|
Got it. I guess I'm lucky and have never been exposed to situations like those you've described. (People actually claim a company was a client simply because they were a sponsor at an event they shot? What the hell?)
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:33 |
|
|
That 70s Shirt posted:Got it. I guess I'm lucky and have never been exposed to situations like those you've described. (People actually claim a company was a client simply because they were a sponsor at an event they shot? What the hell?) Yeah, welcome to my world. People exaggerate any kind of affiliation they can get.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
That 70s Shirt posted:(People actually claim a company was a client simply because they were a sponsor at an event they shot? What the hell?) Yup. Plus, it's an easy way to pad ones portfolio. Did you bring a camera to a concert, a picnic, or birthday party? Congratulations, you are now an event photographer! Doesn't matter that you weren't hired, or that none of those photos were used for anything but your own person facebook... you're an event photographer because you photographed an event. Same goes for a lot of "concert photographers" that shows up at the local clubs here, fire off a bunch of stage-level wide-angle shots and then try to sell you rights to the images the next day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 18:51
|
|
|
Actually, now that I think about it, there was another local photographer at the event last weekend. Don't know if he was hired or just shooting for the hell of it. Total scumbag and slimeball, though. Whenever I would raise my camera to get a shot of the BBQ winners on stage he would step in front of me and shoot first. I missed a couple shots because of him, and a fair number of shots I did get have his loving elbow in the frame. I'd bet my new D800 he's the kind of guy who exaggerates his client list. So he probably has like 50 local business added to his list now.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:Oh and also Digital HiFi, who I haven't seen post in the dorkroom lately, and I both tried to get signed on to shoot a local tattoo convention. They had a similar list of requirements. They want you to be an experienced event photographer, you have to shoot some many umpteen dozen shots per day, no breaks, you have to use their camera or one they approve, no "professional" equipment allowed, all for free and the promise of more free gigs in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 20:13
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:Digital HiFi, who I haven't seen post in the dorkroom lately, and I both tried to get signed on to shoot a local tattoo convention. Why would this ever be a requirement of a photographer? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 20:16
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:They had a similar list of requirements. They want you to be an experienced event photographer, you have to shoot some many umpteen dozen shots per day, no breaks, you have to use their camera or one they approve, no "professional" equipment allowed, all for free and the promise of more free gigs in the future. What? How does this even work?  I just returned from a three-day event, and I had a lot of fun. Volunteer organization, so no pay, but at least they didn't try to lure me with a promise of more paid work in the future. And most of the people I worked with have previous photography experience. Feeling so lucky right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Why would this ever be a requirement of a photographer? People who hire photographers are insane sometimes. I've been told I need to shoot on someone else's CF card for both weddings and events, and hand them over afterwards. Or transfer RAW files immediately to the event company at the end of the event. Or shoot small JPG's only, to be uploaded to their website (facebook page) within 24 hours. I've been contacted to shoot weddings, and the bride demands all RAW files before I leave the venue. I think people just want control of every little thing, or they want to be the first to release a photo publicly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
red19fire posted:People who hire photographers are insane sometimes. I've been told I need to shoot on someone else's CF card for both weddings and events, and hand them over afterwards. Or transfer RAW files immediately to the event company at the end of the event. Or shoot small JPG's only, to be uploaded to their website (facebook page) within 24 hours. I've been contacted to shoot weddings, and the bride demands all RAW files before I leave the venue. It's also defense against shady photographers. When my wife and I were planning our wedding, common advice was to get image ownership and reuse sorted out well in advance and get it in writing. There's many photographers out there that maintain permanent ownership of the photos and only sell prints. Digital copies are either refused or sold at huge markup. Some will only provide low resolution jpegs. I suppose the photographer is has justification for doing this, they can run their business how they want to. I don't really have an opinion either way. But I also think there's a fair argument for a customer to make a request to surrender the photos as a condition of employment. I mean, the photographer is always free to turn the job down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 21:54
|
|
|
xzzy posted:It's also defense against shady photographers. When my wife and I were planning our wedding, common advice was to get image ownership and reuse sorted out well in advance and get it in writing. There's many photographers out there that maintain permanent ownership of the photos and only sell prints. Digital copies are either refused or sold at huge markup. Some will only provide low resolution jpegs. You're arguing against what is standard in almost every part of the photography industry. Photographers are almost always the absolute owner of image copyright. Maintaining ownership and control of their images is critical. You give clients raws and they poo poo all over them with terrible processing, and someone asks who took the picture they are going to say your name. That damages your business and branding. Photographers aren't hired to take pictures but are hired to produce photography which is much more than hitting a button and supplying the camera's result. Don't treat professionals like lovely photographers. If you think a photographer is shady don't hire them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 22:54
|
|
|
I wasn't arguing for (or against) anything, so chill the gently caress out. It was only perspective on why customers ask for the things they do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 23:29
|
|
|
I assume everybody's chill unless they use THE SHIFT OR CAPSLOCK BUTTON ON A KEYBOARD.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 23:58
|
|
|
yup, I'm pretty chill. Just wanted to correct a misunderstanding!
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 00:09
|
|
|
Oh YEaH paL wHAT Am i HUH? whAT aM i?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 00:25
|
|
|
Bipolar!
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:You're arguing against what is standard in almost every part of the photography industry. This is the important part. I'll gladly shoot on someone else's CF card, if I'm hired as a second shooter at a wedding by the main photographer. That's covered under a 'Word Made For Hire' agreement. The problem arises when the bride demands my CF card in order to put her own editing on it, because they read in Shithead Bride magazine that they should demand jpg's from their photographer so they can run all the photos through instagram themselves and save on editing. There's also shady event promoters that hire naive photographers with promises of nationwide exposure on their website, demand immediate jpg's for the website with no watermarks, and never link to the photographer; so they've essentially worked for less than free. But these are bottom of the barrel, worst case scenario examples of shady clients.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 01:40
|
|
|
I'm sure this won't matter to many folks, but for anyone who wants to take notice... June 21, 2012 (today) is Go Skateboard Day 2012. In every major city across the U.S., skateboarders will be out flooding the streets today and cops will be giving them a terrible time. Should be the perfect combination to get out and snap some street moments. So, for everyone out there, "pro-tog" or just "guy with a rebel": GET OUT AND SHOOT TODAY. It only comes once a year. and if you totally don't care for this sort of stuff, my apologies, just wanted to pass along an opportunity most folks might not know of
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 14:38
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Photographers are almost always the absolute owner of image copyright. Maintaining ownership and control of their images is critical. You give clients raws and they poo poo all over them with terrible processing, and someone asks who took the picture they are going to say your name. That damages your business and branding. "Some rights reserved. Resizing and adjustments necessary to properly reproduce this image in print are permitted, all other derivative works are prohibited without permission." That way they can resize, crop, tweak levels, whatever, but I can get on people about loving with my pictures if they do it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 15:31
|
|
|
My old wedding contracts (the master of which I seem to have lost in my last move) used to just state that any alteration of the photo must be credited as a derivative work. Mostly because I didn't want someone going all "sliders to the right" on something and then sticking my name on it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 15:49
|
|
|
I have no idea why the tattoo convention people had the no "professional" equipment requirement, but I thought I could get around it by going in with a shop as their personal photographer and doing a booth at the venue. The coordinator had such a fit about my being there that she threatened to revoke the shop's booth. According to her there is some law that prohibits professional photographers from something or another, and no amount of reassurance that she was full of poo poo was going to fix the situation. For reference, here is what they show on the website http://www.bodyartexpo.com/PHOTOS2.PHP?dir=May%202009%20Houston%20Photos
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
That's one reason why having a Fuji x100, or any EVIL camera would be nice. Sorry you got hassled for your equipment  .
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 17:32
|
|
|
The Wildflower Festival (music) here outside of Dallas bans cameras with detachable lenses which I find hysterical. I've never tried getting in with the X100 because I don't want them to see any money ever but I assume it is so they can put the squeeze on you for a "Press Pass".
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 17:49
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:That's one reason why having a Fuji x100, or any EVIL camera would be nice. Sorry you got hassled for your equipment No worries. It was hilarious reading the list of requirements to be their "official" photographer. I'll see if I can dig it up in e-mail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 18:56
|
|
|
"W. Jerome Harrison, [b posted:1887[/b]"]But with the practice of photography came the sad knowledge that there is no royal road to the taking of good pictures. Although money might be lavishly spent in the purchase of costly apparatus, yet it was soon found that some knowledge of chemistry, and some artistic taste, together with practice in manipulation, and neatness and accuracy in working, were indispensable to success. From TOP
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 20:56
|
|
|
Usually, I wake up dreaming of cavorting with young ladies with few clothes and no morals. Today, I woke up dreaming of shooting with a Canon 5D MKI. I am not sure which is worse: dreaming of a camera, or dreaming of the model that is equivalent to a slightly plump housewife who's a bit past her best, but still grateful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 11:18
|
|
|
spog posted:dreaming of the model that is equivalent to a slightly plump housewife who's a bit past her best, but still grateful. ...You mean the 5D MkI, right? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 17:38
|
|
|
spog posted:Usually, I wake up dreaming of cavorting with young ladies with few clothes and no morals.  literally every dream but two I remember in the past 6 months involves either the brakes on a car I'm driving not stopping the car or taking pictures and accidentally exposing film as I'm unloading it.One of the other two was about everything at work going to hell at once and the other was the typical "oh God, how have I been registered for this class all the way up until the final and not known about it until now?" nightmare that plagues you from graduation until you die.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 03:31
|
|
|
I wake up wanting to buy a loving Leica. EVERY. DAY. The way I figure it, if I book 4 more weddings this year I can get one. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 04:01
|
|
|
I wake up dreaming of shooting with my 5DmkI. And I love it. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
Am I the only one that doesn't remember a god damned thing about their dreams?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 07:09
|
|
|
HPL posted:Am I the only one that doesn't remember a god damned thing about their dreams? It's either that or I dream about really mundane things like replying to emails (which is incredibly confusing when I wake up)
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 10:54
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:It's either that or I dream about really mundane things like replying to emails (which is incredibly confusing when I wake up) Ever have one of those inception dreams, where you wake up from a dream while still dreaming, and you're dreaming about reading your email on your phone and procrastinating? Dreams are weird.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 13:45
|
|
|
All my dreams are incredibly mundane and plausible to the point where I'm basically just dreaming of everyday life. This can make it a bit confusing trying to work out if something actually happened and you forgot about it, or if you were dreaming.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 15:48
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:All my dreams are incredibly mundane and plausible to the point where I'm basically just dreaming of everyday life. This can make it a bit confusing trying to work out if something actually happened and you forgot about it, or if you were dreaming. There is some sort of extremely common prescription pain medication (hydrocodone?) that did this to my dreams, I found it to be extremely traumatic to the point that I still retain a couple of dream images as "memories" nearly 20 years later. I've had a few camera related dreams lately where my exaggerated act of blinking in the dream acted as a shutter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 16:31
|
|
|
Pfft, dreams. I can't think of the last time I woke up and remembered a dream. High school maybe? That was almost 20 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 16:35
|
|
|
I can't not remember dreams, which sucks because some are so vivid and mundane that I have to question if I'm remembering a real event or something in a dream. The worst are the ones where you dream that you've woken up and have gotten ready for work and are excited that you're going to get in on-time only to actually wake up and you still need to poo poo shower and shave.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
Here's my bit of advice. If you own a camera you're happy with, and someone gives you the chance to handle a Fuji X100 I say walk the gently caress away because you will be lusting after one within minutes. So uh, anyone want to buy $1400 worth of sperm?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 02:39
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Here's my bit of advice. If you own a camera you're happy with, and someone gives you the chance to handle a Fuji X100 I say walk the gently caress away because you will be lusting after one within minutes. That's how I ended up with mine. I went to a local small camera shop that I hadn't been to before to get a Sigma 30mm 1.4 but it was ~3 weeks after the tsunami and they hadn't been getting shipments at all. Poked around and was leaving when I spotted that black box on the shelf. They had received two and the owner had taken the demo model out for the weekend but they opened it up and let me handle it. I left and ate lunch to think it over and returned and bought it. It also looks like you'll want to set aside $300 for the wide angle conversion lens as its been getting positive reviews.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
Please don't go near the xpro1 then for your own good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 05:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:33 |
|
|
The NEX 5N is ugly as sin but very functional. It's a great base for using manual focus lenses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 06:22
|
|