-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
I've never been asked how many MP or what camera I use.
- Thread starter baggy1
- Start date
MUTURI KANINI
Active member
thanks snook, that makes sense.............what do you mean by "ALWAYS GIVE THE CLIENT A VERTICLE?".. ...when i can i always give both portrait and landscape versions of the same image except for cover which is usually printed portrait orientation
or is the phrase your signature
ampimagedotcom
Senior Member
.. would they have been prepared to paid him more for the use of his work - and if so, why ?
As that is what it normally all comes down to - as far as I would be concerned - when making a call about what equipment to use or whether I should hire others to help me or whether I should spent time put up lights, etc, etc.
Cheers,
Ashley.
ampimage.com
Last edited:
Income, or more to the point profit, is not just about cash inflow but also outflow.
To that end they may not have been prepared to pay more, but what if the event wasn't repeatable and they sued him? He would have had to pay money out to compensate them and as a result the net result would have been having a pro camera that didn't fail would have earned him more money.
daddyo
Forum Pro
Your post talked about your friend having problems because of incorrect shutter speed -- are your now suggesting that his problem is related to low quality construction?
Here's are a couple quotes from the Panasonic website for the GH4:
"Tough enough to withstand even heavy field use, the Panasonic LUMIX DMC-GH4 is composed of a magnesium alloy full die cast front / rear frame. It also features splash* / dustproof construction with sealing on every joint, dial, and button."
"The shutter unit boasts professional graded added durability delivering approximately 200,000 release times."
I'm willing to take Panasonic at their word.
I personally have been using the Olympus E-M5 and now E-M1 systems professionally for three years -- indoors, outdoors, rainy weather, cold weather, etc., and have never had a failure, so your durability argument does not hold water with me.
Here's are a couple quotes from the Panasonic website for the GH4:
"Tough enough to withstand even heavy field use, the Panasonic LUMIX DMC-GH4 is composed of a magnesium alloy full die cast front / rear frame. It also features splash* / dustproof construction with sealing on every joint, dial, and button."
"The shutter unit boasts professional graded added durability delivering approximately 200,000 release times."
I'm willing to take Panasonic at their word.
I personally have been using the Olympus E-M5 and now E-M1 systems professionally for three years -- indoors, outdoors, rainy weather, cold weather, etc., and have never had a failure, so your durability argument does not hold water with me.
Last edited:
Not low as an absolute measure. Just lower than a body such as a Nikon D4 or Canon 1D or 5D.
That's your choice.
daddyo
Forum Pro
So in other words, this is just your personal opinion -- since you have no "absolute measure" to show that the Panasonic GH4 isn't perhaps more durable that the NIkon/Canon models you noted.
Feel free to get in the last word -- I'm done with this pointless discussion.
The absolute measure was giving credit to the Panasonic, but that expression seems to have confused you.
It's not a personal opinion, it's an observational fact. You've only got to look at and compare the material thickness, the percentage of the body that is magnesium or polycarbonate, etc to see the pro DSLR's are obviously and understandably given their price more durable.
This is like you arguing a Mercedes, whilst well made, is as tough and durable as a tank or armoured car.
Okay.Feel free to get in the last word -- I'm done with this pointless discussion.
Last edited:
ampimagedotcom
Senior Member
Sue him for what exactly ?
Do you actually know what these people had agreed to pay the photographer for beforehand here - and was there an actual written agreement signed by both parties to confirm this deal ?
As that would obviously be the first thing a Judge would want to see here, if this were to court for some reason.
The reason I ask, is because 99% of the time - with assignments like this - there often isn't really any such agreements signed beforehand.
So the deal is simply based on the photographer agreeing beforehand to produce some images of whatever it is first, before an money is exchanged or any contacts are signed.
Which means, it's only if the person who asked, still wanted to use the photographer's images afterwards, that the photographer could then Invoice them at that stage, for the use of his/her work.
(Because you can't really Invoice them for doing the work, as all the work will have already been done by then, without them having agreed to pay you for that beforehand).
So just wondering if you actually know what the agreement was here, that could lead to them being able to sue this photographer, for not providing them with something that they would want to use.
Cheers,
Ashley.
ampimage.com
Yes there was a contract. This is quite a high profile restaurant and he's a full time pro with quite a successful business, by photography standards, normally uses "pro" gear but felt that being in a tight wokring kitchen the smaller gear would be an advantage, he's since reevaluated his opinion.
However even if there was not, oral contracts and the fact he turned up there to do the job show intent and substance to the agreement. Judges don't simply default to what's in writing, trust me I know.
Last edited:
ampimagedotcom
Senior Member
So what exactly did it say in the contract about the gear that they had agreed to paid him to use here - did it actually clearly state which camera and lenses they did want him to use ?
Would love to see the contact !!
So have you actually been to court over a client suing you for failing to provide them with some images that they wanted to use, without you having signed a 'work made for hire' type of agreement beforehand ?
If so, I would love to hear more about it - because I've turned up to lots of places to do a job over the years and didn't get paid a penny afterwards, because no-one wanted to use my work - so just wondering how I could force other to pay me here, if I didn't have anything in writing to say they would pay me to do the work - as I assume this would work both ways.
Maybe I could even get a Judge to say that you need to pay me money, if what you are saying is true !!
Cheers,
Ashley.
ampimage.com
I have no idea of the exact content of the contract. It's a conversation I've had with the man not a thorough investigation.
I haven't personally been sued. However I have acted as an expert witness to the court in order to quantify losses to a business that has lost money due to being let down by a third party, not in relation to images, but the type of service is irrelevant to the argument/legalities of being sued.
I can't go in to exact specifics but in short the business suing had booked (orally) the services of the business being sued and they failed to turn up giving virtually no notice because they found a more profitable job elsewhere. Meaning the client could not find alternative arrangements and lost money.
But this is getting a little silly now, we're talking about law when all we really need to discuss is:
a) people do get sued for non-delivery
and
b) pro gear lessens the risk of non-delivery.
Last edited:
ampimagedotcom
Senior Member
Would agree - but without actually knowing what had been agreed to beforehand, then we don't know what you are referring to - so we're left wondering what you are talking about here.
But yes your are right, people can sue for almost anything these days - but whether a Judge would award them anything or even agree with them, is a totally different thing altogether.
This is why it's important to put everything in writing beforehand and not just assume that because someone asked you to do something, that they will automatically be prepared to pay you afterwards for the use of your work or even for anything else that they didn't actually agree to beforehand.
The Copyright Law will however protect your rights as to how your work is used, so if nothing has been put in writing beforehand, your images are still protected.
This is all part of the reason why we would just ask others to pay us of the use of our work - and so the fee would be based on what all they wanted to use our work for afterwards, rather than for what it cost us to do the work, as all the work would have already been done by then.
So in this case that you are referring to - if nothing had actually been put in writing beforehand, about what it was that I was agreeing to deliver, then if I didn't deliver something that the client was prepared to pay for the use of, they naturally wouldn't have to pay for anything.
Which is why you don't need to pay me anything for the work I did this week - unless you want to use it
Cheers,
Ashley.
ampimage.com
Last edited:
Yeah, so this conversation feels like we've come full circle, with some unnecessary tangents, back to the original facts that the acquaintance in my example could have been sued if the event was unrepeatable and having more rugged gear could have potentially mitigated that risk.Would agree - but without actually knowing what had been agreed to beforehand, then we don't know what you are referring to - so we're left wondering what you are talking about here.
But yes your are right, people can sue for almost anything these days - but whether a Judge would award them anything or even agree with them, is a totally different thing altogether.
This is why it's important to put everything in writing beforehand and not just assume that because someone asked you to do something, that they will automatically be prepared to pay you afterwards for the use of your work or even for anything else that they didn't actually agree to beforehand.
The Copyright Law will however protect your rights as to how your work is used, so if nothing has been put in writing beforehand, your images are still protected.
This is all part of the reason why we would just ask others to pay us of the use of our work - and so the fee would be based on what all they wanted to use our work for afterwards, rather than for what it cost us to do the work, as all the work would have already been done by then.
So in this case that you are referring to - if nothing had actually been put in writing beforehand, about what it was that I was agreeing to deliver, then if I didn't deliver something that the client was prepared to pay for the use of, they naturally wouldn't have to pay for anything.
Which is why you don't need to pay me anything for the work I did this week - unless you want to use it
Cheers,
Ashley.
ampimage.com
ampimagedotcom
Senior Member
Without knowing what was agreed, I have no idea what you are talking about - but I guess you could sue me for failing to deliver something too this week - but I doubt you'd get anywhere with that, unless you had something in writing to say that I did agreed to deliver something
Cheers,
Ashley.
Again, as I've pointed out. The term "is it in writing?" as a form of defence is meaningless. It's something perpetuated in the movies akin to hiding behind a car door to protect yourself from bullets.Without knowing what was agreed, I have no idea what you are talking about - but I guess you could sue me for failing to deliver something too this week - but I doubt you'd get anywhere with that, unless you had something in writing to say that I did agreed to deliver something
Cheers,
Ashley.
A written agreement is certainly a very useful thing if a negligence suit goes to court but it is only one of many factors a judge will consider. To think if something isn't in writing it's not enforceable is just nonsense in the real world.
I've seen a case where something WAS in writing in a contract yet the judge ruled against it as it was deemed the substance of the contract was more in keeping with the discussions/negotiations that took place orally rather than what was actually written down. The judge's opinion was that hiding behind a written contract when the party knew full well what was actually expected of them from lengthy face-to-face discussions was not a valid defence.
Last edited:
ampimagedotcom
Senior Member
So are you planing on suing me here, for failing to deliver something that I know nothing aboutAgain, as I've pointed out. The term "is it in writing?" as a form of defence is meaningless. It's something perpetuated in the movies akin to hiding behind a car door to protect yourself from bullets.Without knowing what was agreed, I have no idea what you are talking about - but I guess you could sue me for failing to deliver something too this week - but I doubt you'd get anywhere with that, unless you had something in writing to say that I did agreed to deliver something
Cheers,
Ashley.
A written agreement is certainly a very useful thing if a negligence suit goes to court but it is only one of many factors a judge will consider. To think if something isn't in writing it's not enforceable is just nonsense in the real world.
I've seen a case where something WAS in writing in a contract yet the judge ruled against it as it was deemed the substance of the contract was more in keeping with the discussions/negotiations that took place orally rather than what was actually written down. The judge's opinion was that hiding behind a written contract when the party knew full well what was actually expected of them from lengthy face-to-face discussions was not a valid defence.
Depends, how deep are your pockets? ;-)So are you planing on suing me here, for failing to deliver something that I know nothing aboutAgain, as I've pointed out. The term "is it in writing?" as a form of defence is meaningless. It's something perpetuated in the movies akin to hiding behind a car door to protect yourself from bullets.Without knowing what was agreed, I have no idea what you are talking about - but I guess you could sue me for failing to deliver something too this week - but I doubt you'd get anywhere with that, unless you had something in writing to say that I did agreed to deliver something
Cheers,
Ashley.
A written agreement is certainly a very useful thing if a negligence suit goes to court but it is only one of many factors a judge will consider. To think if something isn't in writing it's not enforceable is just nonsense in the real world.
I've seen a case where something WAS in writing in a contract yet the judge ruled against it as it was deemed the substance of the contract was more in keeping with the discussions/negotiations that took place orally rather than what was actually written down. The judge's opinion was that hiding behind a written contract when the party knew full well what was actually expected of them from lengthy face-to-face discussions was not a valid defence.
--
Cheers,
Ashley.
Last edited:
ashleymorrison
Senior Member
I'm a photographer - so you should aleady know the answer to that :-D
Last edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum