Photography Question and some other comments...
PoisonD-Mama
I haven't posted here in quite a while..... but I need some advice...
I don't want to spend an outrageous amount on Photography nor do I have the
money.... The College where I live has a wonderful photography program and I
was thinking of paying one of the students to take the pictures....I talked
to the professor and he says they can provide some portfolios for me....What
do you all think about this...we were going to provide the film and do the
developing and just pay this student to take the pictures....does anyone
have any suggestions?
Also,
The wedding is in July so it is getting near. I am getting kind of
nervous.....I am about to do all the deposits and stuff..so wish me
luck...but I am still looking for a combined Wedding and Reception
Place....my last hope is a place called English gardens and it is my last
hope to have the wedding and reception at the same place it is a beautiful
garden with some lovely fountains and statues......So anyhow again wish me
luck
any suggestion on the photography would be gratefully appreciated :o)
Promise and George
July 8th 2000
Ericka E. Kammerer
PoisonD-Mama wrote:
> I don't want to spend an outrageous amount on Photography nor do I have the
> money.... The College where I live has a wonderful photography program and I
> was thinking of paying one of the students to take the pictures....I talked
> to the professor and he says they can provide some portfolios for me....What
> do you all think about this...we were going to provide the film and do the
> developing and just pay this student to take the pictures....does anyone
> have any suggestions?
I have some experience with photo majors, having supported one
through his college career ;-)
Yes, if you really have a limited budget, this might be an
acceptable solution for you, but there are a bunch of things to
watch out for.
1) Check portfolios carefully and make sure you see evidence of
a style that suits you. Pay particular attention to lighting,
as this is often an area where photo students aren't yet very
accomplished and which can make a huge difference when they're
under pressure to shoot. Be wary. You're looking at a "best
of" collection, which is likely to be better than the average
photo you get. Also look at whites carefully if you're wearing
a white gown. You should be able to see detail in whites,
not just a glaring expanse of solid white.
2) Make sure the student has done at least *some* of the sort of
work you're interested in--large group photos, studio portraits,
photojournalistic style stuff, whatever.
3) Get recommendations from professors or from the folks who run
the school's photo lab. Make sure you're not getting someone
flaky who might fritz and not show up ;-)
4) Make sure the photographer has reliable transportation and can
guarantee he or whe will show up--dressed appropriately.
5) You might want to hire two students to work together, or hire
one who has a skilled buddy who will help assist. It's a lot
of work, and two heads are better than one, particularly when
they're both inexperienced.
6) If you find someone particularly talented, be open to the
possibility of the student doing some of the developing or
printing, particularly if it's black and white and the
student does nice work. You might get something really
special.
7) Consider taking the student for a test drive. Hire him or
her to go out with you and take a few pictures of the sort
you expect from the wedding. Say, a few posed portraits that
you could use as an engagement picture or some group shots
or candid shots at a party you're having. That should give
you some idea of the results you can expect and how this
person is to work with.
Hiring a student is not likely to get you the same results
as hiring a professional, but I'm sure you know that. You're taking
a risk here, and it could bomb terribly. But if you're very careful
in your selection, you might well end up with something you like
and can afford. Also, there's at least some chance you could end
up have utterly fabulous shots by the next up-and-coming world-
class photographer ;-) I wouldn't count on it, but it's within
the realm of theoretical possibility--though it's more likely
with a professional who's at least established a track record
for being competent ;-)
Hope this helps,
Ericka Kammerer
Karen Simmons
The one thing I'd add is to get everything in writing once you've
decided on a particular student (or students). A basic written
agreement that specifies the location, dates, times, names of people
involved, etc. and the amount of money to chage hands for what product
(e.g. $400 for 6 rolls of unprocessed film or what) is essential.
Other that that, I think Ericka has hit the nail on the head.
Karen
the_w...@my-deja.com
> Hi all,
>
> I haven't posted here in quite a while..... but I need some advice...
>
> I don't want to spend an outrageous amount on Photography nor do I
have the
> money.... The College where I live has a wonderful photography
program and I
> was thinking of paying one of the students to take the pictures....I
talked
> to the professor and he says they can provide some portfolios for
me....What
> do you all think about this...we were going to provide the film and
do the
> developing and just pay this student to take the pictures....does
anyone
> have any suggestions?
Sounds like a great wedding money saver to me if you do your homework!!
When the "professional" vendors start talking about how you might be
disappointed with the results, just ask yourself how often your parents
look at their wedding pictures and you'll remember why you don't want
to go the wedding vendor way.
I still chuckle to this day thinking about how many wedding vendors
would paint a picture of certain disaster if couples would use money
savers like this, browbeating couples into overspending truckloads of
money to them and yet the vendor *routinely* use college students at
slave wages to do what work for them. The wedding vendors know that a
lot of kids are looking for experience and will exploit that to the
hilt. Hell. . .who do you think *THEY* hire when it's their own
wedding?!?! They know the score. . .
The vendors wax about the fact that "it's them that take the
responsiblity if they screw up", therefore they deserve the extra money
that you throw at the wedding vendor. . .
Think about that line. . .put yourself in their place. . .if you were
to hire someone to do a job for you that you might have to take
responsiblity for (God knows how much a wedding vendor doesn't ever
want to take responsiblity for his actions and have to own up to
anything that resembles responsiblity. . .), you would be absolutely
sure that the kid that you're paying peanuts to is going to do the job
correctly. . .might even do it better than the wedding vendor (which
really isn't that hard to do in the first place). . .
See if the instructor him/herself might be interested in shooting the
wedding. . .
Another tip. . .try to get a female student. . .I find that they have a
better feel for a wedding as the norm more than the exception. They
know how they want their wedding to be and envision that while shooting
(Karen I guess just envisioned her in-laws slaving over a hot stove and
scrubing pots and pans while she had a grand old time while saving
money on her wedding).
The Weasel - The Official "Weasel" of Deja! Accept no substitutes!!
--
"Now, how would you feel if the same thing was done to you on an
internet wedding site read by many prospective clients? It makes all
photographers look bad." - Rick Rosen on rec.photo.technique.people
about a post made on the wedding newsgroups about a photographer.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
templar
you the film to be developed that you will get to see what ALL
photographers (pro or not) see when they get film back: The good
shots AND the bad. Don't hold this against the Students. It is
standard practice in shooting any assignment that there WILL be
bad shots on each roll. The hallmark of a good professional
(even a PT Pro that the Studio Shooters hate) is that the
consumer will never see any of the bad shots in the final
proofs. Film and processing is cheap (when you are having it
done yourself), encourage your student photogs to shoot as much
as they can. Your odds of getting a great shot then multiply.
My other suggestion is to pay a bit extra and have the
processing and printing done (if the students aren't going to do
it) by a higher end lab. It would be foolish to spend any amount
of real money for once in a life time photos and then take them
to a One-hour place at the supermarket or drug store. Printing
counts more but even slightly improper processing can wildly
affect the colour quality of the end product.
In article <8as028$gq0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, the_w...@my-deja.com
wrote:
>I still chuckle to this day thinking about how many wedding
vendors
>would paint a picture of certain disaster if couples would use
money
>savers like this, browbeating couples into overspending
truckloads of
>money to ...(God knows how much a wedding vendor doesn't ever
>want to take responsiblity for his actions and have to own up to
>anything that resembles responsiblity. . .)
OUCH. Granted the wedding vendor field doesn't go out of its way
to make a good name for itself, but there ARE many of us out
there who don't resemble the lot that you are talking about. You
just painted ALL vendors with that broad brush of disrepute.
I've only been shooting professionally since 85 (sometimes Full
time sometimes part time) but I have yet to have ANY client
complain. My average wedding (this is rural Maine keep in mind)
costs the clients about $700. Total. I think that the majority
of us want happy customers more than just lots of money. (When
we can have both, so much the better.)
>Another tip. . .try to get a female student. . .I find that
they have a
>better feel for a wedding as the norm more than the exception.
They
>know how they want their wedding to be and envision that while
shooting
OR you could NOT be sexist and just hire someone who you think
will give you the photographs that YOU want, not the ones that
THEY want for their own wedding. After any photographer (male or
female) has some experience in shooting weddings they should be
able to have a unique style that you can see in their portfolio
AND still be able to get the shots that YOU want. It is
afterall, YOUR day.
Carpe Lumen,
Michael E. Berube
Photographer
meb @ goodphotos.com
http://www.goodphotos.com
-Is fearr sona na sailbhir.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
the_w...@my-deja.com
> On hiring students...Keep in mind also that if the students give
> you the film to be developed that you will get to see what ALL
> photographers (pro or not) see when they get film back: The good
> shots AND the bad. Don't hold this against the Students. It is
> standard practice in shooting any assignment that there WILL be
> bad shots on each roll. The hallmark of a good professional
> (even a PT Pro that the Studio Shooters hate) is that the
> consumer will never see any of the bad shots in the final
> proofs. Film and processing is cheap (when you are having it
> done yourself), encourage your student photogs to shoot as much
> as they can. Your odds of getting a great shot then multiply.
The photographer "unions" call it something else. . ."photojournalism".
. .BTW, thanks for the math lesson on averages. . .it's more than most
people who graduate from a government school will get in their
education. . .
> My other suggestion is to pay a bit extra and have the
> processing and printing done (if the students aren't going to do
> it) by a higher end lab. It would be foolish to spend any amount
> of real money for once in a life time photos and then take them
> to a One-hour place at the supermarket or drug store. Printing
> counts more but even slightly improper processing can wildly
> affect the colour quality of the end product.
Thanks for pointing out another one of those dirty little secrets the
wedding industry has. . .a private concern *CAN* get photos done from
the same labs that the photographers do. The photographers will say
that they use labs that only cater to them. . .ah huh. .
.*riiiiiiiiiight*. . .those labs turn around and will do work for
couples too. . .it's call "money"!!! How does it feel vendors to be
double-crossed?!
> the_w...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >I still chuckle to this day thinking about how many wedding
> vendors
> >would paint a picture of certain disaster if couples would use
> money
> >savers like this, browbeating couples into overspending
> truckloads of
> >money to ...(God knows how much a wedding vendor doesn't ever
> >want to take responsiblity for his actions and have to own up to
> >anything that resembles responsiblity. . .)
>
> OUCH. Granted the wedding vendor field doesn't go out of its way
> to make a good name for itself,
Especially on these newsgroups. . .
> but there ARE many of us out
> there who don't resemble the lot that you are talking about. You
> just painted ALL vendors with that broad brush of disrepute.
That's because I find that ALL vendors deserve it in one form or
another. . .
> I've only been shooting professionally since 85 (sometimes Full
> time sometimes part time) but I have yet to have ANY client
> complain. My average wedding (this is rural Maine keep in mind)
> costs the clients about $700. Total. I think that the majority
> of us want happy customers more than just lots of money. (When
> we can have both, so much the better.)
The vendors generally are more concerned about the latter than in the
former. . .
> >Another tip. . .try to get a female student. . .I find that
> they have a
> >better feel for a wedding as the norm more than the exception.
> They
> >know how they want their wedding to be and envision that while
> shooting
>
> OR you could NOT be sexist and just hire someone who you think
> will give you the photographs that YOU want, not the ones that
> THEY want for their own wedding.
Is it "sexist" because you're not a female? I suppose I would offend
you if I said that females do the best job at having babies too. .
.liberal. . .
> After any photographer (male or
> female) has some experience in shooting weddings they should be
> able to have a unique style that you can see in their portfolio
> AND still be able to get the shots that YOU want.
And that "unique style" is based on how they would like to see *THEIR
WEDDING*!!
> It is afterall, YOUR day.
The wedding industry doesn't believe that any more than the American
People believe what comes out of President Clinton's mouth. . .as far
as the wedding industry is concerned, a wedding is a "marketing
opportunity" for them. . .the DJ who announces their services while
working the gig. . .the photo-opportunist who shills people at the
reception on reprints and their services. . .the video clown leaving
cards and order blanks on tables and having their company name
plastered all over the place (on the side of the camcorder, etc.), the
baker who has their cards by the wedding cake, etc., etc., etc., and to
top it off, the couple is *PAYING* them to advertise at *THEIR* event!!
I've been in this sick industry, I know what evil lurks in the hearts
of the wedding industry. . .
Get a real job.
Karen Simmons
> The photographer "unions"
And which "union" would that be? The Photographers and Pipefitters
Local 151?
> call it something else. . ."photojournalism".
Actually "photojournalism" as applied to wedding photography is about
the style of the photographer, but let's not get into that again.
> Thanks for pointing out another one of those dirty little secrets
> the wedding industry has. . .a private concern *CAN* get photos
> done from the same labs that the photographers do. The photographers
> will say that they use labs that only cater to them. . .ah huh. .
> .*riiiiiiiiiight*. . .those labs turn around and will do work for
> couples too. . .it's call "money"!!! How does it feel vendors to be
> double-crossed?!
Nope. Incorrect. My labs (Millers Lab and Jonathan Penney) will only
offer their services to professional photography businesses who are
prepared to open an account and can provide taxID and business license
information. I can provide a whole list of professional labs that will
not work with consumers. There are plenty of semi-pro and pro labs that
*do* work with the general public (at an increased rate), but most
*professional* labs will not work with individuals.
> Is it "sexist" because you're not a female? I suppose I would offend
> you if I said that females do the best job at having babies too. .
As I female, I don't think that you have to hire a female wedding
photographer either, to get a "better feel" for the wedding. It's all
in what the client is comfortable with.
> I've been in this sick industry, I know what evil lurks in the hearts
> of the wedding industry. . .
Ah well apparently you know all the sleazy vendors. Which speaks
volumes for the type of business you ran, doesn't it Weasel? I, OTOH,
have never seen any of what you've described at the weddings I've done
... no business cards lying around, no banners proclaiming the DJ's
name, no videographers with their business name on their backs ... maybe
if you'd worked with a better class of people, you'd have less
bitterness towards the industry.
Karen
RICK5347
>> the wedding industry has. . .a private concern *CAN* get photos
>> done from the same labs that the photographers do. The photographers
>> will say that they use labs that only cater to them. . .ah huh. .
>> .*riiiiiiiiiight*. . .those labs turn around and will do work for
>> couples too. . .it's call "money"!!! How does it feel vendors to be
>> double-crossed?!
>
>Nope. Incorrect. My labs (Millers Lab and Jonathan Penney) will only
>offer their services to professional photography businesses who are
>prepared to open an account and can provide taxID and business license
>information. I can provide a whole list of professional labs that will
>not work with consumers. There are plenty of semi-pro and pro labs that
>*do* work with the general public (at an increased rate), but most
>*professional* labs will not work with individuals.
>
Sorry Weasel but I have to go with Karen here. My labs will NOT work with
individuals that are not qualified professionals. Most of the better
commercial labs in the country have more work than they need and will turn away
non-professionals. That does not mean that there are no labs that will do an
excellent job for the amateur but it will take some searching to find the
highest quality.
>> I've been in this sick industry, I know what evil lurks in the hearts
>> of the wedding industry. . .
>
>Ah well apparently you know all the sleazy vendors. Which speaks
>volumes for the type of business you ran, doesn't it Weasel? I, OTOH,
>have never seen any of what you've described at the weddings I've done
>... no business cards lying around, no banners proclaiming the DJ's
>name, no videographers with their business name on their backs ... maybe
>if you'd worked with a better class of people, you'd have less
>bitterness towards the industry.
>
I haven't seen any of these activities either so I guess Weasel ran with a
lower caliber of vendors.
Best regards,
Rick Rosen
Newport Beach, CA
www.rickrosen.com
the_w...@my-deja.com
> the_w...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > The photographer "unions"
>
> And which "union" would that be? The Photographers and Pipefitters
> Local 151?
Try "Phototoads Local 0". . .where the motto is, "Zero is good!"
> > call it something else. . ."photojournalism".
>
> Actually "photojournalism" as applied to wedding photography is about
> the style of the photographer, but let's not get into that again.
Style my foot. . .it's done by people who burn up film in hopes of
*something* turning out. . .I mean even a stopped clock is right twice
a day. . .
> > Thanks for pointing out another one of those dirty little secrets
> > the wedding industry has. . .a private concern *CAN* get photos
> > done from the same labs that the photographers do. The photographers
> > will say that they use labs that only cater to them. . .ah huh. .
> > .*riiiiiiiiiight*. . .those labs turn around and will do work for
> > couples too. . .it's call "money"!!! How does it feel vendors to be
> > double-crossed?!
>
> Nope. Incorrect. My labs (Millers Lab and Jonathan Penney) will only
> offer their services to professional photography businesses who are
> prepared to open an account and can provide taxID and business license
> information. I can provide a whole list of professional labs that will
> not work with consumers. There are plenty of semi-pro and pro labs
that
> *do* work with the general public (at an increased rate), but most
> *professional* labs will not work with individuals.
I know there a labs that don't work with the public either, but you're
only kidding yourself if you think it's more than it really is. .
.which is par for the industry. . .
> > Is it "sexist" because you're not a female? I suppose I would offend
> > you if I said that females do the best job at having babies too. .
>
> As I female, I don't think that you have to hire a female wedding
> photographer either, to get a "better feel" for the wedding. It's all
> in what the client is comfortable with.
Remember Mrs. Smits, I've been in the industry. . .the female ones were
*always* the better photographers. . .and cheaper too!!
> > I've been in this sick industry, I know what evil lurks in the
hearts
> > of the wedding industry. . .
>
> Ah well apparently you know all the sleazy vendors. Which speaks
> volumes for the type of business you ran, doesn't it Weasel?
I ran a great business, it was the other shills that didn't want to do
it right. . .I was the one who was trying to make it an honest
business, but you know how the wedding industry works. . .
I'm doing a lot better financially and health wise now since leaving
the wedding circus. . .now I can do *honest* work and not have any of
the other wedding vendors chastise me. . .
> I, OTOH, have never seen any of what you've described at the weddings
I've done
> ... no business cards lying around, no banners proclaiming the DJ's
> name, no videographers with their business name on their backs ...
Do you always run interference for the wedding industry?
> maybe
> if you'd worked with a better class of people, you'd have less
> bitterness towards the industry.
Describe "better class of people" for alt.wedding. . .*with* examples.
. .I'm sure your captive audience would *love* to hear your spin. . .
the_w...@my-deja.com
> >> Thanks for pointing out another one of those dirty little secrets
> >> the wedding industry has. . .a private concern *CAN* get photos
> >> done from the same labs that the photographers do. The
photographers
> >> will say that they use labs that only cater to them. . .ah huh. .
> >> .*riiiiiiiiiight*. . .those labs turn around and will do work for
> >> couples too. . .it's call "money"!!! How does it feel vendors to be
> >> double-crossed?!
> >
> >Nope. Incorrect. My labs (Millers Lab and Jonathan Penney) will only
> >offer their services to professional photography businesses who are
> >prepared to open an account and can provide taxID and business
license
> >information. I can provide a whole list of professional labs that
will
> >not work with consumers. There are plenty of semi-pro and pro labs
that
> >*do* work with the general public (at an increased rate), but most
> >*professional* labs will not work with individuals.
> >
>
> Sorry Weasel but I have to go with Karen here.
Want my "surprised" look? You'd go with whatever she said on the
public newsgroups even if she was dead wrong - support her "for the
good of the industry". . .
> My labs will NOT work with
> individuals that are not qualified professionals.
Who and how are they qualified? Do they have to run them by you
first? Do they take the "Rick Rosen Test"? Do they just have to have
money in their hand? Do they just have to breathe?
> Most of the better
> commercial labs in the country have more work than they need and will
turn away
> non-professionals. That does not mean that there are no labs that
will do an
> excellent job for the amateur but it will take some searching to find
the
> highest quality.
Trying to scare the couples into going with the vendor are we Mr.
Rosen. . .? You certainly think you're more important than you really
are. . .hope you can hang on to the wedding industry for another 10
years, it's really hard to find work at your age. . .
> >> I've been in this sick industry, I know what evil lurks in the
hearts
> >> of the wedding industry. . .
> >
> >Ah well apparently you know all the sleazy vendors. Which speaks
> >volumes for the type of business you ran, doesn't it Weasel? I, OTOH,
> >have never seen any of what you've described at the weddings I've
done
> >... no business cards lying around, no banners proclaiming the DJ's
> >name, no videographers with their business name on their backs ...
maybe
> >if you'd worked with a better class of people, you'd have less
> >bitterness towards the industry.
> >
>
> I haven't seen any of these activities either so I guess Weasel ran
with a
> lower caliber of vendors.
Wedding vendors *ARE* lower caliber. . .
> Best regards,
And this just proves it by saying something that's a total falsehood!
Karen Simmons
> were *always* the better photographers. . .and cheaper too!!
Is this addressed to me? If so, please bother to get my name right.
Oh, wait. That's about average for your grasp of the facts. Nevermind.
Karen
CJMorgan59
> I've been in this sick industry, I know what evil lurks in the
>hearts of the wedding industry. . .
It probably wouldn't seem so evil to you if you just went back to taking your
medication regularly.
C.J.
PoisonD-Mama
local drugstore and then just picking those few that I like to have done
professionally. Or to be blown up into bigger sizes...Pictures are pictures
these are to remember my wedding day not to spend a obscene amount on
someone that takes (and I use the term lightly) "Traditional Pictures"
Using a student gives a fresh look into pictures and maybe that student has
had something in mind that I would like....Anyhow Fortunately I am hooked up
in the right crowd since my most of the people in my family are graphic
designers and architects that my parents have come in contact with some
people who are willing to give me "freebies" or wedding gifts of developing
or blowing up pictures in a creative way.....anyhow have a nice day you all
Promise and George
July 8 2000
"RICK5347" <rick...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000326114235...@ng-fl1.aol.com...
> >> Thanks for pointing out another one of those dirty little secrets
> >> the wedding industry has. . .a private concern *CAN* get photos
> >> done from the same labs that the photographers do. The photographers
> >> will say that they use labs that only cater to them. . .ah huh. .
> >> .*riiiiiiiiiight*. . .those labs turn around and will do work for
> >> couples too. . .it's call "money"!!! How does it feel vendors to be
> >> double-crossed?!
> >
> >Nope. Incorrect. My labs (Millers Lab and Jonathan Penney) will only
> >offer their services to professional photography businesses who are
> >prepared to open an account and can provide taxID and business license
> >information. I can provide a whole list of professional labs that will
> >not work with consumers. There are plenty of semi-pro and pro labs that
> >*do* work with the general public (at an increased rate), but most
> >*professional* labs will not work with individuals.
> >
>
> Sorry Weasel but I have to go with Karen here. My labs will NOT work with
> individuals that are not qualified professionals. Most of the better
> commercial labs in the country have more work than they need and will turn
away
> non-professionals. That does not mean that there are no labs that will do
an
> excellent job for the amateur but it will take some searching to find the
> highest quality.
>
> >> I've been in this sick industry, I know what evil lurks in the hearts
> >> of the wedding industry. . .
> >
> >Ah well apparently you know all the sleazy vendors. Which speaks
> >volumes for the type of business you ran, doesn't it Weasel? I, OTOH,
> >have never seen any of what you've described at the weddings I've done
> >... no business cards lying around, no banners proclaiming the DJ's
> >name, no videographers with their business name on their backs ... maybe
> >if you'd worked with a better class of people, you'd have less
> >bitterness towards the industry.
> >
>
> I haven't seen any of these activities either so I guess Weasel ran with a
> lower caliber of vendors.
>
klsimmons
<PrOm_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Well sorry to disappoint you all but I plan on just having
> them done at the local drugstore and then just picking
> those few that I like to have done professionally
I don't think anyone here has ever said that having a student is
a bad thing - in fact most of us have repeatedly posted
suggestions for finding students who will do a good job.
But please, PLEASE reconsider your choice of using a drugstore
developer for your photographs. Drugstore/one-hour developers
not only cannot provide the quality of a good dedicated photo
lab, but they can't help you if there are problems with the film
or the developing process that need to be corrected for. Most
one hour photo places are staffed by barely trained technicians
who run the film thru a machine (that is often set at a higher
temperature than is good for your film to speed processing) and
have no clue as to what to do if there is a problem. A
dedicated lab will be able to properly develop all kinds of film
w/out running it thru over used, hot developer.
As for picking the few that you want done professionally: the
developing is the most critical part of the process. If the
initial developing of the film is screwed up, then the best,
most professional lab in the country isn't going to be able to
recover your images. I'd seriously advise having the film
developed at a high quality lab and then having the prints made
elsewhere if you want. But please, please, don't skimp on the
developing step.
Karen
CJMorgan59
> PrOm_...@bigfoot.com wrote:
>Pictures are pictures
>these are to remember my wedding day not to spend a obscene amount on
>someone that takes (and I use the term lightly) "Traditional Pictures"
While I'm not at all trying to change your mind, I would like to point out a
distinction -- the difference between taking and making photographs.
Most people "take" photographs. That is, they simply point the camera and take
a snapshot of whatever is in their field of view.
Experienced photographers, on the other hand, construct their images. They
consider what is and isn't important for the image, separating subject matter
from surrounding clutter, paying attention to lighting and how this influences
the appearance of the subject matter, and composing those remaining element in
a way which will communicate with clarity, directness, and hopefully visual
impact. In other words, they don't just "take" what they see, but rather
consider what they see for the image they are about to "make."
And that is the difference between taking and making photographs; between those
who are snapshooters and those who are seasoned photographers.
*******************
>Anyhow Fortunately I am hooked up
>in the right crowd since my most of the people in my family are graphic
>designers and architects ...
While there are certain overlapping similarities between photographers, graphic
designers and architects, there is not enough of a co-relation to put them in
the same crowd.
Many graphic designers and architects are little more than snapshooter --
picture takers. But in all fairness, as a photographer, if I were confronted
with either am architecture or graphic design project, I would readily admit
that I am not the best person for the job.
Nevertheless, if your situation works for you, go for it. So long as your
expectations are realistic and you understand that we are not quite of the same
crowd.
C.J.
the_w...@my-deja.com
> > Remember Mrs. Smits, I've been in the industry. . .the female ones
> > were *always* the better photographers. . .and cheaper too!!
>
> Is this addressed to me? If so, please bother to get my name right.
You're ashamed of your husband's name?
You lived with him for two years before you got married, have his
parents slave over a hot stove, work their fingers down to the bone
scrubing pots and pans while you were having a grand old time saving
money on your wedding while telling people on various newsgroups how
you deserve the obscene amount of money you charge. . .that's just a
fine "how do you do" to your husband. . .
> Oh, wait. That's about average for your grasp of the facts. Nevermind.
The fact is that your husband's name is Smits. . .
Karen Simmons
>> Is this addressed to me? If so, please bother to get my name right.
> You're ashamed of your husband's name?
Not at all. But you didn't call me by his name or mine.
> The fact is that your husband's name is Smits. . .
News to him - and his family, I'm sure. I wonder if I can get him to
change his birth certificate because YOU say it's fact.
Once again you prove your lack real knowledge and your blatant disregard
for the true facts.
Karen
Karen Simmons
> C'mon, you know what I'm trying to say. . .I was off by a few letters
Don't weasel, Weasel. You were w-r-o-n-g. You still are. My husband's
name is not "Smoots". You are much closer, tho, this time. Only off by
one letter this time instead of five.
> Amazing how the vendors tell everybody else that they are suppose to
> pay the wedding vendors top dollar or else indure sorrow and heartache.
I have never said that in my life. You are wrong again Weasel. If you
can prove where I have ever said that couples *must* pay "top dollar" I
will publicly apologise to you. Or are you purposely ignoring my posts
where I advise couples on how to find amateur and student photographers
and my FAQ on Amateur Wedding Photography.
> Beware of a wedding vendor who plays word games with you
Beware a Weasel who plays word games (I was off by a few letters). I
think I know my husband's name, Weasely one. You, obviously, do not.
And what's more you don't even have the guts to admit that you were
wrong - even over a simple thing like that. Which is par for the
weasels on the wedding newgroups.
Karen
the_w...@my-deja.com
> the_w...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > I've been in this sick industry, I know what evil lurks in the
> >hearts of the wedding industry. . .
>
> It probably wouldn't seem so evil to you if you just went back to
taking your
> medication regularly.
You're right Mr. Morgan, one would *simply* have to be on a full
regiment of low-grade dope to get around to the wedding industry's way
of thinking. . .
the_w...@my-deja.com
C'mon, you know what I'm trying to say. . .I was off by a few letters
*MRS. SMOOTS!!* Happy now?. . .oops, forgot, I'm not a starry eyed
couple mindlessly giving you my money to you foolishly. . .so you can't
be happy. . .It was close enough to know what I was driving at. . .
Tell the posters on alt.wedding, do you play these kinds of word games
when people are paying you thousands of dollars to photo-op their
wedding when you yourself couldn't see the need to spend that kind of
money foolishly on your *own* wedding?
You made Kevin's parents work your wedding, why didn't you throw your
mother in that kitchen to help out so that his parents wouldn't have
had to work for you? Funny how you saw nothing wrong with cutting
corners on *YOUR* wedding and yet you and the wedding industry sit the
scare the couples into wasting their money on wedding vendors lest they
get "dire warnings" on using anyone else cheaper. . .
I mean even T. R. Laz of USA Video in New York cut every corner he
could. . .last I heard, he and honey are doing just jim dandy!!. .
.wedding vendors I've known sit and browbeat the couples into spending
all kinds of foolish money down the drain and yet when *their*
daughters are getting hitched, amazing that they know how much of a
suckers game the wedding industry really is. . .they can't be
manipulated into buying the lie. . .they tell it to the couples, they
sure in the hell aren't going to believe it themselves. . .just like
you yourself didn't believe it Mrs. Smoot (did I get it right?)
Amazing how the vendors tell everybody else that they are suppose to
pay the wedding vendors top dollar or else indure sorrow and heartache.
. .yet the same vendors hire the same people to work their wedding. .
.and like I said, the wedding industry *HATES* taking responsiblity for
*ANYTHING* they do. . .they're going to hire someone that they know is
better than they are!
Beware of a wedding vendor who plays word games with you instead of
sticking to the facts. . .which is par for the wedding vendors on the
wedding newsgroups. . .
People who can't find real job. . .just become wedding vendors. . .
Joe Pucillo
> the_w...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I'm right
> > > > > > I'm right
> > > > > I'm right
> > > > I'm right
> > > I'm right
> > I'm right
> I'm wrong? It was a simple mistake! I can't be faulted!
Feh.
--
Joe Pucillo http://www.JoePucillo.com
Baltimore, Maryland USA
To reply by email, please remove the .xx from the address.
Priscilla
>baker who has their cards by the wedding cake
Do they REALLY do that? Where?
If so, then I must concur with a Ron-ism on this one...How VULGAR!
Why don't they just write the information on the side of the cake in Neon pink
icing? Same difference...lol.
Priscilla
@@
@@@
| |
@@@@@
| |
@@@@@@@
<a href="http://members.aol.com/frostingal/index.html">My New Homepage</a>
Priscilla
Karen,
Could you tell me where to find this? I'd be interested in reading your
suggestions. So far, the only place I have found suggestions is in one book.
Thank you!
Priscilla
>local drugstore and then just picking those few that I like to have done
>these are to remember my wedding day not to spend a obscene amount on
>someone that takes (and I use the term lightly) "Traditional Pictures"
>had something in mind that I would like....
DH and I took our photos to WalMart one hour, and we waited for them. When the
technician saw that they were our wedding photos, she used the computer on the
machine to get the best exposure and prints possible. We were REALLY happy
with how they came out, and they were taken by a TOTAL amateur with a good
35mm. So, I figure, yours taken by an art student would be that much better.
:o)
The only thing I would have done different would be to have ordered the prints
in 5X7 size. But we wanted them QUICKLY. We were so impatient. :o)
But reprints weren't a problem. We also ordered wallet size pictures of our
new family to enclose with each thank you card. They were popular.
Good luck, and happy planning!
Karen Simmons
>
> >my FAQ on Amateur Wedding Photography.
>
> Karen,
> Could you tell me where to find this? I'd be interested in reading
> your suggestions. So far, the only place I have found suggestions
> is in one book.
> Thank you!
Priscilla,
It's at http://www.ksimmons.com/faqs/faqs.html along with my FAQ on how
to find/work with a wedding photographer.
Karen
Jeanne
klsimmons wrote:
> In article <sdv2stl...@corp.supernews.com>, "PoisonD-Mama"
> <PrOm_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >Well sorry to disappoint you all but I plan on just having
> > them done at the local drugstore and then just picking
> > those few that I like to have done professionally
>
> IBut please, PLEASE reconsider your choice of using a drugstore
> developer for your photographs. Drugstore/one-hour developers
> not only cannot provide the quality of a good dedicated photo
> lab, but they can't help you if there are problems with the film
> or the developing process that need to be corrected for. Most
> one hour photo places are staffed by barely trained technicians
> who run the film thru a machine (that is often set at a higher
> temperature than is good for your film to speed processing) and
> have no clue as to what to do if there is a problem. A
> dedicated lab will be able to properly develop all kinds of film
> w/out running it thru over used, hot developer.
>
This issue of taking film to a one hour lab only becomes an issue when a
non-pro/bridal consumer on this newsgroup states plans for having their film
developed at such a facility. When C.J. Morgan posted his intro to ProNetPhoto
email list, he stated that he is not adverse to taking his film to get developed
at Wal-Mart on ocassion. Not one person on that photography professional list,
moderated by Karen Simmons, made a comment or batted an eye. Some bride on
alt.wedding says she wants to do likewise and the anecdotal horror stories
abound. One of the absolute WORST film development I ever personally
encountered was a pro lab which did not wash the negatives well and there were
"streaks". They had to be reprocessed by another lab.
And it is total bull hockey that pro labs will not take business from
non-pro/non-business customers. The last time this bit of fallaciousness was
posted, I contacted four pro labs in Raleigh alone which would happily process
my film. I eventually chose a custom lab in Durham where the owner is willing
to work with me to achieve a good final result.
klsimmons
> business from non-pro/non-business customers.
You're talking of things about which you have no conception.
Again.
Please contact Millers Pro Imaging (http://www.millerslab.com)
and ask if they will do work for non-pros. Please contact
Pounds Professional Labs (http://www.pounds.com) and ask if they
will do work for non-pros. Please contact CPQ and see if they
will do work for non-pros. Please contact Jonathan Penney and
see if he will do work for non-pros.
Some pro labs also work with amateurs and semi-pros. Some
don't. To state otherwise is stupid.
CJMorgan59
>> IBut please, PLEASE reconsider your choice of using a drugstore
>> developer for your photographs. Drugstore/one-hour developers
>> not only cannot provide the quality of a good dedicated photo
>> lab, but they can't help you if there are problems with the film
>> or the developing process that need to be corrected for. Most
>> one hour photo places are staffed by barely trained technicians
>> who run the film thru a machine (that is often set at a higher
>> temperature than is good for your film to speed processing) and
>> have no clue as to what to do if there is a problem. A
>> dedicated lab will be able to properly develop all kinds of film
>> w/out running it thru over used, hot developer.
Jeanne Hinds wrote:
>This issue of taking film to a one hour lab only becomes an issue when a
>non-pro/bridal consumer on this newsgroup states plans for having their film
>developed at such a facility. When C.J. Morgan posted his intro to
>ProNetPhoto
>email list, he stated that he is not adverse to taking his film to get
>developed
>at Wal-Mart on ocassion.
Quite so, and I still do from time to time. But what you've said here is
(again) somewhat misleading.
I've been shooting for 25+ years and spent more hours doing darkroom processing
and printing than I care to admit. When I go to Wal-Mart, I don't need a good
technician to sort things out if there's any problems. I am that technician,
and can easily sort out if any problems are with the shooting or with the
printing.
What I will say, however, is this: if your images are well lit, well composed
and well exposed, the kids down at Wal-Mart generally do a good job.
But if you're not dealing with an experienced photographer, then by all means
Karen's advise above is good counsel.
C.J.
hat@hotmail.com yorkovich
ago. The last wedding that I had processed by them - 10 rolls that were
ruined - scratched and dirty from end to end. CPQ didn't particullary care
about satisfaction, either . . . attitude was basically "so what". Of
course, there was no adjustment in price, either. The remaining rolls that
were printed were magenta'd, dust spotted & of poor quality. I'd never use
them again. Crappy results & service was also obtained from NCL (is it wrong
for me to cheer when pro places like that go out of business?).
Am now re-doing my portfolio: after 10 years of careful storage, I pulled
out the original negatives - nearly ruined by fading & pitting. In an
experiment, I scanned both the photos & negatives (HP flatbed & Nikon
LS-2000). After minimal PhotoShopping, I now have some great digital files.
I've output them to film & will get the transparencies back tomorrow.
Using a pro lab doesn't guarantee quality. Nor does it guarantee decent
service. Certainly doesn't guarantee timely service. It may guarantee
abhorrent pricing, tho.
I have used some 1 Hour places - some are capable of turning out very decent
work. I use only transparencies, now, sow I can't comment on print quality
(although the stuff froms the wife's P&S is fantastic!).
Ron
"klsimmons" <klsimmon...@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:0a7216be...@usw-ex0108-063.remarq.com...
CJMorgan59
>Nothing personal, Karen, but you had recommended CPQ to me a number of years
>ago.
A recommendation of a professional photograph lab from few years doesn't
necessarily mean that recommendation is still valid today.
***********************
>The last wedding that I had processed by them - 10 rolls that were
>ruined - scratched and dirty from end to end. CPQ didn't particullary care
>about satisfaction, either . . . attitude was basically "so what". Of
>course, there was no adjustment in price, either. The remaining rolls that
>were printed were magenta'd, dust spotted & of poor quality. I'd never use
>them again.
Strange experience. Most pro labs pride themselves on providing good results
and ensuring good customer relations. And if they don't, they develop a
reputation as such, and often soon find themselves out of business.
******************
>Crappy results & service was also obtained from NCL (is it wrong
>for me to cheer when pro places like that go out of business?).
Case in point.
*****************
>Using a pro lab doesn't guarantee quality. Nor does it guarantee decent
>service. Certainly doesn't guarantee timely service.
Generally it does. Pro labs build their reputation on quality, decent service
and timely results. It stands to reason that it's in their own best interest to
do so if they want to remain in business.
C.J.
hat@hotmail.com yorkovich
against Karen. Just stating my experience with "ProLabs". Have been using
NYC labs the past 10 years, albeit not for weddings; still the same (lack
of) service - but, with a New York attitude & price gouging. Have watched
them charge different prices for same service for different customers - they
have a knack for spotting marks/victims. I've also learned to avoid Baboo at
all costs; but will still use Duggal - in an emergency.
Now that the digital quality & archivability approaching that of film is
here, I think it may be time for me to go completely digital. Any NY/NJ
brides wanna help me build my digital portfolio?
Ron
"CJMorgan59" <cjmor...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000329173925...@ng-bj1.aol.com...
Karen Simmons
> Nothing personal, Karen, but you had recommended CPQ to me a number
> didn't particullary care about satisfaction, either . . .
Well I'm sorry you had problems with them, but ... uhm ... honestly I
can't imagine I'd have recommended them to you. I may have listed them
as a pro lab that I knew of, but I've never used them personally (I use
Millers, Pounds, and JP) and I make it a policy not to refer to labs or
services that I haven't used myself. Still and yet, I know dozens of
pro photogs who have used them for years and never had a problem.
> Am now re-doing my portfolio: after 10 years of careful storage, I pulled
> out the original negatives - nearly ruined by fading & pitting.
Ok, this pretty much shows me that *I* did not recommend them to you. I
haven't been on the 'net for 10 years. Sorry. I think you're thinking
of someone else.
Also if you had these negs done by them 10 years ago, I'm sure things
have changed. The CPQ I know of from other photographers is a super lab
that is always willing to make good on their promises.
Karen
Karen Simmons
>> Ok, this pretty much shows me that *I* did not recommend them
>> to you. I haven't been on the 'net for 10 years. Sorry. I think
>> you're thinking of someone else.
yorkovich wrote:
> Wasn't a net recommendation . . . never said it was.
Uhm. It wasn't me. First of all, I have no clue who you are.
Secondly, 10 years ago I was barely getting started in photography and
wouldn't have known who CPQ was if my life depended on it. 10 years ago
I barely knew who Millers was.
Sorry. You have me seriously confused with someone else. Or else
you're trolling me.
Karen
Karen Simmons
> In any case, it appears that you (& others) appear to be paranoid
> & like name calling. I'm not a troll - nor am I a phototoad.
Ron,
I certainly haven't name called you. If I have offended you then I
apologize. You obviously understand that there are several people on
this group who take great delight in baiting me (and other pro
photographers). Since you use the word "phototoad", you are obviously
aware of the situation. Because of that, I am unwilling to open myself
up to that possibility again - it has caused me too much grief before.
Again, if you are not baiting me, I apologize for my response. You came
on very strongly that I had given you bad information and the tone of
your first message very much sounded as though you held me responsible
for a bad referral. That combined with the fact that you have never
emailed or posted in response to me before, yet claimed to know me
personally, did make me paranoid. I admit that freely. I would be less
than honest if I didn't tell you that your current response ("the person
I corresponded with was a class act - a professional; maybe it wasn't
you.") in combination with your "phototoad" comment makes me even more
paranoid. It sounds very much like a setup for a hard slam coming. I
sincerely hope that it's not, and I'd be more than happy to discuss
anything relating to professional photography with you via private
email.
But I will tell you again that if you received a referral from Denis to
a pro photographer who, in turn, referred you to CPQ 10 years ago, it
was not me.
Best,
Karen
Karen Simmons
>
> Have been thinking about getting back into the wedding photography.
Ron,
I'd love to talk to you more about your experiences w/ other photogs and
about getting back into photography, but I can't figure out your real
email address. If you'd email me, I'd really enjoy talking with you.
At this point, I'm not sure this is an appropriate topic for the wedding
newsgroups, tho.
Karen
hat@hotmail.com yorkovich
Ron
"Karen Simmons" <klsi...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:38E2928D...@mindspring.com...
> yorkovich wrote:
>
> > Nothing personal, Karen, but you had recommended CPQ to me a number
> > of years ago. The last wedding that I had processed by them - 10
> > rolls that were ruined - scratched and dirty from end to end. CPQ
> > didn't particullary care about satisfaction, either . . .
>
> Well I'm sorry you had problems with them, but ... uhm ... honestly I
> can't imagine I'd have recommended them to you. I may have listed them
> as a pro lab that I knew of, but I've never used them personally (I use
> Millers, Pounds, and JP) and I make it a policy not to refer to labs or
> services that I haven't used myself. Still and yet, I know dozens of
> pro photogs who have used them for years and never had a problem.
>
> > Am now re-doing my portfolio: after 10 years of careful storage, I
pulled
> > out the original negatives - nearly ruined by fading & pitting.
>
> Ok, this pretty much shows me that *I* did not recommend them to you. I
> haven't been on the 'net for 10 years. Sorry. I think you're thinking
> of someone else.
>
hat@hotmail.com yorkovich
. . . possibly, I could be wrong - the person I corresponded with was a
class act - a professional; maybe it wasn't you. Whoever it was gave some
good advice. Regardless, I won't pursue it.
In any case, it appears that you (& others) appear to be paranoid & like
name calling. I'm not a troll - nor am I a phototoad.
Apparently, some people can't even recognize a compliment when it's given.
Ron
"Karen Simmons" <klsi...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:38E2A12E...@mindspring.com...
> I wrote:
> >> Ok, this pretty much shows me that *I* did not recommend them
> >> to you. I haven't been on the 'net for 10 years. Sorry. I think
> >> you're thinking of someone else.
>
> yorkovich wrote:
> > Wasn't a net recommendation . . . never said it was.
>
hat@hotmail.com yorkovich
necessarily mean that a photographer is going to get decent results by using
their services. Whether or not someone gave bad advice is moot . . . it
happens.
Ron
"yorkovich" <yorkovich@your h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:L4yE4.27880$S4.1...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
hat@hotmail.com yorkovich
my third career, has been surgical academia these past 10 years & I'm
getting tired of meetings, presentations & publishing deadlines. The kicker
was last November - went to represent the 82nd Airborne (my unit in
Vietnam - www.82ndairbornevietnam.org is one of my websites - dig deep
enough & you'll see the 18 year old kid that I was) at the Veteran's Day
Ceremonies in DC. Was supposed to be laying the wreath at The Wall. Never
made it - had a massive heart attack about an hour before the event & spent
a couple of weeks (normal is 1-3 days) in the ICU. Just recently was
hospitalized & had a difibrillator impanted in my chest (seems I had an
arryhthmia potentially "incompatible" with life). Anyways, all better now &
am seeking a better lifestyle - something I enjoy (and good at - humbly?):
photography.
So, for the last few months I've been reading the newsgroups & visiting
websites, trying to see "what's new". Unfortunately, not much is new. The
industry that I developed such a bad taste for is still here, alive &
kicking. This would be the same occupation I decided to abandon 10 years &
do something else (my previous education was in medicine), after a long
running ethics battle with M.Z. (even now afraid/disgusted to say his name).
Anyways, I was much disappointed that the reputation of the group as a whole
could be defined/ruined by just a few outspoken photographers/bullies. Most
that I have met over the years have been good, decent people; although not
always talented. Shame that the "squeaky wheel" gets the attention.
I have made 2 posts to the wedding newsgroup in this period. Each time the
post was not to attack or accuse anyone . . . just commented on a topic that
had been brought up . . . both times I was called a troll & accused of
ulterior motives.
OK, I'm vented . . .
Ron
"Karen Simmons" <klsi...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:38E2BBC8...@mindspring.com...
> yorkovich wrote:
>
> > In any case, it appears that you (& others) appear to be paranoid
> > & like name calling. I'm not a troll - nor am I a phototoad.
>
> Ron,
>
> I certainly haven't name called you. If I have offended you then I
> apologize. You obviously understand that there are several people on
> this group who take great delight in baiting me (and other pro
> photographers). Since you use the word "phototoad", you are obviously
> aware of the situation. Because of that, I am unwilling to open myself
> up to that possibility again - it has caused me too much grief before.
>
> Again, if you are not baiting me, I apologize for my response. You came
> on very strongly that I had given you bad information and the tone of
> your first message very much sounded as though you held me responsible
> for a bad referral. That combined with the fact that you have never
> emailed or posted in response to me before, yet claimed to know me
> personally, did make me paranoid. I admit that freely. I would be less
> than honest if I didn't tell you that your current response ("the person
> I corresponded with was a class act - a professional; maybe it wasn't
Jeanne
klsimmons wrote:
> > And it is total bull hockey that pro labs will not take
> > business from non-pro/non-business customers.
>
> You're talking of things about which you have no conception.
> Again.
>
> Please contact Millers Pro Imaging (http://www.millerslab.com)
> and ask if they will do work for non-pros. Please contact
> Pounds Professional Labs (http://www.pounds.com) and ask if they
> will do work for non-pros. Please contact CPQ and see if they
> will do work for non-pros. Please contact Jonathan Penney and
> see if he will do work for non-pros.
>
> Some pro labs also work with amateurs and semi-pros. Some
> don't. To state otherwise is stupid.
To state that most pro labs will not work with non-pros is fallacious. Your
words were:
I can provide a whole list of professional labs that will
>not work with consumers. There are plenty of semi-pro and pro labs that
>*do* work with the general public (at an increased rate), but most
>*professional* labs will not work with individuals.
>
Every single pro lab in a 100 mile radius of me will certainly work for me and I
am not a pro nor even a high volume amateur. That's 100% who will work for the
general public. At least 6 labs I can choose from and not at an increased rate
either. Who cares if you happen to do business with four pro labs who do not?
Jeanne
yorkovich wrote:
> I have made 2 posts to the wedding newsgroup in this period. Each time the
> post was not to attack or accuse anyone . . . just commented on a topic that
> had been brought up . . . both times I was called a troll & accused of
> ulterior motives.
>
And not by me, I might add.
Jeanne, just waiting for C.J. to claim "Yorkovich" is another alias of mine
RICK5347
> don't. To state otherwise is stupid.
To state that most pro labs will not work with non-pros is fallacious.
<snipped>
Every single pro lab in a 100 mile radius of me will certainly work for me and
I
am not a pro nor even a high volume amateur. That's 100% who will work for the
general public. At least 6 labs I can choose from and not at an increased rate
either. Who cares if you happen to do business with four pro labs who do not?
>>
Ms Hinds,
EVERY professional lab I know of has very strict requirements as to who they
will accept work from. All require that you be a professional with a resale
permit and a business license. Most also requre a certain amount of volume
from your account.
Please define what you perceive is a *pro* lab. Thank you.
Best regards,
Rick Rosen
Newport Beach, CA
www.rickrosen.com
Jeanne
RICK5347 wrote:
>
> Please define what you perceive is a *pro* lab. Thank you.
>
> Best regards,
> Rick Rosen
> Newport Beach, CA
> www.rickrosen.com
I am not responsible for your thorough lack of reading comprehension back when this
topic was first discussed months ago and I listed the names of at least three pro
labs within 45 minutes of me who would develop medium format film, custom print,
etc. You couldn't comprehend it back then and I don't owe you a repeat recitation
now.
Btw, you were the pathetically unprofessional, whining, sleazy, cretinous
phototoad who called Ron Yorkovich a "troll" back when he first posted. But then,
he wasn't saying anything you had not already heard from PPA or your betters at
ProNe...@onelist.com.
klsimmons
>
> I can provide a whole list of professional labs that will
> not work with consumers. There are plenty of semi-pro and pro
> labs that *do* work with the general public (at an increased
> individuals
Ms. Hinds:
I am not responsible for your thorough lack of reading
comprehension. Read again where I said that there are plenty of
pro labs that *do* work with the general public.
Again I will say that most of the dedicated pro labs that I know
of and that other photographers I know use will not work with a
client who cannot provide a valid business license and Tax-ID
certificate.
> Every single pro lab in a 100 mile radius of me will certainly
> work for me and I am not a pro nor even a high volume
> amateur. That's 100% who will work for the general public.
And of course your experience in your 100 mile radius is
universal and comprehensive. If it works for Jeanne, it must
work that way for every other community in every other part of
North America. Because Jeanne has said so.
> At least 6 labs I can choose from
To paraphrase: Who cares if you happen to do business with six
pro labs who do?
Again, your reasoning is circular and fallacious, Jeanne. The
fact remains that dedicated pro labs will not work with the
general public. There are - for the fifth time or so - plenty
of pro labs that *do* work with the general public. But they
are not dedicated pro labs.
prone...@my-deja.com
get into big trouble with that one. You might not have enough money to
get out of a lawsuit with what you just said.
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
>
>
klsimmons
deja.com wrote:
>> There are - for the fifth time or so - plenty of pro labs
>> that *do* work with the general public. But they are not
>> dedicated pro labs.
> Karen, please be careful with sentences like your last one.
> You could get into big trouble with that one. You might not
> have enough money to get out of a lawsuit with what you just
> said.
*snort* Yeah. Right.
Lawsuit for what? Or do you suffer from reading comprehension
problems too?
Karen
RICK5347
<< I am not responsible for your thorough lack of reading comprehension back
when this
topic was first discussed months ago and I listed the names of at least three
pro
labs within 45 minutes of me who would develop medium format film, custom
print,
etc. You couldn't comprehend it back then and I don't owe you a repeat
recitation
now.>>
Jeanne,
FOR ONCE, why don't you answer a simple question? What is YOUR definition of a
*Pro* lab?
The fact that you have found some labs that will handle your processing is not
a criteria of defining a professional lab but rather just your continued
efforts to try flame the professionals here.
<<Btw, you were the pathetically unprofessional, whining, sleazy, cretinous
phototoad who called Ron Yorkovich a "troll" back when he first posted. But
then,
he wasn't saying anything you had not already heard from PPA or your betters at
ProNe...@onelist.com.
>>
Ms Hinds,
I don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Your renewed postings here on alt.wedding with your typical sniping, obnoxious,
slanderous attacks, just go farther to prove your motivations are not to be
helpful to the readership.
prone...@my-deja.com
klsimmons <klsimmon...@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <8c0abq$hmh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, pronetphoto@my-
> deja.com wrote:
>
> >> There are - for the fifth time or so - plenty of pro labs
> >> that *do* work with the general public. But they are not
> >> dedicated pro labs.
>
> > Karen, please be careful with sentences like your last one.
> > You could get into big trouble with that one. You might not
> > have enough money to get out of a lawsuit with what you just
> > said.
>
> *snort* Yeah. Right.
>
> Lawsuit for what? Or do you suffer from reading comprehension
> problems too?
>
> Karen
Why must you be so nasty?
You just need to be careful with statements like you made.
I have no comprehension problem.
My personal health is no business of yours.
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
>
>
klsimmons
Please explain why. In what sense was what I wrote legally
actionable?
Thank you.
CJMorgan59
>> There are - for the fifth time or so - plenty of pro labs
>> that *do* work with the general public. But they are not
>> dedicated pro labs.
Someone else wrote:
> Karen, please be careful with sentences like your last one.
> You could get into big trouble with that one. You might not
> have enough money to get out of a lawsuit with what you just
> said.
What are you talking about? A lawsuit by whom? And for what?
C.J.
Karen Simmons
> less dedicated to the pro. Saying what you did might not put you
> in good graces with the photo processing industry as a whole if word
> gets out about your comments here on a public newsgroup.
LOLOLOLOLOL. Oh my God! *snort* Oh that was too funny.
Read your dictionary. "Dedicated" means "set apart to a definite use;
given over to a particular purpose" You know like "dedicated flash"?
It doesn't mean the flash is committed to doing a good job, but rather
that the flash is designed to work with one specific camera system.
The same with dedicated pro labs: those labs that offer services to
amateurs and semi-pros are not dedicated pro labs. In other words, labs
whose use is given over solely to the purpose of working with
professional photographers. Dedicated. Like the flash.
Idiot.
Karen
CJMorgan59
> plenty
> of pro labs that *do* work with the general public. But they
Correct.
C.J.
prone...@my-deja.com
klsimmons <klsimmon...@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote:
> > You just need to be careful with statements like you made.
>
> Please explain why. In what sense was what I wrote legally
> actionable?
>
> Thank you.
First of all, I am familiar with Miller's lab and how they conduct their
business. And that's fine with me. But, there are plenty of good prolabs
that cater to the amateur/semi-pro as well as the pro. You can walk in
off the street with film in hand and they will process it for you.
Because they cater to all of the above does not mean that they are less
dedicated to the pro. Saying what you did might not put you in good
graces with the photo processing industry as a whole if word gets out
about your comments here on a public newsgroup.
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
>
>
CJMorgan59
>> Please explain why. In what sense was what I wrote legally
>> actionable?
Rick Martin <prone...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> You can walk in
>off the street with film in hand and they will process it for you.
>Because they cater to all of the above does not mean that they are less
>dedicated to the pro.
This is your reason for warning about potential legal action? LOL.
***************
>Saying what you did might not put you in good
>graces with the photo processing industry as a whole if word gets out
>about your comments here on a public newsgroup.
Sure, it will make controversial headlines in all the trade magazines. Yeah,
right. What silliness.
C.J.
AColdSpoon
I am a pro Rock & Roll and Fashion photographer here in NYC who also does some
reportage, portrait work and the occasional wedding for VERY good friends and
family. I have a slew of SOHO shows under my belt, some of them at a blue chip
gallery. The labs I use are Time/Life, Duggal, Color Edge, and C-Lab. These
labs do editorial work for every major print magazine in the world, all the
blue chip galleries, the major movie studios, museums, and very famous
photographers such as Lebowitz, Newton, Clinch, Van Unwerth, Webber, etc. I
have been using these labs since before I was a photo student and all of them
welcome "no-pros," I send my own students to these labs. The only one that
lacks accessibility at all is Time/Life as they do not advertise their pro lab
and you have to get an escort up to the lab. All the rest are in the yellow
pages and welcome beginners on up. You are welcome to call them and check for
yourself, just use an Internet yellow pages. I also do not belong to any
photography association or union, nor do I see a reason to. I do not know why
you two are arguing, nor do I really care. This site is about planning a
loving event, not about having professional squabbles. I hate to see my
profession soiled by this kind of pettiness. No pro deserves to loss a job to
an amateur, and yet this is also the way an amateur becomes a pro. We've all
been there so suck it up. Just wanted to clear up a misconception that's all.
Peace Out,
Peter
PS- I won't respond to or take part in making this flame war worse, so don't
bother trying
Jeanne
klsimmons wrote:
>I am not responsible for your thorough lack of reading
>comprehension. Read again where I said that there are plenty of
> pro labs that *do* work with the general public.
>
> Again I will say that most of the dedicated pro labs that I know
> of and that other photographers I know use will not work with a
> client who cannot provide a valid business license and Tax-ID
> certificate.
When this was first mentioned last year, the comments from the phototoad gallery
was that *NO* pro labs would take non-pro/amateur business. I shot that one out
of the air with a listing of the high end pro labs in my immediate area who
welcome all business regardless of status. It then mutated to *MOST* pro labs
will not accept business from the general public. Once again I shot that one
dead with yet more listing of high end pro labs in my area who proficiently
process medium format, transparency films, do custom printing, etc and who
accept all work from the general public. It has now mutated to only
*DEDICATED* pro labs refuse to do business with the general, non-business
public.
Who gives a flying flip about a few *dedicated* labs with restrictive business
policies when there is a plethora of high end pro labs who will eagerly and
happily accept business from John Q. Public? Stop trying to scare consumers
from taking control of their wedding photography with erroneous data that they
do not have available to them the same developing processes and skill of a pro
lab that is available to the professional wedding photographer.
>
>
> > Every single pro lab in a 100 mile radius of me will certainly
> > work for me and I am not a pro nor even a high volume
> > amateur. That's 100% who will work for the general public.
>
> And of course your experience in your 100 mile radius is
> universal and comprehensive. If it works for Jeanne, it must
> work that way for every other community in every other part of
> North America. Because Jeanne has said so.
Apparently photography pro Peter and his students in his recent post are
experiencing the same availability of pro labs in NYC as well.
Rick Martin
> Who gives a flying flip about a few *dedicated* labs with restrictive business
> policies when there is a plethora of high end pro labs who will eagerly and
> happily accept business from John Q. Public? Stop trying to scare consumers
> from taking control of their wedding photography with erroneous data that they
> do not have available to them the same developing processes and skill of a pro
> lab that is available to the professional wedding photographer.
DITTO!
>
>
Rick Martin, AFP
http://www.rickmartin.com Manassas,Va
CJMorgan59
>When this was first mentioned last year, the comments from the phototoad
>gallery
>was that *NO* pro labs would take non-pro/amateur business.
Really? Where's that posting?
****************
>Stop trying to scare consumers
>from taking control of their wedding photography ....
Nobody trying to scare anybody. And if you were addessing Karen, she's
certainly been more helpful in this regard than you've ever been.
C.J.
Nathan Shafer
>
> Who gives a flying flip about a few *dedicated* labs with restrictive business
> policies when there is a plethora of high end pro labs who will eagerly and
> happily accept business from John Q. Public?
There are also a lot of albums available to John Q., yet our album
sales are huge. Why? Because the *best* albums - Art Leather, Leather
Creafstmen, Capri, Kambara, White Glove - are *not* made generally
available.
Case in point: my current lab - The Pro Lab in Denver - will do work
for the general public. I would however never recommend them, as the
work I have been getting lately is terrible (loyalty and inertia are
the only reaosns I have stayed with them as long as I have). I am
currently looking at a slew of labs to replace them, none of which will
accept non-professional accounts or business.
This is, of course, just my own personal situation, and may or may not
reflect national trends, but I just thought I'd toss in my own two
cents, for chuckles and grins.
- Nathan
klsimmons
<jmh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> When this was first mentioned last year, the comments from the
> phototoad gallery was that *NO* pro labs would take non-
> pro/amateur business.
I have never said that. I have always said that the labs *I*
work with don't accept work from non-pros. In fact, Jeanne, I
have been the number one proponent of NOT taking wedding photos
to one-hour labs and instead finding a pro or semi pro lab that
accepts consumer work.
> Who gives a flying flip about a few *dedicated* labs with
> restrictive business policies when there is a plethora of high
> end pro labs who will eagerly and happily accept business from
> John Q. Public?
Probably not any bride on this group. But the question was
raised if there were pro labs that did/didn't do consumer work
and the question was answered that yes, there are dedicated pro
labs who do not accept retail/consumer work. Why you seem so
determined to dispute this, I don't know, nor do I care. The
fact is that they exist and many pros use them. It's really
irrelevant to this newsgroup, but you seem to want to continue
to argue the point.
> Stop trying to scare consumers from taking control of their
> wedding photography with erroneous data that they
> do not have available to them the same developing processes
> and skill of a pro lab
Again, I have never tried to scare brides into not taking
control of their photography. I have frequently posted
suggestions on HOW to take control of the photography -
including not using WalMart and rather using a pro quality/semi-
pro/advanced amateur facility that can provide services
comparable to the dedicated pro labs. I have been most
insistant, in fact, that consumers (brides, grooms, whathaveyou)
*should* use these facilities for their developing. I have also
offered suggestions of labs that I know of with good reputations
who will do consumer grade work.
So your continued attempts to show the photographers on this
group as not willing to help are - as usual - incorrect. IN
fact they are so incorrect it shows that you are willing to
ignore any previous positive information provided by a
photographer on this group just for the sake of disagreeing with
a "phototoad".
Karen
RICK5347
>> Stop trying to scare consumers from taking control of their
>> wedding photography with erroneous data that they
>> do not have available to them the same developing processes
>> and skill of a pro lab
>
Karen Simmons responds:
>Again, I have never tried to scare brides into not taking
>control of their photography. I have frequently posted
>suggestions on HOW to take control of the photography -
>including not using WalMart and rather using a pro quality/semi-
>pro/advanced amateur facility that can provide services
>comparable to the dedicated pro labs. I have been most
>insistant, in fact, that consumers (brides, grooms, whathaveyou)
>*should* use these facilities for their developing. I have also
>offered suggestions of labs that I know of with good reputations
>who will do consumer grade work.
>
I don't recall any time that any professional photographer on this newsgroup
stated that a couple should not have this option if they care to nor have some
control over their wedding photography. To imply otherwise is simply
arguementative and designed to enflame.
All we have said is that there are high grade professional *wedding/portrait*
labs (and album companies) that will not work with non-professionals without a
business license, resale number, etc.
Perhaps I can clear this up a little by further explaining what we in the
profession mean when we call a lab a *pro* lab. (Since Jeanne refuses to
answer my question of what her definition is.)
There are generally two types of professional labs; one that does general
photographic work including color prints, color slides, black and white, prints
from slides, etc (the commercial lab). The others are labs dedicated to the
portrait/wedding photographer that specialize in only color negative film
processing and printing with some also doing black and white (the wedding lab).
There are also labs that specialize only in black and white. These wedding
labs are the one's that I have been referring to when I mentioned that many
*pro* labs won't accept work from the public. Afterall, we are all talking
about wedding photography here so I tempered my commentary to that area. What
these labs offer is an array of services aimed at the weding/portrait
profession. These services include an assortment of print options at different
prices (machine prints, custom hand done prints) and a reduced price for
developing the roll of film and making *proofs*, also most importantly, print
retouching services.
The individual that responded that there were many pro labs in NY that will
acept work from anyone is correct but you will find that those labs are
generally the more broad-based commercial services labs and not the labs
specializing in wedding/portrait work and usually their prices for similar
products are higher than either the one-hour amateur labs or the pro wedding
labs.
For example:
I am comparing the prices of two major labs in So. California. One is a
commercial lab that will accept walk in and the other is open only to the
wedding/portrait professional.
Processing and proofing a roll of 35mm/36exposure from my wedding lab runs
$15.00 and from our local pro commercial lab runs $32.00. If you had ten rolls
(360 pictures) of film the cost difference would be $170 more just for your
proofs.
An 8x10 color print from the commercial lab runs anywhere from $15.00 each (3
day) to $35.00 (same day). The wedding lab charges for a similar quality print
a range from $5 to $10 depending on turnaround time.
So, if Jeanne Hinds wants to take a self-appointed "wedding consumer advocate"
position and advise couples to do their own film processing and printing she
better as well tell them that these services when done by the consumer through
their version of *pro* commercial labs will probably cost substantially more
(and usually not offer retouching except at a higher price) than the
equivalents available through their wedding photographer.
>So your continued attempts to show the photographers on this
>group as not willing to help are - as usual - incorrect. IN
>fact they are so incorrect it shows that you are willing to
>ignore any previous positive information provided by a
>photographer on this group just for the sake of disagreeing with
>a "phototoad".
>
Jeanne's motivations are clear to anyone who follows her posting history.
Everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe.
Internet Real Estate
> So your continued attempts to show the photographers on this
> group as not willing to help are - as usual - incorrect. IN
> fact they are so incorrect it shows that you are willing to
> ignore any previous positive information provided by a
> photographer on this group just for the sake of disagreeing with
> a "phototoad".
>
>
Toads would be a more apropriate topic. I'm sure she has lots of them down
on the farm. Me thinks she doth spend too much time with the animals.
.
------------------------------------
Internet Real Estate
"Sell Your Home Yourself - And Save Thousands!"
http://www.internet-real-estate.com/
Karen Simmons
>
> I will not be drawn into that type of behaviour.
Good. Then you can start by removing the name of ProNet from your deja
address.
> Tis not a wise move to be here on this forum "fishing" for
> potential customers and calling other people names.
I don't fish for potential customers here. In fact my schedule for this
year is booked.
Karen
prone...@my-deja.com
Karen Simmons <klsi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > Because they cater to all of the above does not mean that they are
> > in good graces with the photo processing industry as a whole if word
> > gets out about your comments here on a public newsgroup.
>
>
> Read your dictionary. "Dedicated" means "set apart to a definite use;
> given over to a particular purpose" You know like "dedicated flash"?
> It doesn't mean the flash is committed to doing a good job, but rather
> that the flash is designed to work with one specific camera system.
>
> The same with dedicated pro labs: those labs that offer services to
> amateurs and semi-pros are not dedicated pro labs. In other words,
labs
> whose use is given over solely to the purpose of working with
> professional photographers. Dedicated. Like the flash.
>
> Idiot.
>
> Karen
Karen, you seem hell-bent on name calling on this forum. I will not be
drawn into that type of behaviour. Tis not a wise move to be here on
this forum "fishing" for potential customers and calling other people
names. bye
mayuri...@yahoo.com
i am surprised with ur say..
i have been a part of this group for sometime now
and i have enjioyed being here
In article <cwzE4.27960$S4.1...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com>,
"yorkovich" <yorkovich@your h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Have been thinking about getting back into the wedding photography.
My life,
> my third career, has been surgical academia these past 10 years & I'm
> getting tired of meetings, presentations & publishing deadlines. The
kicker
> was last November - went to represent the 82nd Airborne (my unit in
> Vietnam - www.82ndairbornevietnam.org is one of my websites - dig deep
> enough & you'll see the 18 year old kid that I was) at the Veteran's
Day
> Ceremonies in DC. Was supposed to be laying the wreath at The Wall.
Never
> made it - had a massive heart attack about an hour before the event &
spent
> a couple of weeks (normal is 1-3 days) in the ICU. Just recently was
> hospitalized & had a difibrillator impanted in my chest (seems I had
an
> arryhthmia potentially "incompatible" with life). Anyways, all better
now &
> am seeking a better lifestyle - something I enjoy (and good at -
humbly?):
> photography.
>
> So, for the last few months I've been reading the newsgroups &
visiting
> websites, trying to see "what's new". Unfortunately, not much is new.
The
> industry that I developed such a bad taste for is still here, alive &
> kicking. This would be the same occupation I decided to abandon 10
years &
> do something else (my previous education was in medicine), after a
long
> running ethics battle with M.Z. (even now afraid/disgusted to say his
name).
> Anyways, I was much disappointed that the reputation of the group as
a whole
> could be defined/ruined by just a few outspoken
photographers/bullies. Most
> that I have met over the years have been good, decent people;
although not
> always talented. Shame that the "squeaky wheel" gets the attention.
>
> I have made 2 posts to the wedding newsgroup in this period. Each
time the
> post was not to attack or accuse anyone . . . just commented on a
topic that
> had been brought up . . . both times I was called a troll & accused of
> ulterior motives.
>
> OK, I'm vented . . .
>
> Ron
>
> "Karen Simmons" <klsi...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:38E2BBC8...@mindspring.com...
> > yorkovich wrote:
> >
> > > In any case, it appears that you (& others) appear to be paranoid
> > > & like name calling. I'm not a troll - nor am I a phototoad.
> >
> > Ron,
> >
> > I certainly haven't name called you. If I have offended you then I
> > apologize. You obviously understand that there are several people on
> > this group who take great delight in baiting me (and other pro
> > photographers). Since you use the word "phototoad", you are
obviously
> > aware of the situation. Because of that, I am unwilling to open
myself
> > up to that possibility again - it has caused me too much grief
before.
> >
> > Again, if you are not baiting me, I apologize for my response. You
came
> > on very strongly that I had given you bad information and the tone
of
> > your first message very much sounded as though you held me
responsible
> > for a bad referral. That combined with the fact that you have never
> > emailed or posted in response to me before, yet claimed to know me
> > personally, did make me paranoid. I admit that freely. I would be
less
> > than honest if I didn't tell you that your current response ("the
person
> > I corresponded with was a class act - a professional; maybe it
wasn't
> > you.") in combination with your "phototoad" comment makes me even
more
> > paranoid. It sounds very much like a setup for a hard slam coming. I
> > sincerely hope that it's not, and I'd be more than happy to discuss
> > anything relating to professional photography with you via private
> > email.
> >
> > But I will tell you again that if you received a referral from
Denis to
> > a pro photographer who, in turn, referred you to CPQ 10 years ago,
it
> > was not me.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Karen
prone...@my-deja.com
Karen Simmons <klsi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> address.
That has nothing to do with name calling.
>
> > Tis not a wise move to be here on this forum "fishing" for
> > potential customers and calling other people names.
>
> I don't fish for potential customers here. In fact my schedule for
this
> year is booked.
>
> Karen
Update your calendar then.
http://www.ksimmons.com/weddings/wcalendar.html
the_w...@my-deja.com
> prone...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > I will not be drawn into that type of behaviour.
>
> Good. Then you can start by removing the name of ProNet from your deja
> address.
Or else what will you do with the photographer Mrs. Smoot? Do you own
the copyright to "ProNetPhoto"? Go call an attorney. . .
Remember couples. . .it's you that ultimately pays for the wedding
vendor that seeks legal council everytime a hairs out of place. . .
> > Tis not a wise move to be here on this forum "fishing" for
> > potential customers and calling other people names.
>
> I don't fish for potential customers here.
[giggle, giggle]
> In fact my schedule for this
> year is booked.
Nice vendorism Mrs. Smoot, but let's tell people how the wedding
industry *really* works on alt.wedding!
The time difference between the time someone pops the question and
their trip down the overpriced aisle is usually quite a bit, so while
you may be "booked" for this year, you aren't booked forever. A vendor
is always looking months and years down the road for the next "score".
. .things that are planted today may not bring a harvest today, but the
idea is that it will pay off later. . .with *big* profits!
By the way, now that you have found your "comfort zone" (as you posted
on the RPTP), will you be jacking up prices again? I think people on
this "internet wedding site read by many prospective clients" (as Mr.
Rosen posted on RPTP) should know that if you are.
I can see why the wedding vendors are using the Internet to "reach out
and touch" their "brides" (their words for you when you're not looking
couples. . .), it's cheap advertising and with the monitor, there's no
face to face contact. . .that's so couples can't see the wedding
industry having a laughing fit when the couples overpay you hacks for
your substandard vends. . .
The Weasel - The Official "Weasel" of Deja! Accept no substitutes!!
--
"Now, how would you feel if the same thing was done to you on an
internet wedding site read by many prospective clients? It makes all
photographers look bad." - Rick Rosen on rec.photo.technique.people
about a post made on the wedding newsgroups about a photographer.
the_w...@my-deja.com
> Jeanne M. Hinds wrote:
> >
> > Who gives a flying flip about a few *dedicated* labs with
restrictive business
> > policies when there is a plethora of high end pro labs who will
eagerly and
> > happily accept business from John Q. Public?
>
> There are also a lot of albums available to John Q., yet our album
> sales are huge. Why? Because the *best* albums - Art Leather, Leather
> Creafstmen, Capri, Kambara, White Glove - are *not* made generally
> available.
That's only because the above mentioned has what they feel is their
marketing share of their product. . .a downturn in the economy and/or
orders go down for their product and you better believe they'll be
selling to the public. . .they may not say it to the wedding industry's
faces, but they would. . .
> Case in point: my current lab - The Pro Lab in Denver - will do work
> for the general public. I would however never recommend them, as the
> work I have been getting lately is terrible (loyalty and inertia are
> the only reaosns I have stayed with them as long as I have).
Translation: "I'm too lazy and 'buddy-buddy' with them to do anything
about it before"
> I am
> currently looking at a slew of labs to replace them, none of which
will
> accept non-professional accounts or business.
Meanwhile, couples are getting a sub-standard product because you
weren't willing to take the bull by the horns, since you were too lazy
and close with the vendor in question. . .didn't want to create "bad
feelings" within the wedding industry community? Substandard vends are
SOP in the wedding industry. . .so I guess the feeling was to continue
the tradition?
> This is, of course, just my own personal situation, and may or may not
> reflect national trends, but I just thought I'd toss in my own two
> cents, for chuckles and grins.
That's exactly how couples should view the wedding industry. . .for the
chuckles and grins they truly are!! If couples don't, it' only cost
them even *more* money for the sham that the industry really is. . .
Karen Simmons
> By the way, now that you have found your "comfort zone" (as you posted
> on the RPTP), will you be jacking up prices again?
Probably next year as my prices go up and if I consider moving back to a
commercial space again - yep I sure will. I deserve an annual raise
just like everyone else gets.
Karen
Nathan Shafer
>
> sha...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> > Jeanne M. Hinds wrote:
> > >
> > > Who gives a flying flip about a few *dedicated* labs with
> restrictive business
> > > policies when there is a plethora of high end pro labs who will
> eagerly and
> > > happily accept business from John Q. Public?
> >
> > There are also a lot of albums available to John Q., yet our album
> > sales are huge. Why? Because the *best* albums - Art Leather, Leather
> > Creafstmen, Capri, Kambara, White Glove - are *not* made generally
> > available.
>
> That's only because the above mentioned has what they feel is their
> marketing share of their product. . .a downturn in the economy and/or
> orders go down for their product and you better believe they'll be
> selling to the public. . .they may not say it to the wedding industry's
> faces, but they would. . .
>
> > Case in point: my current lab - The Pro Lab in Denver - will do work
> > for the general public. I would however never recommend them, as the
> > work I have been getting lately is terrible (loyalty and inertia are
> > the only reaosns I have stayed with them as long as I have).
>
> Translation:
No translation is necessary, weasel; I think we can assume everyone
hear understands Standard Written English.
Except maybe for you.
> "I'm too lazy
*laugh* Boy is THAT the pot calling the kettle black!
But yeah, okay, I am a little lazy. So I'm human; so what?
> and 'buddy-buddy' with them
Is that how "loyalty" translates in your world? You live in a very
sad world, where no motives are good motives. You are one sad,
pathetic individual. Glad I'm not your therapist.
> Meanwhile, couples are getting a sub-standard product
Incorrect. I *do* send crap back to be redone; I just get tired
of having to do so.
Go away, weasel, you bore me.
- Nathan
the_w...@my-deja.com
> the_w...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > By the way, now that you have found your "comfort zone" (as you
posted
> > on the RPTP), will you be jacking up prices again?
>
> Probably next year as my prices go up and if I consider moving back
to a
> commercial space again - yep I sure will.
Kevin think that you're spending too much time in front of the computer
and it's bothering him?
They do? The farmers around here will be glad to hear that they get
"an annual raise" because you said so. . .
Are there any farmer's offspring in or from the great State of
Wisconsin who would like to contact Mrs. Smoot and the rest of the
wedding industry dullards the facts of *REAL* life?
Want to explain to her and the rest of the clueless wedding vendors on
alt.wedding how the [Great] Depression-era (that's 1929-1941 to people
who graduated from a government school) milk support system is working
for your father?
Want to tell her and the rest of the "PhotoToads" how long farmers
spend *each* day working on the farm making food for the nation, while
her highness feeds her face?!?
The wedding industry already makes one hundred times more than they
deserve, it really adds insult to injury to raise it to a hundred and
fifty times just because the wedding industry thinks "they deserve it".
. .but when it's the vendor's own wedding, then they seem to know how
to save money. . .that's what in-laws are for, right Mrs. Smoot?
BTW, sure are pretty quick on posting, today the day that you supervise
UseNet? Poor Kevin. . .playing second fiddle again!
the_w...@my-deja.com
> the_w...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > By the way, now that you have found your "comfort zone" (as you
posted
> > on the RPTP), will you be jacking up prices again?
>
> Probably next year as my prices go up and if I consider moving back
to a
> commercial space again - yep I sure will.
Kevin think that you're spending too much time in front of the computer
and it's bothering him?
> I deserve an annual raise just like everyone else gets.
They do? The farmers around here will be glad to hear that they get
Karen Simmons
> Kevin think that you're spending too much time in front of the computer
> and it's bothering him?
> BTW, sure are pretty quick on posting, today the day that you supervise
> UseNet? Poor Kevin. . .playing second fiddle again!
LOL. Nice try Weasel. Today is the day that Kevin is spending giving
demos of historical games. He's been gone since 10 a.m.
YOu must be desperate to descend into making snide remarks about
someone's marriage. It does show your level of desperation quite nicely
tho. Says a lot about your purpose here, too.
Karen
Karen Simmons
> Are there any farmer's offspring in or from the great State of
> Wisconsin who would like to contact Mrs. Smoot and the rest of the
> wedding industry dullards the facts of *REAL* life?
Darling Weasel. *REAL* life is about making choices. I did not CHOOSE
to be a farmer, so I should not have to live my life solely based on the
options available to a farmer. If you don't like that CHOICE or my
prices then by all means find another photographer. But don't insist I
live my life the way you think some farmer in Wisconsin does.
Karen
the_w...@my-deja.com
> the_w...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Kevin think that you're spending too much time in front of the
computer
> > and it's bothering him?
>
> > BTW, sure are pretty quick on posting, today the day that you
supervise
> > UseNet? Poor Kevin. . .playing second fiddle again!
>
> LOL. Nice try Weasel. Today is the day that Kevin is spending giving
> demos of historical games. He's been gone since 10 a.m.
He's teaching someone how to play "Monoploy"(tm)?
> He's been gone since 10 a.m.
Probably couldn't stand another lonely Saturday watching you on UseNet
all day long. . .
> YOu must be desperate to descend into making snide remarks about
> someone's marriage.
A marriage that started out by having the bride cut back everywhere
possible while when she photographs the wedding, she's worth all that
money (and more). . .funny how the wedding industry knows how to save
money when it's the wedding industry's own wedding but it's spend,
SPEND, *SPEND* when it's the general public!! Your in-laws work
themselves to the bone just so you can save money. . .and then Mrs.
Smoot crows on the newsgroup how much better her wedding was for
*LESS*!!
> It does show your level of desperation quite nicely
> tho. Says a lot about your purpose here, too.
We already *know* what YOUR purpose is here. . .
And as for me. . .I've made comments on the sad state of the wedding
industry throughout my tenure here. . .you just don't like to be
reminded of the darker side of the shill. . .
Besides Mrs. Smoot, don't like the truth, killfile it!!
the_w...@my-deja.com
> the_w...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Are there any farmer's offspring in or from the great State of
> > Wisconsin who would like to contact Mrs. Smoot and the rest of the
> > wedding industry dullards the facts of *REAL* life?
> Darling Weasel.
I'll thank you for not calling me that again. . .<hack>
> *REAL* life is about making choices. I did not CHOOSE
> to be a farmer, so I should not have to live my life solely based on
the
> options available to a farmer. If you don't like that CHOICE or my
> prices then by all means find another photographer. But don't insist
I
> live my life the way you think some farmer in Wisconsin does.
I *know* how farmers in Wisconsin live. . .I live in the State of
Wisconsin (oops, "Maxwell Smart" [Mr. Rosen] thinks that's a big secret
-- "Sorry about that Chief". . .), my friends and neighbors are
farmers. . .I've worked on them. . .farmers *don't* get raises
"automatically"!!!!
Now. . .follow this carefully. . .
You said. . .
"I deserve an annual raise *just like everyone else gets*".
I said. . .
"They do? The farmers around here will be glad to hear that they get
"an annual raise" because you said so. . ."
My point is that not *everybody* gets a raise every year, so to raise
your rates based on "everybody else does" is as flimsy as the wedding
industry itself. . .
Please learn to read.
the_w...@my-deja.com
I understand perfectly. . .I also understand "wedding industry lingo"
too. . .
> > "I'm too lazy
>
> *laugh* Boy is THAT the pot calling the kettle black!
You don't know me Mr. Shafers, so you can't say that. . .but I will
accept that I know lazy when I see it though - thanks for noticing that
I'm observant!!
> But yeah, okay, I am a little lazy. So I'm human; so what?
The wedding industry tries to give the aire that it isn't, hence why
people are chiseled into overpay them. . .thanks for proving that the
wedding industry is really no better than the rest of the bunch!
> > and 'buddy-buddy' with them
> Is that how "loyalty" translates in your world? You live in a very
> sad world, where no motives are good motives.
Learned it from the wedding industry. . .
> You are one sad,
> pathetic individual. Glad I'm not your therapist.
Don't need one. . .the wedding industry could itself use a "Betty Ford"
clinic of its own though. . .
> > Meanwhile, couples are getting a sub-standard product
>
> Incorrect. I *do* send crap back to be redone; I just get tired
> of having to do so.
Actually they are getting a sub-standard product. . .because the
wedding industry is so "buddy-buddy" with other low-grade vendors, your
customers have to wait for their product while you're holding their
money interest free. The dollar waiting for the damn dime. . .AGAIN!!
Personally I get competent people the first time around. . .that's why
I'll never have need for the services of the wedding industry!! I say,
"Why buy grief?"
> Go away, weasel, you bore me.
Apparantly not as boring as you day is. . .what's the matter, no
wedding?
Like I told Mrs. Smoot, don't like hearing the truth, killfile me!
Karen Simmons
> He's teaching someone how to play "Monoploy"(tm)?
No. But I don't think you're intelligent enough to understand the
subtleties of the Napoleonic Wars. I tried to keep my response to your
level. Obviously I aimed too high.
> Probably couldn't stand another lonely Saturday watching you on UseNet
> all day long. . .
And where is your wife, dearest Weasel? Is she also pining away while
you spend your Saturday spewing bitterness at faceless people on Usenet?
> We already *know* what YOUR purpose is here. . .
Yep. To help brides and grooms. What's your purpose, Weasel my love?
> Besides Mrs. Smoot, don't like the truth, killfile it!!
Ah beloved Weasel - there's truth and then there's your senseless
blathering.
Karen
the_w...@my-deja.com
> the_w...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > He's teaching someone how to play "Monoploy"(tm)?
>
> No. But I don't think you're intelligent enough to understand the
> subtleties of the Napoleonic Wars. I tried to keep my response to your
> level. Obviously I aimed too high.
And off-topic. . .typical vendor. . .
> > Probably couldn't stand another lonely Saturday watching you on
UseNet
> > all day long. . .
> And where is your wife, dearest Weasel? Is she also pining away while
> you spend your Saturday spewing bitterness at faceless people on
Usenet?
I'm currently "married" to my business, thanks for asking. . .but today
is a day off for me, so here I am!! I don't have time to sit and post
every day on the wedding newsgroups unlike the time and marketing you
have to devote here for your business needs. . .
> > We already *know* what YOUR purpose is here. . .
> Yep. To help brides and grooms.
Shovel money into the wedding industry machine. . .
> What's your purpose, Weasel my love?
You deleted it from my post. . .another wedding vendorism
"And as for me. . .I've made comments on the sad state of the wedding
industry throughout my tenure here. . .you just don't like to be
reminded of the darker side of the shill. . ."
How come you keep deleting all the pertainent parts of my post off. .
.ashamed of the truth?
> > Besides Mrs. Smoot, don't like the truth, killfile it!!
> Ah beloved Weasel - there's truth and then there's your senseless
> blathering.
That helps keep money in the pockets of the couples and *OUT* of the
wedding industry!!
chatbrat
head again to protect us ignorant brides and grooms to be from a
fate that we couldn't possibly be expected to determine on our
own. Why, I recall distinctly (now that I've been reminded) how
the photographer we've selected for our wedding hypnotised us
and then forced us to sign a contract we were clearly not given
the choice to sign. Had you not popped up like a weasel to
remind us, we might have been had by one of the best in the
industry.
I feel I owe you, weasel-y one... for I'm clearly incapable of
thinking for myself about the type of quality I'd like to see in
my own wedding photos (not to mention all the other elements)
because, I see now, I must be blinded by love.
I had hoped the weasel had found somewhere (and someone) else to
chase. Sadly, I was wrong. I'm reminded of a childhood
chant... "pop goes the weasel". Someone once told me that
little ditty had to do with erradicating troublesome weasels
from farmer's fields. If I wasn't a blathering bride and
assuming I cared enough, I might even have been able to find out
if that was true. Oh, the irony.
Hitman Jr
Why do you even bother with this sub-moronic "professional"? Killfile
him already! He isn't worth you time, do you think anyone actually
takes his garbage spewing mouth to heart. Anyone who reads any number
of his posts realizes he is a failed wannabe back to grind an ax. He
is a legend in his own mind!
What was the trouble Mr. Weasel, the wedding industry just too tough?
What gets me is you ran to the "professional photography" side of the
business! Well everyone since Mr. Weasel (who doesn't have the guts to
reveal his true identity since his professional clients would dry up
if they realized what his true attitude is.) always attacks the prices
that wedding vendors charge, lets reveal a little about inter-business
dealings.
On average a photographer working with the business world will earn 5
times that of a wedding photographer per job. Minimum of 5 times. Yes
ladies and gentlemen if you are a company looking for a picture,
usually only 1 picture for a product or ad and hire a photographer,
that 1 pic will run you at least a thousand dollars. The last time I
checked for the company I work for in my area 1 pic would have run
$1200. Now compare that to charging an average of $1500 for the
standard wedding album! My company turned to a wedding photographer
who was much more reasonable and just as good.
Now while Mr. Weasel attacks the wedding industry for its overcharging
he is sitting in his over stuffed ego and ripping off the companies
you work for. Talk about a double standard.
You will find that most of the wedding associations offer courses in
how to "break" into the business industry. Why? It is highly more
profitable per job than the wedding industry. While Mr. Weasel sits
and complains about the over-charging of videographers, he is leaving
out that the average price in the business world for 1 minute of
finished video is $1000.00! By God I wish I could charge $1000 per
minute of finished video for a 3 hour wedding video!
Instead ladies and gentlemen the average videographer is charging
around $1300.00 for a standard 2 hour wedding video. Quite a bargin
when compared to the "business world" the Mr. Weasel lives in.
Mr. Weasel, sorry wrong species, Mr. Bug you are a pathetic and bitter
individual. You attack the industry which obviously you couldn't cut
it in and ran to one that is more of a rip-off job than the one you
continue to insult and attack. You remind me of someone who is trying
to clear their conscience because they know they are as much a con
artist as everyone else but is unwilling to admit it to themselves. To
quote an old saying "I think the person doth protest too much!"
You are now in my kill file. Have a bitter life you vitrolic bug...
Hitman Jr.
CJMorgan59
>That's exactly how couples should view the wedding industry. . . it' only cost
>them even *more* money for the sham that the industry really is. . .
And so it was that the Weasel remained off his medication and continued to be
paranoid about the evil wedding industry empire.
C.J.
the_w...@my-deja.com
> Keren,
>
> Why do you even bother with this sub-moronic "professional"? Killfile
> him already! He isn't worth you time, do you think anyone actually
> takes his garbage spewing mouth to heart
Actually, there are a number of people who do. . .
> Anyone who reads any number
> of his posts realizes he is a failed wannabe back to grind an ax.
No. . .to sound the warning. . .
> He is a legend in his own mind!
And to my customers too!!
> What was the trouble Mr. Weasel, the wedding industry just too tough?
Too crooked.
> What gets me is you ran to the "professional photography" side of the
> business! Well everyone since Mr. Weasel (who doesn't have the guts to
> reveal his true identity since his professional clients would dry up
> if they realized what his true attitude is.) always attacks the prices
> that wedding vendors charge, lets reveal a little about inter-business
> dealings.
Take it to an appropriate newsgroup and we'll take it from there. .
.this is called "alt.wedding" in case the vendor is confused (which
they are frequently). . .
> On average a photographer working with the business world will earn 5
> times that of a wedding photographer per job. Minimum of 5 times. Yes
> ladies and gentlemen if you are a company looking for a picture,
> usually only 1 picture for a product or ad and hire a photographer,
> that 1 pic will run you at least a thousand dollars.
That's because you have people who know what they're doing. . .not like
"Well, I filled out my business license and paid the "Yellow Pages" ad.
. .I'm in business!" wedding vendors. . .
> The last time I
> checked for the company I work for in my area 1 pic would have run
> $1200. Now compare that to charging an average of $1500 for the
> standard wedding album! My company turned to a wedding photographer
> who was much more reasonable and just as good.
Oh. . .so you went with the low price? Can't say that in front of a
bunch of wedding vendors. . .ego, you know. . .
Besides, I'm sure your expectations weren't that high in the first
place. . .they never are for the wedding industry. . .
> Now while Mr. Weasel attacks the wedding industry for its overcharging
> he is sitting in his over stuffed ego and ripping off the companies
> you work for. Talk about a double standard.
No. . .I've shown that I'm a professional, not some wannabe hack!
> You will find that most of the wedding associations
"Unions"
> offer courses in
> how to "break" into the business industry. Why? It is highly more
> profitable per job than the wedding industry. While Mr. Weasel sits
> and complains about the over-charging of videographers, he is leaving
> out that the average price in the business world for 1 minute of
> finished video is $1000.00! By God I wish I could charge $1000 per
> minute of finished video for a 3 hour wedding video!
[insert picture of "The Weasel" playing a small violin for the wedding
vendor basically complaining that he isn't good enough to break into
the corporate realm]
When you're not good enough to go into the corporate world, the market
says you have to stay a wedding vendor. . .
> Instead ladies and gentlemen the average videographer is charging
> around $1300.00 for a standard 2 hour wedding video. Quite a bargin
> when compared to the "business world" the Mr. Weasel lives in.
"Mr. Weasel" is a professional in his own right. . .the wedding
industry just wants to act like the big boys. . .just like when ten
year olds want to act "grown up", you got a pack of smokes from someone
and your best friend stole some liquor for his parents hooch cabinet
and went to the back of the barn, smoke and drank like there was no
tomorrow, did people think you were "grown up" or like ten year olds
acting like they were three because they though they looked and acted
grown up? That's the difference between the true professional (real
grown up) and the wedding industry (act like they are grown up)!
> Mr. Weasel, sorry wrong species, Mr. Bug you are a pathetic and bitter
> individual. You attack the industry which obviously you couldn't cut
> it in and ran to one that is more of a rip-off job than the one you
> continue to insult and attack.
So it's better to be in an industry that finds that playing games with
couples is better than being recognized as a true professional by other
true professionals?
> You remind me of someone who is trying
> to clear their conscience because they know they are as much a con
> artist as everyone else but is unwilling to admit it to themselves. To
> quote an old saying "I think the person doth protest too much!"
Wasn't a "con artist". . .I saw too many of them to know I didn't want
to *ever* be one of them. . .
BTW, thanks for admitting to the rest of the people on this wedding
newsgroup that the entire wedding industry is a con!!!!! Heh Heh!! It
only took *three years* to get someone from within the wedding industry
to tell the truth. . .thanks!!
>You are now in my kill file. Have a bitter life you vitrolic bug...
"Post and run". . .typical low-life vendor. . .
> Hitman Jr.
Couples, this post that I'm responding to is called the average wedding
industry mouthpiece that hasn't a clue of what he's provided to me. .
.it's gold!. . .poor wedding vendor. . .
CJMorgan59
>"And as for me. . .I've made comments on the sad state of the wedding
>industry throughout my tenure here. . .
Consistently nothing at all constructive or productive to add or improve it;
just an arm-chair critic -- bitter, jaded, and often dillusional at that.
C.J.
prone...@my-deja.com
the_w...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Karen Simmons <klsi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > prone...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I will not be drawn into that type of behaviour.
> >
> > Good. Then you can start by removing the name of ProNet from your
deja
> > address.
>
> Or else what will you do with the photographer Mrs. Smoot? Do you own
> the copyright to "ProNetPhoto"? Go call an attorney. . .
>
the_w...@my-deja.com
> Thank heavens we have an unidentified weasel rearing its insipid
> head again to protect us ignorant brides and grooms to be from a
> fate that we couldn't possibly be expected to determine on our
> own. Why, I recall distinctly (now that I've been reminded) how
> the photographer we've selected for our wedding hypnotised us
> and then forced us to sign a contract we were clearly not given
> the choice to sign. Had you not popped up like a weasel to
> remind us, we might have been had by one of the best in the
> industry.
Don't talk so fast. . .you're not through with the wedding industry
yet. . .if/when you do get married and pay the final joke charges can
you form a true opinion of the wedding industry.
> I feel I owe you, weasel-y one... for I'm clearly incapable of
> thinking for myself about the type of quality I'd like to see in
> my own wedding photos (not to mention all the other elements)
> because, I see now, I must be blinded by love.
Even though you mean that in jest, don't think the wedding industry
doesn't count of that for couples to give them a past on sending more
money their way. . .they talk about that amongst themselves when they
get together. . .
> I had hoped the weasel had found somewhere (and someone) else to
> chase.
So did the wedding industry. . .
> Sadly, I was wrong.
So was the wedding industry, but they're used to it by now. . .they're
wrong so many times that if they were right for once, it would probably
cause one of the older wedding vendors to have a heart attack. . .
> I'm reminded of a childhood
> chant... "pop goes the weasel". Someone once told me that
> little ditty had to do with erradicating troublesome weasels
> from farmer's fields. If I wasn't a blathering bride and
> assuming I cared enough, I might even have been able to find out
> if that was true. Oh, the irony.
And I've never made it a secret that if you or any other couple want to
believe that your vendors *only* have your best interest at heart,
killfile me. . .no Kleenex(tm) for me to sop up my tears!!!
The Weasel - The Official "Weasel" of Deja! Accept no substitutes!!
--
"Now, how would you feel if the same thing was done to you on an
internet wedding site read by many prospective clients? It makes all
photographers look bad." - Rick Rosen on rec.photo.technique.people
about a post made on the wedding newsgroups about a photographer.
the_w...@my-deja.com
> the_w...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >"And as for me. . .I've made comments on the sad state of the wedding
> >industry throughout my tenure here. . .
> Consistently nothing at all constructive or productive to add or
improve it;
What, the wedding industry's bottom line?
> just an arm-chair critic -- bitter, jaded, and often dillusional at
that.
Nothing could be further from the truth. . .but then that's the *last*
thing the wedding industry is concerned about, right?
the_w...@my-deja.com
> the_w...@my-deja.com wrote:
And so it was that Mr. Morgan remained with the PhotoToads and
continued to give out medical advice with the license he received from
the Moe (Howard), Larry (Fine) and Shep (Howard) School of Medicine. . .
Hey Mr. Morgan, was it there that you got your degree in being a
wedding vendor too?
Karen Simmons
> Karen, why when I call Atlanta info and even more directly Alpharetta,Ga
> info there is no listing for you or your business? You must be a real
> wiz at marketing yourself.
I don't know Rick. Are you asking for a listing for Karen Simmons &
Associates in Atlanta? I assure you there is one. In fact I just
called 411 information and got the number myself.
All of which is irrelevant, because my clients don't find me via the
phone book.
Why do you care? Want some tips?
Karen
prone...@my-deja.com
Karen Simmons wrote:
> >
> > I don't fish for potential customers here. In fact my schedule for
> this
> > year is booked.
>
> >
> > Karen
pronetphoto wrote:
>
> Update your calendar then.
> http://www.ksimmons.com/weddings/wcalendar.html
pronetphoto wrote again:
Karen, why when I call Atlanta info and even more directly Alpharetta,Ga
info there is no listing for you or your business? You must be a real
wiz at marketing yourself.
> >
>
prone...@my-deja.com
> Associates in Atlanta? I assure you there is one. In fact I just
> called 411 information and got the number myself.
I'm glad you had luck with LOCAL information. It must just be long
distance information that has a problem. I wouldn't worry if I was you
it was probably the same little snafu Martha's people ran into.
>
> All of which is irrelevant, because my clients don't find me via the
> phone book.
Yes we know. After all this is where Kim was able to find you.
>
> Why do you care? Want some tips?
Nice of you to offer. I'm trying to set my goals a little higher than
six weddings this year though. I am proud of you for not getting
greedy though and taking on more than you can handle.
templar
post) posts which were largely useless to the person who asked
for help?
I posted originally (post number 5 of this thread) to help
someone out. (I'm not in her area so there was little chance of
even getting the job myself, just trying to be kind. Silly me.)
I posted the recommendation that she not take her film to a one
hour place for processing, ONLY because I've been burned once
with substandard work from a Rite Aid lab. (I was processing
overnight at the last minute request of a couple.) Does that
mean that all one-hour drug store labs do bad all (or even most
of) the time? Nope. In my case I got lucky and only the prints
were screwed, the film was passable. But having paid for a
second run of prints at my expense for the couple later, I think
your chances are better at NOT being burned by using a lab that
caters to pros or serious amatures. Do you really want to take
the chance on that for these rolls? (With snapshots who cares,
but a wedding is not something that can be shot over.) By and
large there are always reputable and skilled labs (regardless of
their "pro" status) who will process your film (which as Karen
says is the MOST important part) and print good work for you.
Again, I've got no stake in it one way or another, it was just
my recomendation.
Without bantering around legal definitions about who is
dedicated or not, Portland Photographics
(http://www.portphoto.com) is one of the best PRO labs in the
world (meaning they cater primarily to the working Professional
and Fine Art Photographer around the globe.) They will process
ANYONE's film who has the money. (And that WILL cost more for
their attention to detail.) While they are great in every
respect, the average person is still very happy with the results
of semi-pro labs which tend to do better than the drugstores
only because they give their employees actual training in the
process of lab work other than "This is where the film goes IN
and this is where it comes OUT" and "you pour the chemical from
this jug in that hole when more than one customer complains
about their prints."
Optimally, even a student photographer hired to shoot a wedding,
will handle processing and printing at least 4X6 "proofs" for
the client and will protect their future reputation by weeding
the 2 or 3 shots minimum that are substandard in EVERY wedding.
ANYONE who tells you that they never have a bad shot on a roll,
in my opinion, is not to be trusted as honest or the best damn
photographer in history. (Regardless if they
shoot "traditionally" or "PJ" style.) Even Ansel Adams took bad
shots, hence the need for many exposures of each subject. (And
he was generally shooting landscapes, not trying to get a group
of 20 folks in uncomfortable clothing all smiling with their
eyes open into a bright light at the same 1/60 of a second.) I
hope no one here is foolish enough to claim that AA just shot
until he got "something good."
Weasel, you are aptly named. Personally, I do everything in my
power to empower and help my couples have the smoothest and
least expensive day that they can. All of my shooting fee is
pretty much profit and I still don't make enough money at the
Wedding game to be classed as part of your "conspiracy," yet you
insist on grouping me in there and being an insulting little
annoyance anyhow.
I am an unashamed free market capitalist with a totally selfish
profit motive that I make all of my couples aware of in the
interests of full disclosure up front. I care deeply about my
client and how they perceive that I've treated them for only two
reasons: 1) I sleep better at night knowing that I don't have to
rely on screwing people over to make an extra buck and 2) I
don't pay for advertising other than a website and business
cards so my clients are my primary source of future revenue (via
referals), it is only in my best interests to offer them more
and better service than they are expecting. For you to troll
here and make broad unsubstansiated generalisations otherwise
without any knowledge of my work or practice marks you as one
who has entirely too much time on their hands. What qualifies
you to be the sole authority on wedding photography ethics
anyhow?
I came to this forum because I thought it would be a cool place
to share my 15 years of experience shooting with prospective
couples and that I might learn something new from the other pros
and maybe even get an off chance to pick up a lead or two.
Hopefully that can all still take place without every post
turning into a battle that is totally off topic to the original
question by the sad likes of you.
Carpe Lumen,
Michael E. Berube
Photographer
http://www.goodphotos.com
-Is fearr sona na sailbhir.