daunting if your work is to be done well and is to be respected. I like to save money and I am a careful consumer but as a business owner I respect legitimate ethical business people charging me for their products/services

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2012 at 02:32 UTC as 92nd comment | 1 reply

Nahhh it is stupid!! Sorry

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2012 at 02:27 UTC as 93rd comment

For goodness sake people the photographer was simply attempting to justify the fact that she is running a business and doing so costs money. Nit picking her to death is really stupid. Her expenses, my expenses, how much one can pay for a website, on an on and on is dumb. She is simply trying to bring home a point that if you run a photo business it indeed has overhead and for many this can be very high. Sure anyone can get a cheap website. But she is simply defending our profession. If you don't agree with this why the heck are you on a photography website???

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2012 at 02:10 UTC as 94th comment | 2 replies

A pro level wedding photographer may only do x number of weddings per year. However that same photographer will supplement their income with other types of shooting such as seniors, portraiture, event work, etc. I'm sure there are relatively few pros that survive on wedding work alone. Those photographers would be considered "carriage trade" photographers and believe me they pull much more than 3K/wedding. People who are in a real business learn one rule very fast. That rule is to never devalue your business, your products and your talent. There are plenty of relatives out there that are always most happy to "shoot" your wedding. Enjoy those wonderful images!!!!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2012 at 01:32 UTC as 98th comment | 1 reply

Reading the posts on this forum and in general on most of the forums on this site one should never be surprised as to why humans will never be able to live in an "agreeable" world. There are but a small few who have posted here that have made statements that are remotely logical and intelligent. Most of the others (foreign posters forgiven) really need first to learn how to express themselves using proper language/spelling skills. If how you write is reflective of your photo skills then brides beware!!! Three thousand dollars for a typical "all day" wedding in many U.S. markets is very acceptable. I'm tired of having to explain why I charge what I do. I am reasonable, fair and as has been said here if a client is not happy with my range of charges capitalism allows you to seek another photographer.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 22:32 UTC as 104th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

thielges: I think that the title should read "CMOS *Image Sensor* Inventor..." CMOS itself (as a platform for digital logic) was invented back in the 1960s by Frank Wanlass.

Wow he said pottatos she said..........and so on geez

Direct link | Posted on Oct 29, 2011 at 01:02 UTC

excellent article thanks

Direct link | Posted on Sep 29, 2011 at 20:48 UTC as 11th comment
Total: 16, showing: 1 – 16