Wedding Costs
in...@internet-real-estate.com
Is it that we never hear of any of the pricing arguments about "any"
wedding vendor other than photographers? I just don't get it. People
analyze to death the cost of processing and prints (conveniently leaving
out the 40 or so hours that a photographer actually puts into a wedding,
most of it "not" on the actual wedding day itself).
Where are the threads dealing with the baker who takes ten bucks worth of
flour, water, milk, eggs, etc, ... and then charges several hundred or
more for the cake?
Or the money for some cloth and beads that gets upcharged hundreds and
usually thousands, in the name of a wedding gown?
Or the ferns that you could have gotten at Wal-Mart for $10 each that the
florist charges you $50?
I could go on and on, of course. But you should see by now that its
obvious. If it were truly lots of actual brides talking of money, we would
see "all" vendors being treated this way. But its not! Its just a few, one
in particular, that have made it their personal calling in life to give
photographers a hard time.
Lets even it out, and discuss the other vendors. For example, how about
wedding announcement cards. If it was for anything other than a wedding,
your printer would do them for nearly half the price.
Edward
Rebeckah Blewett
A while back I complained about a dress vendor who I signed a contract with
to pay 690 CAD for a dress and made a downpayment of 345 that day. She
didn't call me when the dress came in, I had to call her at which time she
told me that the dress was actually 600 US and that even though I had a
contract with her, and she admitted the mistake was her fault (she didn't
bother to note that the dressed was being shipped from the US into Canada
and that the price they quoted her, which he subsequently quoted me was in
US not in CAD), I was told I had to pay the difference to get my dress plus
any applicable taxes.
I would have had to pay an extra 300 dollars that was not in my budget at
the time if I hadn't threatened taking her to small claims court and telling
the newspaper. I was very unhappy.
Rebeckah
<in...@internet-real-estate.com> wrote in message
news:info-22090...@192.168.1.5...
EHS
>
> Why? Why? Why?
>
> Is it that we never hear of any of the pricing arguments about "any"
> wedding vendor other than photographers? I just don't get it. People
> analyze to death the cost of processing and prints (conveniently leaving
> out the 40 or so hours that a photographer actually puts into a wedding,
> most of it "not" on the actual wedding day itself).
>
> Where are the threads dealing with the baker who takes ten bucks worth of
> flour, water, milk, eggs, etc, ... and then charges several hundred or
> more for the cake?
Uh, when was the last time you baked a cake? I will assure you that a
cake that serves 100+ involves a little more than $10. worth of
ingredients and some significant time to make it.
> Or the money for some cloth and beads that gets upcharged hundreds and
> usually thousands, in the name of a wedding gown?
Gowns do seem to be rather overpriced, but one needs to remember that a
bridal salon must stock, at their own cost, hundreds of samples, pay
overhead that is generally pretty spendy, pay salaries all based on
speculation that brides will order their gowns from them. It's a very
risky venture these days and often requires a cash investment of well
over 100K just to open the doors.
> Or the ferns that you could have gotten at Wal-Mart for $10 each that the
> florist charges you $50?
Um...most savvy brides are pretty aware of this sort of thing. With the
plethora of home garden stores and bucket shops it's pretty obvious that
brides pay for the labor and artistry involved with the flowers.
> I could go on and on, of course. But you should see by now that its
> obvious. If it were truly lots of actual brides talking of money, we would
> see "all" vendors being treated this way. But its not! Its just a few, one
> in particular, that have made it their personal calling in life to give
> photographers a hard time.
Only the egotistical, arrogant ones who think they are the best in the
world when we all know there are more photographers than 7-11's these
days. It's not like they are some rare commodity with credentials from
the finest Art School in the World. Not only that, most of us don't
cater for hundreds or make wedding gowns, but most of us own a camera of
some sort and have even taken some pretty decent photos. I know I find
it hard to understand how a wedding photographer can charge $250. an
hour plus expenses. Seems pretty outrageous to me. Why should a bride
pay more just because a photographer doesn't have regular enough
business to make his/her prices a little less inflated? That's like a
restaurant charging double on Wednesday night because they have fewer
customers. Like that's the consumer's problem????
> Lets even it out, and discuss the other vendors. For example, how about
> wedding announcement cards. If it was for anything other than a wedding,
> your printer would do them for nearly half the price.
Ah, if you are discussing naivete, that's another thing altogether.
There's a sucker born every minute and the wedding industry, like
others, count on it.
Ellen
RBrac53660
>the finest Art School in the World.
Errr uhh as a matter of fact I do. From both Pratt Institute and New York
University.
toot toot
yes it is my horn
RBrac53660
>it hard to understand how a wedding photographer can charge $250. an
>hour plus expenses.
By todays standards $1300.00 is not that much to spend. And there are other
people my city at least who are cheaper.
EHS
Could you answer something for me? Domains only cost around $20. a year,
and one can get a quite adequate host for around $8. a month, so why do
you have a Geocities website? It doesn't seem very professional using a
free host with popups. TIA.
Ellen
Izzysmydog
>people my city at least who are cheaper.
>
>
Those are inflated standards... I found that out with my daughter's wedding..
No photographer could get away with charging those prices for any other type of
photos.. .They do it with weddings, because they are weddings and can...
Please, don't try to make me feel sorry for the lowly photographer.. When a
wedding's total cost averages around $15,000 why should a couple spend $1,300
for the photos.. That is highway robbery...As others have said, and I know from
my own experience, the photos usually just sit around collecting dust.. Better
to spend less on the photographer.. Afterall, who needs a photographer to
follow them around all day doing artistic shots when they can use the money for
something else... As long as the usual shots are covered, that is all that
matters.. You don't need the fancy shots that take forever to set or need a
photojournalistic photographer doing candids of everyone and their brother...
You just need a record to look at every once in a while to jog your memory...
Period... JMHO, but I'm sure one shared by many people who don't happen to be
photographers..
RBrac53660
>and one can get a quite adequate host for around $8. a month, so why do
>you have a Geocities website? It doesn't seem very professional using a
>free host with popups. TIA.
>
Yes the wonderful world of internet marketing. Build it and they will come,
Ha.
My resources are not placed in advertising nor marketing. Hey the web site was
free sao why not? Its more about the images to me.
RBrac53660
>No photographer could get away with charging those prices for any other type
>of
>photos.
To sit with me is $250.00 + expen no refunds. Then one has to buy a print
Sarting at $250.00 for an 8x10.
>When a
>wedding's total cost averages around $15,000 why should a couple spend $1,300
>for the photos.. That is highway robbery
No that is not. Photographers do work hard to learn there craft and for there
clients. And if you want a pro photog at your wedding your going to pay for
them.
>.As others have said, and I know from
>my own experience, the photos usually just sit around collecting dust.
Fine great then don't hire a pro photographer.
I would think you'll kind find a better target for your hatred and anger then
photographers. May be divorce lawyers.
Gerald Belton
>cater for hundreds or make wedding gowns, but most of us own a camera of
>some sort and have even taken some pretty decent photos.
There's a difference between taking an occasional good photo and being
able to perform on demand, every time, no excuses.
>I know I find
>it hard to understand how a wedding photographer can charge $250. an
>hour plus expenses. Seems pretty outrageous to me.
Supply and demand determine price. If a photographer can consistently
earn that kind of money, it's because the demand is there.
Gerald
--
Newly redesigned website:
http://www.beltonphoto.com
Gerald Belton
>Could you answer something for me? Domains only cost around $20. a year,
You can register a domain for $8.95 at godaddy.com; even less if you
pay for more than one year at a time.
>and one can get a quite adequate host for around $8. a month,
I use imagelinkusa.net, only $5.95/month and they provide excellent
service.
RBrac53660
>
>>Could you answer something for me? Domains only cost around $20. a year,
>
>You can register a domain for $8.95 at godaddy.com; even less if you
>pay for more than one year at a time.
>
>>and one can get a quite adequate host for around $8. a month,
>
>I use imagelinkusa.net, only $5.95/month and they provide excellent
>service.
>
>Gerald
I'm not to worried about it. Its a freebie and its fun for my artsy fartsy
images. I guess I still have this idea of the internet being a free forum
locked in my head.
Hmm oh well we'll see
Izzysmydog
>photographers. May be divorce lawyers.
I don't have hatred for all photographers.. I have a very good friend who is a
great photographer, but I don't see why all the long involved threads on this
list center around photographers who try to convince brides that photography is
the most important part of their wedding.. It's a part, yes, but not the most
important part... As for my even using a divorce lawyer, I have never used one
and don't expect to and I've been married for over 30 yrs...
I'm willing to pay a professional for his work, but I don't see where the
inflated amounts quoted for weddings should be that way... As for going to a
studio and paying $250 + expenses for one 8 x 10, that's ludicrious... Although
guess it depends on where you live and what your social class is...Thank God, I
don't feel that I need to impress anyone with a name of a photographer on a
picture..
RBrac53660
>and don't expect to and I've been married for over 30 yrs...
>
Thats great I mean that. Divorce lawyer was just the first thing that poped
into the noggin.
> As for going to a
>studio and paying $250 + expenses for one 8 x 10, that's ludicrious...
>Although
>guess it depends on where you live and what your social class is..
It also depends on what your buying. There is a difference between a fiber
based graded paper hand printed and a resin coated machine print. Ohh and that
8x10 when all is tallyed is $450.00 + F&P.
>Thank God, I
>don't feel that I need to impress anyone with a name of a photographer on a
>picture..
>
>
>
Hopefully no one does.
JMH
in...@internet-real-estate.com wrote:
> Why? Why? Why?
>
> Is it that we never hear of any of the pricing arguments about "any"
> wedding vendor other than photographers? I just don't get it.
Those gripes do occur but they do not degrade into arguments for a very
obvious reason....the vendors being complained about are hard at work and have
no time to post to Usenet like the photographers do. It's pretty hard to have
a one sided argument.
> People
> analyze to death the cost of processing and prints (conveniently leaving
> out the 40 or so hours that a photographer actually puts into a wedding,
> most of it "not" on the actual wedding day itself).
Cynicism about marketing hype leads people to investigate the truth and
analyze costs.
>
>
> Where are the threads dealing with the baker who takes ten bucks worth of
> flour, water, milk, eggs, etc, ... and then charges several hundred or
> more for the cake?
Fancy desserts regardless of where you order them cost a lot.
JMH
Gerald Belton wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 20:20:09 GMT, EHS <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >cater for hundreds or make wedding gowns, but most of us own a camera of
> >some sort and have even taken some pretty decent photos.
>
> There's a difference between taking an occasional good photo and being
> able to perform on demand, every time, no excuses.
With all due respect, very few wedding photographers who participate on this
newsgroup have porfolios that "pop". Most are boring, predictable, badly
composed and sometimes simply poorly developed. It irks me to see crap
photos passed off as some artsy fartsy technique when in reality the color
contrast sucks. There have been two, maybe three photographers in my 8+
years on this newsgroup whose work makes me gasp in awe. Those are pretty
rare.
With the high quality of films today, a good auto focussing camera and a
basic knowledge in how to bracket a shot, anyone can take good photos and be
consistent at it. Hobbyists are quite capable of achieving and surpassing
the level of quality put out by a "pro".
>
>
> >I know I find
> >it hard to understand how a wedding photographer can charge $250. an
> >hour plus expenses. Seems pretty outrageous to me.
>
> Supply and demand determine price. If a photographer can consistently
> earn that kind of money, it's because the demand is there.
I've always said that wedding photography prices will fall during a
recession. Since we appear to be entering a recession, do you anticipate
having to adjust your prices?
holly_...@hotmail.com
> images. I guess I still have this idea of the internet being a free forum
> locked in my head.
I'm a bride, and I would hesitate to hire a pro photographer with a
geocities website. It looks like an amateur outfit. I'd need an
explanation or reassurance that they are really pro and would warrant
pro prices. Or if I hire, it would be because I wanted to cut costs,
and was willing to hire a business that cuts costs. I may be
completely off base to want a photog with a real web site - but then
again I'd be the customer, and I'd be right.
Not that you should compromise your principles if you think the
internet really and truly should be free, but if it scares off brides,
just giving a heads up that geocities might not be as "free" as you
think.
rbrac...@aol.com (RBrac53660) wrote in message news:<20010923212603...@mb-ct.aol.com>...
> >On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 22:32:38 GMT, EHS <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Could you answer something for me? Domains only cost around $20. a year,
> >
> >You can register a domain for $8.95 at godaddy.com; even less if you
> >pay for more than one year at a time.
> >
> >>and one can get a quite adequate host for around $8. a month,
> >
> >I use imagelinkusa.net, only $5.95/month and they provide excellent
> >service.
> >
> >Gerald
>
>
RBrac53660
>and was willing to hire a business that cuts costs. I may be
>completely off base to want a photog with a real web site - but then
And that is why I would rather spend 10k on a camera outfit then a website. Or
perhaps by some stands. Any way when I had a "real" site up got nothing nada
zilch.
>again I'd be the customer, and I'd be right.
Then pick the photographer that bests suits you or take the pictures yourself.
I'm artsy others are PJ some are posed. Any way the usenet is no way to go
looking for clients and that is not the sites intended purpose.
>Not that you should compromise your principles if you think the
>internet really and truly should be free, but if it scares off brides,
>just giving a heads up that geocities might not be as "free" as you
>think.
If you looked at the site you would notice that there is not very many wedding
pictures on it and there buried under. Most of the images are very geared
towards the arts. Ohh and I forgot to mention they have appeared on Broadway
and in several publications along the way for there artistic merits.
And if your wondering yes I do have a portfolio just of weddings and one of
portriats and one of catalogs. Most times I meet people in person not on the
usenet.
RBrac53660
>newsgroup have porfolios that "pop". Most are boring, predictable, badly
>composed and sometimes simply poorly developed. It irks me to see crap
>photos passed off as some artsy fartsy technique when in reality the color
>contrast sucks. There have been two, maybe three photographers in my 8+
>years on this newsgroup whose work makes me gasp in awe. Those are pretty
>rare.
Just curious so what does constitute a interesting image in your opinion?
I already know its not my style for you.
JMH
RBrac53660 wrote:
> >With all due respect, very few wedding photographers who participate on this
> >newsgroup have porfolios that "pop". Most are boring, predictable, badly
> >composed and sometimes simply poorly developed. It irks me to see crap
> >photos passed off as some artsy fartsy technique when in reality the color
> >contrast sucks. There have been two, maybe three photographers in my 8+
> >years on this newsgroup whose work makes me gasp in awe. Those are pretty
> >rare.
>
> Just curious so what does constitute a interesting image in your opinion?
1) An orthogonal perspective to what would typically be a routine wedding photo
2) Deep contrasts in either B/W or color (I prefer B&W)
3) Interesting and artistic photo composition, particularly in the use of light
Mr. Martin's images have "pop".Go to www.rickmartin.com and look at that last row
of wedding photos on the main page. His posed shots are by far his better photos
and he does them better than any photographer on this newsgroup. I also happen
to like Jerry Schrader's work as well (www.jerryschrader.com). Look at the B&W's
link...even the photo of the bride exiting the car holding her dress after what
appears to have been an appointment at the hair salon is a great photo of what
would normally be a ho-hum subject. I like nearly all of Schrader's images ,
color and B&W, because he does an excellent job of capturing the magic of the
emotions in an artistic manner.
Then go to Rick Rosen's main wedding page. Despite the marketing hype that he
"captures the magic" , there is nothing magical about these photos at all. The
B&W of the bride and groom kissing is particularly poor in contrast with the
details of the bride's gown washed out.
I'm not against all wedding photographers, Mr. Bracken. Merely those who behave
like idiots, have wishy washy ethical standards and who have an inflated opinion
of their talent which they translate into high fees they expect brides to pay as
tribute to their greatness that only exists in their own arrogant minds.
Gerald Belton
>Those gripes do occur but they do not degrade into arguments for a very
>obvious reason....the vendors being complained about are hard at work and have
>no time to post to Usenet like the photographers do.
In another newsgroup they have something called "Hepler's Law." I'm
not sure of the exact wording, but it's invoked whenever a person
posting to Usenet claims that another person must have no life because
he/she spends so much time posting to Usenet. It's one of those "pot,
kettle, black" kind of things.
Melissa Tarsky
> Why? Why? Why?
>
> Is it that we never hear of any of the pricing arguments about "any"
> wedding vendor other than photographers? I just don't get it. People
> analyze to death the cost of processing and prints (conveniently leaving
> out the 40 or so hours that a photographer actually puts into a wedding,
> most of it "not" on the actual wedding day itself).
In my case it's because all of the other vendors were paid and then their
service was delivered promptly. I paid for my pictures in late April (when
I chose which pictures would be used for the various albums). He's had my
money for five months and I still don't have my albums. I have my proofs
(for which I paid) and the reprints (for which I paid), but don't have any
of my albums. He's been saying since July that the albums will be in 'any
day now', but can't/won't give me a better estimate. No other wedding
vendors play these silly games.
So, given that he's had my money for so long, I'm starting to resent the
amount that I've spent with him.
--
Melissa
3/18/01
Ron Ng
It's not in the least bit evident in your work.
Credentials mean nothing without talent.
Ron Ng Knows!
Ron Ng
Any photographer who spends 10K on a website is a moron.
Ron Ng Knows!
Ron Ng
ANd no one here wants to sit with you.
>Then one has to buy a print
>Sarting at $250.00 for an 8x10.
That's an expensive 8x10.
Ron Ng Knows!
Gerald Belton
<mhta...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>I paid for my pictures in late April (when
>I chose which pictures would be used for the various albums). He's had my
>money for five months and I still don't have my albums.
What brand of album is he supplying? I've heard from other
photographers that one particular album manufacturer has had terrible
delays recently.
Gerald
--
Wedding and portrait photography
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill
http://www.beltonphoto.com
RBrac53660
>
>Credentials mean nothing without talent.
>
There are many different people out there with many different taste. For some
reason you seem to think your the end all and be all of visual representation.
Kinda like a little Hitler.
RBrac53660
>
>ANd no one here wants to sit with you.
>
>>Then one has to buy a print
>>Sarting at $250.00 for an 8x10.
>
>
>
>Ron Ng Knows!
Then go to Sears Portrait Sudios get a coupon they run specials all the time
for around 30 bucks.
>That's an expensive 8x10.
yes that is.
RICK5347
>he
>"captures the magic" , there is nothing magical about these photos at all.
> The
>B&W of the bride and groom kissing is particularly poor in contrast with
>the
>details of the bride's gown washed out.
Jeanne Hinds,
While I will not try and educate you on the varying quality of scanned images
which is what you are mistaking as "pop", what I will say is that the photo you
refer to is a black and white infrared image and it is supposed to look exactly
like it does. LOL
Best regards,
Rick Rosen
Newport Beach, CA
www.rickrosen.com
RICK5347
>service was delivered promptly. I paid for my pictures in late April (when
>I chose which pictures would be used for the various albums). He's had
>my
>money for five months and I still don't have my albums. I have my proofs
>(for which I paid) and the reprints (for which I paid), but don't have any
>of my albums. He's been saying since July that the albums will be in 'any
>day now', but can't/won't give me a better estimate. No other wedding
>vendors play these silly games.
Melissa;
Respectfully, while I do not know who your photographer is or what the specific
reasons are the delivery delays your photographer is experiencing may be
totally beyond his control. Do you know which album company he uses? Some
album companies, Art Leather is a prime example, are notorious for unreliable
delivery schedules. That and quality control issues are why we stopped using
their products years ago. We as photographers have control over the
photography itself and the proofing but as for the final prints and the albums
we are often at the mercy of the lab and album manufacturer.
Hope this helps.
EHS
> >It's not in the least bit evident in your work.
> >
> >Credentials mean nothing without talent.
> >
>
> There are many different people out there with many different taste. For some
> reason you seem to think your the end all and be all of visual representation.
> Kinda like a little Hitler.
Ummmm....I've always sort of thought of you as the village idiot.
Ellen
EHS
> Then go to Sears Portrait Sudios get a coupon they run specials all the time
> for around 30 bucks.
Staying on top of the competition, I see.
Ellen
Izzysmydog
picture... Even if you are in NYC or someother very expensive place that is
still out of line... And no your only other choice is not Sears Portrait
Studio.. There are many excellent photographers who don't gouge the public...
And yes, that amout is gouging... I don't care where you went to school and
what YOU think you are worth...
Diana
the event is a wedding. For instance, I arranged to rent a penthouse apartment
for my boss's election-night get-together. The rental fee, cleaning fee and
deposits were all significantly higher when I later attempted to rent the same
facilities at the same time of year, same time of day, for a similar number of
people for a wedding reception. The explanation I received was that even
though both events involved liquor, the wedding crowds are "rowdier" and leave
a huge mess, while private parties are generally more sedate. I've encountered
the same thing on limo rentals, printed announcements and banquet room
(restaurant) rentals.
Diana
Michael
JMH <jea...@thinds.com> wrote in message
news:3BAF32D0...@thinds.com...
I have been to both of these sites and the work is nothing spectacular.
Jerry is an ordinary run-of-the-mill traditional posed photographer. All of
his shots are planned and, I will admit some of those work, but most dont.
There is nothing special about Rick Martin either. He did a nice job
scanning his photos but there is nothing special about the contrast that
couldnt have been tweaked in photoshop.
What happened to the photographer hater and spam basher? You are best at
that so maybe you should stick to it.
>
> Then go to Rick Rosen's main wedding page. Despite the marketing hype
that he
> "captures the magic" , there is nothing magical about these photos at all.
The
> B&W of the bride and groom kissing is particularly poor in contrast with
the
> details of the bride's gown washed out.
>
>
> I'm not against all wedding photographers, Mr. Bracken. Merely those who
behave
> like idiots, have wishy washy ethical standards and who have an inflated
opinion
> of their talent which they translate into high fees they expect brides to
pay as
> tribute to their greatness that only exists in their own arrogant minds.
I cant say anything about anyones ethics here but I have been to Ricks site
and his photos are better than the 2 sites you have advertised.
>
JMH
RICK5347 wrote:
In other words, high priced artsy fartsy technique with a technocool name which
gives the client a dimensionless, washed out photo. What a great marketing idea!
When your customers gripe about the quality of the work, just tell them it's
*infrared* and supposed to look like that.
Rick Martin
Hey Michael, have you been to your website lately?
Your work is tasteless!
Michael wrote:
--
Rick Martin,AFP
http://www.rickmartin.com
http://www.pronetphoto.com
Manassas,Va
JMH
Gerald Belton wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 00:00:25 -0400, JMH <jea...@thinds.com> wrote:
>
> >Those gripes do occur but they do not degrade into arguments for a very
> >obvious reason....the vendors being complained about are hard at work and have
> >no time to post to Usenet like the photographers do.
>
> In another newsgroup they have something called "Hepler's Law." I'm
> not sure of the exact wording, but it's invoked whenever a person
> posting to Usenet claims that another person must have no life because
> he/she spends so much time posting to Usenet. It's one of those "pot,
> kettle, black" kind of things.
Thanks, Mr. Belton! I'll remember this the next time Rosen, Morgan, Bracken, and
Edward, the newsgroup's collective group of photomiscreants, start in with the,
"You must not have a life, Ms. Hinds!", comments.
JMH
Michael wrote:
> I have been to both of these sites and the work is nothing spectacular.
> Jerry is an ordinary run-of-the-mill traditional posed photographer. All of
> his shots are planned and, I will admit some of those work, but most dont.
> There is nothing special about Rick Martin either. He did a nice job
> scanning his photos but there is nothing special about the contrast that
> couldnt have been tweaked in photoshop.
>
It's a good thing for you that neither Misters Schrader or Martin have devotees
of the patented Rick Rosen Response to Rejection. Of course, if they were,
their accusations of you being a raving racist hiding behind 20 different
aliases would merely be tongue in cheek teasing.
>
> What happened to the photographer hater and spam basher? You are best at
> that so maybe you should stick to it.
Sucking up to that bitter Rosen teat, eh, Mr. Michael Barnholdt of The
Imagewerks in MN? Too bad, your name and business name are forever archived in
google.com and when a prospective client does a search to find you, there will
all your posts be in their arrogant, rude, combattive, unprofessional glory in
google.com's comprehensive web site. If you think clients are going to squeal
with delight upon reading your posts and want to hire you in an instant, you are
sadly deluded and not paying attention to what the non-vendors on this newsgroup
have been telling you. Any vendor who pledges to "fight back twice as hard"
when told he's broken a rule and his spelling corrected will undoubtably reap
suspicion from prospective clients who may wonder what his reaction would be if
told by the priest he's broken a church rule or that he's made a mistake in
fulfilling the order. I suspect you understand this marketing fact but merely
want to blame your bad behavior on others.
JMH
Rick Martin wrote:
> My website and work?
>
> Hey Michael, have you been to your website lately?
> Your work is tasteless!
>
I went through ten pages of Mr. Barnholdt of Image Werks' web site and found
nothing of interest. Even his few posed shots are cookiecutter, boring and flat.
One would think that if one were going to present one's top 1% of your best work
on a web site seen by the world that at least they would in focus and have some
color contrast rather than these limp, washed out photos.
Michael
If that was coming from sombody whose work I actually admired I would take
it as an insult.
Rick Martin <ri...@rickmartin.com> wrote in message
news:3BAFF052...@rickmartin.com...
Michael
JMH <jea...@thinds.com> wrote in message
news:3BAFFB13...@thinds.com...
I know how hard it must be day in and day out being an art critic.....oh,
wait......your just a bitter old lady who has nothing better to do with her
time than spend countles hours in a newsgroup for the past 8 years. No
wonder your so bitter. I am also willing to bet Rick Martin is paying you.
in...@internet-real-estate.com
>
> Thanks, Mr. Belton! I'll remember this the next time Rosen, Morgan,
Bracken, and
> Edward, the newsgroup's collective group of photomiscreants, start in
with the,
> "You must not have a life, Ms. Hinds!", comments.
Of course you have a life ...
just not one outside of your Usenet activities. (Your social life with the
goats aside) :)
Don't bother responding. You're kill filed again. I just take you off once
in a blue moon to see who you're pathetically bashing lately.
Edward
Michael
JMH <jea...@thinds.com> wrote in message
news:3BAFF764...@thinds.com...
Im not sucking up to anybody. I just think your a little hard on the guy. Oh
look you found my name. Arent you just the detective. Did you think I was
hiding? pfft. I have news for you dear. I have references from every single
wedding I have done and I have a portfolio that would knock your socks off.
Dont you have anything better to do with your retirement years? Oh and
thanks for the plug.
JMH
Michael wrote:
> I know how hard it must be day in and day out being an art critic.....oh,
> wait......your just a bitter old lady who has nothing better to do with her
> time than spend countles hours in a newsgroup for the past 8 years. No
> wonder your so bitter. I am also willing to bet Rick Martin is paying you.
Oh, Mr. Belton? Yo hoo? We need you to invoke Hepler's Law on Mr. Barnholdt
right away.
JMH
Michael wrote:
> I know how hard it must be day in and day out being an art critic.....oh,
> wait......your just a bitter old lady who has nothing better to do with her
> time than spend countles hours in a newsgroup for the past 8 years. No
> wonder your so bitter. I am also willing to bet Rick Martin is paying you.
Sit! Lay down! Roll over! Good little photodog! Be sure to pay attention to
your trainers because the next step is to make fun of children's pets.
JMH
in...@internet-real-estate.com wrote:
> In article <3BAFF013...@thinds.com>, JMH <jea...@thinds.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Thanks, Mr. Belton! I'll remember this the next time Rosen, Morgan,
> Bracken, and
> > Edward, the newsgroup's collective group of photomiscreants, start in
> with the,
> > "You must not have a life, Ms. Hinds!", comments.
>
> Of course you have a life ...
> just not one outside of your Usenet activities. (Your social life with the
> goats aside) :)
Be sure to train Mr. Barnholdt well, Edward! Suck in that paunch, stick out
that puny, sallow colored chest with its forest of three hairs on it and
proudly declare you are not above making fun of the pets of minor aged
children. "We photomen are studly icons of manliness able to wage verbal war
attacking children's pets!"
RICK5347
>and his photos are better than the 2 sites you have advertised.
Michael;
While I am not a fan of comparing the work of different photographers,
especially without their permission or request, I do thank you for your
comments on my work.
Rick Martin
JMH
Michael wrote:
> Rick,
>
> If that was coming from sombody whose work I actually admired I would take
> it as an insult.
>
The ultimate critics of your work are the brides and grooms looking to hire a
photographer. Has word spread among your former clients that you are one of
those arrogant, snotty photographers who should be avoided like the plague so
now you are not getting any referrals? Obviously you have had to resort to
"free" advertising on Usenet to get clients thus indicating a desperation to
find clients anywhere (and boy, is it desperate to try and find clients on
Usenet). Can't find any in your local market, eh, Mr. Barnholdt of Image Werks
in Minneapolis, MN?
Psst: Think of your posts to Usenet and archived in google.com as perpetual
advertisements of your character and attitudes.
Sherry
Michael wrote:
> I am also willing to bet Rick Martin is paying you.
Well he isn't paying me and quite frankly I am just a little bit upset about it
too.
How come I didn't hear that you were running a get rich on USENET scheme Rick.
Tell me oh great and honorable one are you paying by the post or by the word.
I'm certain I can draft a couple of memorable posts if your pay scale is high
enough. Hehehehe......
Sherry
Ron Ng
It's much better than yours.
Ron Ng Knows!
Ron Ng
>wedding I have done
Not necessarily good ones!
>I have a portfolio that would knock your socks off.
It certainly does do just that since it's so bad!
Ron Ng Knows!
Rick Martin
Sherry wrote:
Where in the world do these characters come from?
Did I ever send you the pics from the Pentagon?
Sherry
Rick Martin wrote:
> Sherry wrote:
>
> > Michael wrote:
> >
> > > I am also willing to bet Rick Martin is paying you.
> >
> > Well he isn't paying me and quite frankly I am just a little bit upset about it
> > too.
> >
> > How come I didn't hear that you were running a get rich on USENET scheme Rick.
> > Tell me oh great and honorable one are you paying by the post or by the word.
> > I'm certain I can draft a couple of memorable posts if your pay scale is high
> > enough. Hehehehe......
> >
> > Sherry
>
> Where in the world do these characters come from?
Apparently Lake Wobegon has a slum area not commonly advertised in the travel
magazines. ;-)
>
> Did I ever send you the pics from the Pentagon?
NO!!!! I really would like to see them. So get busy and send them to me.
Sherry
Melissa Tarsky
with him telling me that I'll get my album 'any day now'. Once I get my
albums (and order the final set of reprints), I'm going to publicly post his
name so others don't have to deal with this.
If it is the album company, I would think that he, too, would know of these
delays and would give me some clue about an approximate date when they'll be
ready. Any day now was fine at first, but this has been said since July. I
have a really hard time believing that the album company has kept him
completely in the dark about their deadlines. I bet he waited until he had
a batch and then sent them in.
--
Melissa
3/18/01
"Gerald Belton" <ger...@beltonphoto.com> wrote in message
news:3baf4e69....@127.0.0.1...
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 14:59:08 GMT, "Melissa Tarsky"
> <mhta...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >I paid for my pictures in late April (when
> >I chose which pictures would be used for the various albums). He's had
my
> >money for five months and I still don't have my albums.
>
> What brand of album is he supplying? I've heard from other
> photographers that one particular album manufacturer has had terrible
> delays recently.
>
> Gerald
>
> --
> Wedding and portrait photography
> Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill
> http://www.beltonphoto.com
RICK5347
>delays and would give me some clue about an approximate date when they'll
>be
>ready. Any day now was fine at first, but this has been said since July.
> I
>have a really hard time believing that the album company has kept him
>completely in the dark about their deadlines. I bet he waited until he
>had
>a batch and then sent them in.
Melissa;
Once again, I am not defending your photographer and I don't even know who he
is but I can tell you from first hand experience that he may be getting
misinformation from the album company which leaves him just as much in the dark
as you are. I would bet that Art Leather is the company and from my years of
experience with them, prior to dumping them altogether, I can say that they
will even promise the photographer a delivery date and not fulfill their
promise. They have a history of such practices and quality control issues.
They have repeatedly sent apologies in the form of new order procedures
supposidly designed to eliminate those delays but nothing has ever changed.
The last straw to me was 3 weeks and the album finally arrived about 12 weeks
late. As for waiting until he could order in bulk, I can't think of an
advantage that the photographer would have by doing that as he will not get any
discounts for volume album orders.
JMH
RICK5347 wrote:
> >I cant say anything about anyones ethics here but I have been to Ricks site
> >and his photos are better than the 2 sites you have advertised.
>
> Michael;
>
> While I am not a fan of comparing the work of different photographers,
> especially without their permission or request,
Are photographers artists or not? A true artist knows his/her work is created
for the world to evaluate, critique and review - the results of which determine
the market value of their work. IT would seem you present the idiotic notion
that photographers only want the benefits of being considered "artists" without
the responsibilites and consequences of being an artist.
> I do thank you for your
> comments on my work.
>
What a suck up.