Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Amita said: "> I think most brides are just ignorant, and they're getting hit with so > much marketing and they have so many details to deal with that their > heads are spinning. They're mostly concerned about how they'll look and > with making sure everything and everyone matches. So something > like the photographer becomes an afterthought because they just don't > know any better." Yeah, but the point is that in years to come, they will discover that it was their choice of photographer that enabled them to SHOW people what they looked like *when* they looked great, everything matched etc... tan.
RE: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
> Yeah, but the point is that in years to come, they will > discover that it was their choice of photographer that > enabled them to SHOW people what they looked like *when* they > looked great, everything matched etc... I agree completely! I was simply trying to come up with an answer to Frank's question, having been recently-ish married myself. :)
RE: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
> -Original Message- > From: Amita Guha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > I wonder how many engaged couples (or their families) try to > > bargain down > > the limosine company? Or the reception hall? (HA! try > that one!) > > I think most brides are just ignorant, and they're getting > hit with so > much marketing and they have so many details to deal with that their > heads are spinning. They're mostly concerned about how > they'll look and > with making sure everything and everyone matches. So something > like the photographer becomes an afterthought because they > just don't > know any better. This is something I always try and keep in mind. For most brides this is the first time they've thought about any of this stuff, it's all new. An aspect of this is that most of them have never hired anyone to do anything before. When you're 25 or 30 you've had very few occasions to hire someone who costs $200 or $300 an hour. It's another process they're unfamiliar with, and they need a a little educating. tv
Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
- Original Message - From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" Subject: Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. > Yeah, but the point is that in years to come, they will discover that it was > their choice of photographer that enabled them to SHOW people what they > looked like *when* they looked great, everything matched etc... If the divorce statisitcs in Oz are anything like they are here, there is a 50:50 chance that they won't want to be reminded of that particular day. Get yer money up front. I've had marriages end before the album is delivered. Hell, I had a marriage end just before the bride walks into the church. And that was one incredibly funny (to me, but I am a twited pig) day. William Robb
Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Yeah, but the point is that in years to come, they will discover that it was their choice of photographer that enabled them to SHOW people what they looked like *when* they looked great, everything matched etc... tan. That is it! Photographers are there to show what they spent their $200 on! Shoes, gowns, cakes, limos, reception, doves, flowers, red carpets, horse and carriage and everything else! (*)o(*) Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Hi, > If the divorce statisitcs in Oz are anything like they are here, there is a > 50:50 chance that they won't want to be reminded of that particular day. > Get yer money up front. I've had marriages end before the album is > delivered. > Hell, I had a marriage end just before the bride walks into the church. > And that was one incredibly funny (to me, but I am a twited pig) day. got to be a Britney joke in there somewhere. -- Cheers, Up-to-the-minute Bob
Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: Bill said: "> On the heels of the AF revolution came the "PJ" style of wedding photography, which to me requires as much skill as squishing a wounded bug." Jeez Bill, hope tv doesn't read that... Yeah, as a "tv" customer, I'd have to say I hired him for his eye. If I were to hire a traditional shooter, it would be more of a technical choice and not artistic. -Ryan
Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Yeah, so wouldn't you think it would be a priority to hire one that they KNOW will make their Shoes, gowns, cakes, limos, reception, doves, flowers, red carpets, horse and carriage and everything else! look good? And if so, then why haggle over price when it is the only thing that they will have to show for their big day after all else has been returned to the hire place, the doves have flown, the cake eaten and the flowers dead? tan. - Original Message - From: "mapson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 11:29 AM Subject: Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. > > >Yeah, but the point is that in years to come, they will discover that it was > >their choice of photographer that enabled them to SHOW people what they > >looked like *when* they looked great, everything matched etc... > > > >tan. > > That is it! > > Photographers are there to show what they spent their $200 on! > > Shoes, gowns, cakes, limos, reception, doves, flowers, red carpets, horse > and carriage and everything else! > > > > (*)o(*) > Robert > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Back long ago when I sold real estate I had all these customers I showed around and very few sales. Then one day I woke up, and I did some figuring. I found that for someone to buy a house (and I mean the very cheapest house) in the area I was in they had to have an income of $50,000/year and $10,000 in the bank. None of the folks I had been driving around the county at my expense met those requirements. They were not potential customers, they were lookers. When I started pre-qualifying my customers I was a lot less busy, but I also was losing a lot less money. By the way, I also ran into a few people who brought the cooler and the kids for a ride in the country at my expense. They always wanted to look at vacant acreage out in the boonies. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
I might have told this story before - pray forgive me if I have! Went to a wedding once (fortunately as a guest) which was held on a very hot day, 38°, in the open air. By the time it had finished and we got back to the reception my wife and I were hot and sticky, so we had the meal and then went home to change. Coming back to the reception, my wife commented -"There don't seem to be many cars here now". We walked in to find the bride's mother sitting on a chair in floods of tears, the staff busily packing up the last of the tables and chairs, and only about three other people left. Turns out that during the early part of the reception, the groom got smashed and whacked the bride's father in the face, putting him on the floor. The bride promptly (of course) smacked the groom soundly, ran out the door and flung herself sobbing into the bushes. Meanwhile, the bride's uncles converged on the groom, who decided that discretion was the better part of valour and fled to his car, speeding off into the distance not to be seen for 48 hours. It seems that most people decided that the reception was probably over, and went home! All this took place in the thirty minutes it took us to go and change. John Coyle (and, yes, the B&G did get back together and lived happily ever... well, for a couple of years anyway!) Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 11:13 AM Subject: Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. > > Get yer money up front. I've had marriages end before the album is > delivered. > Hell, I had a marriage end just before the bride walks into the church. > And that was one incredibly funny (to me, but I am a twited pig) day. > > William Robb >
RE: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Yeah but divorces are expensive because they are worth it. ;-) Len * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 > -Original Message- > From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 8:52 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my > "high-horse"... with a thump. > > > tvv's comment on paying someone $200 to $300 an hour is very > ironic. About > 1/2 of those people will, in not too many years time, be > paying another > professional $200 to $300 an hour, for a very different type > of service... > > > > cheers, > frank
RE: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
In the local VFW hall? BR From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I'll do that. On a Tuesday. In February . tv
Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
"Len Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >...divorces are expensive because they are worth it. ;-) Absolutely brilliant! (But it still ain't gonna make the PDML famous quotations list!) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
For $300/hour? Sure. I just think of it as a portrait session. It's not likely that someone else is going to hire me for a full gig on a Tuesday in February. I have a gig like that tomorrow. Speaking of the VFW...I actually did a VFW wedding last spring, she hired me a while back. It was a Saturday, normal 8 hours, but she got me cheap as she planned way ahead. Anyway, I shoot the wedding, reception is at the VFW hall. Catered by the VFW - frozen vegetables and those really nasty frozen chicken kiev patties. Basically Hot Pockets, but not as good. Very inexpensive wedding. I *assumed* I wouldn't get much of a reprint/album order, but I was wrong, she bought a very large enlargement album and 3 parents albums in addition to a load of prints. You never can tell tv > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 6:49 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my > "high-horse"... with a > thump. > > > In the local VFW hall? > > BR > > From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I'll do that. On a Tuesday. > > In February . > > tv > > >
Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
What are "Hot Pockets?" tom wrote: > Anyway, I shoot the wedding, reception is at the VFW hall. Catered by > the VFW - frozen vegetables and those really nasty frozen chicken kiev > patties. Basically Hot Pockets, but not as good. Very inexpensive > wedding. >
RE: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Oh jeez, they have their own site - http://www.hotpockets.com/ Hot pocket dissection - http://www.cockeyed.com/science/hotpocket/hotpok1.html tv > -Original Message- > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 11:25 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my > "high-horse"... with a > thump. > > > What are "Hot Pockets?" > > tom wrote: > > > Anyway, I shoot the wedding, reception is at the VFW > hall. Catered by > > the VFW - frozen vegetables and those really nasty frozen > chicken kiev > > patties. Basically Hot Pockets, but not as good. Very inexpensive > > wedding. > > > >
Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Yuck! Probably loaded with chemicals and treated waste products. tom wrote: > Oh jeez, they have their own site - > > http://www.hotpockets.com/ > > Hot pocket dissection - > > http://www.cockeyed.com/science/hotpocket/hotpok1.html
RE: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
I think a lot depends upon the environment in which the photographer meets to discuss the booking. If the prospective clients come to the photographer's studio, they are influenced by what they see there. Pictures on the walls, diplomas, degrees, memberships in professional societies, the furniture, the studio photo equipment, and the presence of employees and assistants. If they meet the photographer in their own home, or in the photographer's home, or in some mutually agreed on meeting place, I think the photographer loses something in prestige and bargaining power. In other words, an obviously shoestring operation just doesn't command as much respect as an established professional studio. Everyone has to start somewhere, and that's usually small. Happy brides and grooms are our best advertisers. The best album we can produce, containing the best work we can do will earn us referral business. But our business appearance and professionalism will help to keep the number of chiselers down. The limo company, the owners of the hall, the caterers, florists, etc. all have a very visible (and major) investment that can be seen up front. The clients are too impressed to try to cheapen the deal. Besides, those folks are hard to book because they are very busy. Len --- * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 > I wonder how many engaged couples (or their families) try to > bargain down > the limosine company? Or the reception hall? (HA! try that one!) _ Worried about inbox overload? Get MSN Extra Storage now! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
I told Rodney Dangerfield the story of my life many years ago and he made a fortune with it. Len --- * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 "Len Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >...divorces are expensive because they are worth it. ;-) Absolutely brilliant! (But it still ain't gonna make the PDML famous quotations list!) -- Mark Roberts _ Tired of slow downloads? Compare online deals from your local high-speed providers now. https://broadband.msn.com
Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Similar to "Lean Pockets", as advertised, ad nauseum, on the teli. Len --- * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 08:25:14 -0800 What are "Hot Pockets?" _ Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work and yourself. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx
Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Yeah, I went to the site Tom mentioned. Never saw a "... Pockets" ad on the telly. Leonard Paris wrote: > Similar to "Lean Pockets", as advertised, ad nauseum, on the teli. >
Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
I must admit you are more ascetic than I. Len --- * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 09:56:03 -0800 Yeah, I went to the site Tom mentioned. Never saw a "... Pockets" ad on the telly. Leonard Paris wrote: > Similar to "Lean Pockets", as advertised, ad nauseum, on the teli. > _ Have fun customizing MSN Messenger learn how here! http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_customize
RE: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Aren't the mormons the ones that engage in legal polygamy? jco J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: Bob W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 3:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. Hi, I've been to Mormon weddings and inside Mormon temples, and I'm an atheist. -- Cheers, Bob Wednesday, January 7, 2004, 7:53:12 PM, you wrote: > Hey, around these parts (Utah) there are no photogs allowed in the LDS > (Mormon) Temples. So all the pics the couple gets are portraits outside > the Temples with temple as backdrop, and pictures at the receptions. Oh, > and non-Mormons are not allowed inside the temples at any time, so as is > sometimes the case with converts, one half of the family is not allowed > to even GO to the wedding ceremony! Not being Mormon myself, I refuse to > call Mormon Weddings "Weddings" I refer only to them as "receptions" > because that's the only part I'm ever invited to. > Jeff Jonsson
RE: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Wow, must not be in Utah. Around here they literally check your "Temple Recommend" card at the door. You can only get one of those from your local ward bishop. I've been inside a Mormon temple too, right after they build them, they do publc open houses. Then they dedicate them, and forevermore bar non-members and even non temple-worthy members. I'm only talking about Temple Weddings. Once in a rare while, they will do a wedding in a Ward house (chapel) with the local bishop presiding. Mainly when one of the parties to the wedding isn't temple worthy. Case in point, my brother (athiest) married a Mormon and they had a short but sweet marriage in a Ward house. Jeff Jonsson -Original Message- From: Bob W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 1:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. Hi, I've been to Mormon weddings and inside Mormon temples, and I'm an atheist. -- Cheers, Bob Wednesday, January 7, 2004, 7:53:12 PM, you wrote: > Hey, around these parts (Utah) there are no photogs allowed in the LDS > (Mormon) Temples. So all the pics the couple gets are portraits > outside the Temples with temple as backdrop, and pictures at the > receptions. Oh, and non-Mormons are not allowed inside the temples at > any time, so as is sometimes the case with converts, one half of the > family is not allowed to even GO to the wedding ceremony! Not being > Mormon myself, I refuse to call Mormon Weddings "Weddings" I refer > only to them as "receptions" because that's the only part I'm ever > invited to. > Jeff Jonsson
Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Yes it does. Did I ever tell about looking in the door of a Buddhist Church (temple if you can call a prefab metal building a temple) in Florida. Some of them came out an ran me off. And that was in the days when I was Buddhist myself. Various sects always have their own ways, you can not generalize. -- Jostein wrote: Oh, give'em a couple of centuries. They'll thaw up. Buddhism looks better...:-) Jostein - Pictures at: http://oksne.net - - Original Message - From: "Jeff Jonsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 8:53 PM Subject: RE: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. Hey, around these parts (Utah) there are no photogs allowed in the LDS (Mormon) Temples. So all the pics the couple gets are portraits outside the Temples with temple as backdrop, and pictures at the receptions. Oh, and non-Mormons are not allowed inside the temples at any time, so as is sometimes the case with converts, one half of the family is not allowed to even GO to the wedding ceremony! Not being Mormon myself, I refuse to call Mormon Weddings "Weddings" I refer only to them as "receptions" because that's the only part I'm ever invited to. Jeff Jonsson -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:31 PM To: pentax list Subject: Re: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. On 6/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Why is it the Catholics, who have been around for a couple of thousand years, will allow me to shoot from the alter, as long as I don't make a spectacle, but some wannabe cult that was born last week makes my life miserable? Go figure. I don't get it. LOL. Been there. Actually any function with jobsworths around. Perhaps you should adopt the PJ style, Bill: you nod and agree with everything they say, and then when the thing kicks off just do your own thing - I do :-) The only time I back off is when there are very nice men with earpieces and lumps in their coats. Otherwise, go for it. I've had every kind of jobsworth there is - seen it all. My only words to them are "don't worry, I'll be discreet". Of course, depends how you define discreet though Take your points though. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Hi, > Wow, must not be in Utah. France and England. When I was 14 I went with a school friend to stay with our pen-friends in Reims. We were looking forward to 2 weeks of binge-drinking and chasing French girls. Turned out our pen-friends' family was Mormon. We were very disappointed. They dragged us along to the temple on Sundays and we took communion. We were quite excited at first, but they turned the wine into water. Even then I was an atheist. Luckily they were not too strict on other dietary matters. They had bought a teapot and some tea especially for us. They brewed up and served it to us at 5 o'clock precisely every day, and watched while we drank it. Later one of my friends - not a Mormon - married into a Mormon family. The wedding took place in the temple in Leeds, UK. As far as I know, nobody was excluded for not being a Mormon. Certainly all her family and friends were there. The reception was in a different place. Very strange, a wedding reception with no booze. -- Cheers, Bob
RE: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Judging by what you've said, and I don't want to pee in your cornflakes here, but I'd say you went to the Ward, not a temple. They don't have sacrament meetings in Temples. Only Ward houses. Also your non-mormon friend marrying a Mormon would not have been married in the temple. (Temples weddings are actually 'sealings' where the couple is sealed together in this world, and the next, through a vaguely Masonic ritual, wholly unlike any wedding you've ever seen.) Weddings in Ward houses have almost no more significance to Mormons than a Civil marriage. Ask my brother. "Temple weddings" are what all of the faithful aspire to. Jeff Jonsson -Original Message- From: Bob W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 1:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. Hi, > Wow, must not be in Utah. France and England. When I was 14 I went with a school friend to stay with our pen-friends in Reims. We were looking forward to 2 weeks of binge-drinking and chasing French girls. Turned out our pen-friends' family was Mormon. We were very disappointed. They dragged us along to the temple on Sundays and we took communion. We were quite excited at first, but they turned the wine into water. Even then I was an atheist. Luckily they were not too strict on other dietary matters. They had bought a teapot and some tea especially for us. They brewed up and served it to us at 5 o'clock precisely every day, and watched while we drank it. Later one of my friends - not a Mormon - married into a Mormon family. The wedding took place in the temple in Leeds, UK. As far as I know, nobody was excluded for not being a Mormon. Certainly all her family and friends were there. The reception was in a different place. Very strange, a wedding reception with no booze. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 6/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > >>Get yer money up front. I've had marriages end before the album is >>delivered. >>Hell, I had a marriage end just before the bride walks into the church. >>And that was one incredibly funny (to me, but I am a twited pig) day. > >Check this out: back in 1984 we had an assistant film editor who was >engaged but the marriage was called off a few days before as the groom >had decided he was gay and ran off with the best man. > >True. Hey, if gay/lesbian weddings catch on just think of all the additional work for wedding photographers! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
See now, I'm not a wedding photographer for many many reasons. I hate weddings (sorry, but I do...), so that could be one reason. Not good at the formal portrait thing either. Don't like the fact that I'd have pretend to be a friendly and personable guy when I'm not particularly one. BUT, that being said, if I were to do weddings, it would be the reception that I'd ~love~ doing! There's nothing I enjoy doing more than bringing a camera to parties, and catching people unawares. Everyone is in such a great mood, they don't mind being snapped. My guess is that if I were to be a wedding photog, I'd be doing the PJ thing - likely long after it's gone out of style... cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:36:02 +1000 graywolf, I very rarely shoot the reception. I generally shoot them entering the reception venue. Some still lifes of the table settings, cake etc., a mock-up cake cutting and a mock-up bridal waltz. That's it. Reception coverage over. I find usually that by this point they are so sick of being happy and smiley for the cameras and just want me to get out of their faces so that they can party on. This is when I make my exit. Of course, very different for the likes of tv, as PJ hasn't caught on and isn't requested very often in these parts, except for the odd requested shot of the back of the dress, hands and rings etc... But they aren't even PJ shots anyways as they are completely set up... But, by the same token, I don't shoot just "portraits and ceremony" either. I usually spend an hour or two before the ceremony with them to shoot the preparations etc, then getting in car, arriving at church etc, ceremony, family shots after ceremony, and then the bulk of the time is spent doing location photography (about 2 hours) after the ceremony. Usually on somebody's property (you call it a ranch) with cows, and yards, horses and other country paraphenelia etc. Last on their priority is the reception, and I usually arrive there with about one roll of film left, and when that runs out, it is home time tan. _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
RE: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Hey, Gay and Lesbian Weddings are legal here now! That's how I can break into the world of Professional Photography: Frank Theriault, Gay and Lesbian Wedding Photographer, specializing in the new PJ style! Toronto is like the Gay and Lesbian wedding capital of North America these days, since the Ontario Court of Appeal struck down the Marriage Act section that defines a marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Folks crossing the border to get married here (even though the marriages won't be recognized as legal in the US). Pretty cool. cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:28:35 -0500 > -Original Message- > From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Hey, if gay/lesbian weddings catch on just think of all the > additional > work for wedding photographers! It's already happening. I haven't done any yet, though I get the occasional call. My sister (florist) has done 2. tv _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
RE: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Frank, You don't have to be anyone that you aren't to do portrait photography. I really love shooting protraits of people I know. I try to capture an image that defines who they are, at least in my estimation. It's a very satisfying thing when you capture the essence of a friend. I never sell or publish those images. They are labors of love. Len * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 > (sorry, but I do...), so that could be one reason. Not good > at the formal > portrait thing either. Don't like the fact that I'd have > pretend to be a > friendly and personable guy when I'm not particularly one.
RE: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Hi, Len, When I was talking about being friendly and personable, it was in reference to doing the wedding photog thing. Not portraits. I could be friendly and personable for that . I love taking people pics. Just not formal portraits. Not my thang is all. Plus, don't really have the lens for it (yet). Also I'm just not into the whole "studio thing" (although I know you don't need a studio to do portraits). I do certainly appreciate those that are into that, along with the work they do. cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: "Len Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:45:37 -0600 Frank, You don't have to be anyone that you aren't to do portrait photography. I really love shooting protraits of people I know. I try to capture an image that defines who they are, at least in my estimation. It's a very satisfying thing when you capture the essence of a friend. I never sell or publish those images. They are labors of love. _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Cotty wrote: > Check this out: back in 1984 we had an assistant film editor who was > engaged but the marriage was called off a few days before as the groom > had decided he was gay and ran off with the best man. Beat that: wedding called off when the bride's father catches the groom-(not)-to-be wearing the bride's dress with the best man as close as it gets, IYSWIM. Newspaper story 4-5 years ago, and it was not the 1st of April. Kostas
Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
hasn't gained the knowledge of photography was pretty poor. But with good P&S cameras and mini labs, the ability for anyone to create a passable snapshot has made them feel that the value of the item (photo) isn't very high. After all, all I did was press a button. I really didn't have to know anything or learn anything. That is spot on! Anyone can click and the technology will turn their action into something at least semi-presentable. Most people who are looking at pictures are just looking at memories or seeing recognizable subjects. When they see something done by a "pro", they may exclaim "Wow, that is great!" But I don't think their expectation is that high. A few are, and they are paying good money to get a quality job. But many don't have high expectations or budgets. Very accurate observation, once again. HOWEVER, having done a few weddings, you have an advantage over uncle Jon and aunt Flo. You know what works, what doesn't. You will avoid candelabras sticking from behind their heads, you will not shoot with the candle flame in the line of fire, you will not do many other things. Usually P&S fire at wide angles. You've got them there, you will crop more tightly. And we present our proofs in 5x7 size. Put a "landscape photography" (ie wide angle, beautiful view and tiny people on it) printed in 4x6 format against nicely cropped 5x7 and you knock them out. Additionally - it is not the camera that takes the picture - it is you! Both, my wife and I shoot photos. Quite often we photographed THE SAME THING, from the SAME POSITION, producing quite different effects. And after the wedding both of us , while looking at the prints, would say "aah! so, that's what you were doing". Even while shooting still life (bride's veil or shoes) the results were often significantly different. Therefore if you put someone inexperienced behind the camera, YES, they can produce a reasonable photo but the odds are against them. It would be like me trying to land a helicopter. The equipment is capable of performing the task, but I tell you, you would hate to be in the passenger seat of that chopper! ;-O This is where they pay for your expertise, creativity and equipment. (*)o(*) Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re[4]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Hello Jeff, Gee, since I shoot quite of few of them, I term them both. The wedding is at the temple and the reception is somewhere else. In fact, I am shooting one tomorrow at the Oakland Temple. In this case, the wedding is tomorrow, but the reception is next week. -- Best regards, Bruce Wednesday, January 7, 2004, 11:53:12 AM, you wrote: JJ> Hey, around these parts (Utah) there are no photogs allowed in the LDS JJ> (Mormon) Temples. So all the pics the couple gets are portraits outside JJ> the Temples with temple as backdrop, and pictures at the receptions. Oh, JJ> and non-Mormons are not allowed inside the temples at any time, so as is JJ> sometimes the case with converts, one half of the family is not allowed JJ> to even GO to the wedding ceremony! Not being Mormon myself, I refuse to JJ> call Mormon Weddings "Weddings" I refer only to them as "receptions" JJ> because that's the only part I'm ever invited to. JJ> Jeff Jonsson JJ> -Original Message- JJ> From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] JJ> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:31 PM JJ> To: pentax list JJ> Subject: Re: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... JJ> with a thump. JJ> On 6/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >>Why is it the Catholics, who have been around for a couple of thousand >>years, will allow me to shoot from the alter, as long as I don't make a >>spectacle, but some wannabe cult that was born last week makes my life >>miserable? >> >>Go figure. I don't get it. JJ> LOL. Been there. Actually any function with jobsworths around. Perhaps JJ> you should adopt the PJ style, Bill: you nod and agree with everything JJ> they say, and then when the thing kicks off just do your own thing - I JJ> do :-) JJ> The only time I back off is when there are very nice men with earpieces JJ> and lumps in their coats. Otherwise, go for it. I've had every kind of JJ> jobsworth there is - seen it all. My only words to them are "don't JJ> worry, I'll be discreet". JJ> Of course, depends how you define discreet though JJ> Take your points though. JJ> Cheers, JJ> Cotty JJ> ___/\__ JJ> || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche JJ> ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps JJ> _ JJ> Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
No, they are not. There is no legal polygamy and those who practice polygamy are not Mormons. -- Best regards, Bruce Wednesday, January 7, 2004, 12:14:59 PM, you wrote: JCOC> Aren't the mormons the ones that engage in legal polygamy? JCOC> jco JCOC> JCOC>J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com JCOC> JCOC> -Original Message- JCOC> From: Bob W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] JCOC> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 3:08 PM JCOC> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] JCOC> Subject: Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a JCOC> thump. JCOC> Hi, JCOC> I've been to Mormon weddings and inside Mormon temples, and I'm an JCOC> atheist. JCOC> -- JCOC> Cheers, JCOC> Bob JCOC> Wednesday, January 7, 2004, 7:53:12 PM, you wrote: >> Hey, around these parts (Utah) there are no photogs allowed in the LDS >> (Mormon) Temples. So all the pics the couple gets are portraits outside >> the Temples with temple as backdrop, and pictures at the receptions. Oh, >> and non-Mormons are not allowed inside the temples at any time, so as is >> sometimes the case with converts, one half of the family is not allowed >> to even GO to the wedding ceremony! Not being Mormon myself, I refuse to >> call Mormon Weddings "Weddings" I refer only to them as "receptions" >> because that's the only part I'm ever invited to. >> Jeff Jonsson
Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Hello Bob, You may be mixing up Temples and regular church buildings. Based on your description, you went to a regular church, not a temple. -- Best regards, Bruce Wednesday, January 7, 2004, 12:51:31 PM, you wrote: BW> Hi, >> Wow, must not be in Utah. BW> France and England. When I was 14 I went with a school friend to stay BW> with our pen-friends in Reims. We were looking forward to 2 weeks of BW> binge-drinking and chasing French girls. Turned out our pen-friends' BW> family was Mormon. We were very disappointed. They dragged us along to BW> the temple on Sundays and we took communion. We were quite excited at BW> first, but they turned the wine into water. Even then I was an atheist. BW> Luckily they were not too strict on other dietary matters. They had bought BW> a teapot and some tea especially for us. They brewed up and served it to us BW> at 5 o'clock precisely every day, and watched while we drank it. BW> Later one of my friends - not a Mormon - married into a Mormon family. BW> The wedding took place in the temple in Leeds, UK. As far as I know, BW> nobody was excluded for not being a Mormon. Certainly all her family BW> and friends were there. The reception was in a different place. Very BW> strange, a wedding reception with no booze.
Re: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
- Original Message - From: "Bruce Dayton" Subject: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. > > One real issue/problem is that the general percieved value of a > photograph has steadily declined as the ability to make/create one has > increased. Many years ago, the automation available for someone who > hasn't gained the knowledge of photography was pretty poor. But with > good P&S cameras and mini labs, the ability for anyone to create a > passable snapshot has made them feel that the value of the item > (photo) isn't very high. After all, all I did was press a button. I > really didn't have to know anything or learn anything. This is precisely why photography in general, and wedding photography in particular, has become somewhat undervalued to many people (like the ones who are shopping for a photographer). I really noticed a rapid change in customer attitude when the auto everything SLR cameras came onto the market. Auto focus SLR's changed everything, because you didn't need to know anything about photography to be a photographer. On the heels of the AF revolution came the "PJ" style of wedding photography, which to me requires as much skill as squishing a wounded bug. Suddenly, to be a professional photographer, you didn't need to know what you were doing. All you needed was a thousand dollars for a camera, lens and flash, and the store would happily take Visa or Mastercard. A lot of people became instant professionals, and cashed in big in the wedding market. I got out of the wedding game quite soon after that, I didn't need the grief of being undercut by some weekend warrier who was doing weddings to fill in a few hours on a Saturday afternoon to pay for his beer while he watched Sunday afternoon football. Occassionally, someone talks me into shooting another one. Less often now, as I have said no often enough that I don't get bothered much anymore. This suits me fine. I shot a wedding for a friend a few years ago. The church was some United church. Basically, a social club with delusions of religionhood. Friggin twits wouldn't let me shoot at all during the service, and actually put a staffer on me to make sure I didn't break their rules. Why is it the Catholics, who have been around for a couple of thousand years, will allow me to shoot from the alter, as long as I don't make a spectacle, but some wannabe cult that was born last week makes my life miserable? Go figure. I don't get it. William Robb
Re: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Why is it the Catholics, who have been around for a couple of thousand years, will allow me to shoot from the alter, as long as I don't make a spectacle, but some wannabe cult that was born last week makes my life miserable? Go figure. I don't get it. William Robb William, it depends on the priest/celebrant. Some will almost allow you to can-can on the altar (not that you would want to), others will put you at the back of the church where the chalked "X" is on the floor and this is the spot for your tripod. We had one wedding like that. The priest justified his actions by saying it was a spiritual experience, and then he cracked inappropriate jokes during the service himself. We have done weddings for 7 or 8 years now. I think I only recall 2 occasions where severe restrictions were placed on us. And we have worked with more than 'regular' priests (archbishops on a regular basis for example) (*)o(*) Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Bill said: "> On the heels of the AF revolution came the "PJ" style of wedding > photography, which to me requires as much skill as squishing a wounded bug." Jeez Bill, hope tv doesn't read that... I totally disagree with you on that point. I am hopeless at PJ photography and I don't really like it much either. I like to have "control" of a situation, and I think it takes GREAT skill to be able to produce a good photograph when every "controllable" factor such as light, posing, expressions, colour etc are taken out of your hands... > Suddenly, to be a professional photographer, you didn't need to know what > you were doing. Yep, well, that would include me! > All you needed was a thousand dollars for a camera, lens and flash, and the > store would happily take Visa or Mastercard. Unless you are like me and your visa is usually maxed out due to buying toys, sewing machines to make clothes for the kids and the like. I save for my equipment and pay for it all up front. > A lot of people became instant professionals, and cashed in big in the > wedding market. Yep, making it harder for the rest of us to do so. > I shot a wedding for a friend a few years ago. > The church was some United church. > Basically, a social club with delusions of religionhood. > Friggin twits wouldn't let me shoot at all during the service, and actually > put a staffer on me to make sure I didn't break their rules. > > Why is it the Catholics, who have been around for a couple of thousand > years, will allow me to shoot from the alter, as long as I don't make a > spectacle, but some wannabe cult that was born last week makes my life > miserable? I TOTALLY agree. Have seen this MANY a time. One priest told me that I could take photographs during the ceremony, but wasn't allowed to make any of those "silly clicking noises", not allowed to "use those bright flash things that go off in my eyes all the time" AND that I had to stay in one spot and if I moved at all during the ceremony he would "stop the proceedings and have me removed from the church". So, I batted my eyelids at him, smiled sweetly and said "I completely understand and respect your church's policies, would you mind explaining these things to the bride and groom so that when they receive their photographs back, they'll understand why the most important part of their day wasn't captured how they had dreamed it", more batting of eyelids, and sweet little smiles, followed by compliments on the church's decore... He said "umm, well, i am able to make some allowances in exceptional circumstances and I *do* really like this couple" (but hold on I thought these things were the policy of the CHURCH, not some aging old priest weilding to the "pressure" of having to justify his nasty old ways to a young, in love couple"...), Ok, so Wedding day arrives - Tanya uses flash all the way through ceremony, "clicked" as much as I felt like it (AND used the AF confirmation beep too!), AND flitted around all over the place like a little butterfly and waiting for the proceedings to stop and for me to be removed from the church as he'd promised. Ceremony ends and priest "thanks" me for my assistance (?!?) and then congratulates me on a "job well done" (erm, yep, but you haven't seen the pics yet, buddy!) Moral of the story? Most old fuddy-duddies of priests wouldn't dare risk damaging their pride or egos, by having to "bow down" to simple folk like a naive young couple, are too dim-witted to think of a way to sway the argument in their favour, and in fact, probably think that they are doing said couple a favour by "allowing" them such wonderful "coverage" of their wedding day (yeah, the one that said Church has probably accepted a sizeable donation for "hosting"...) OTOH, I have had the more progressive churches and priests (male and female), say to me upfront "I understand that you are a professional and that you need to do whatever it is to ensure that the couple get the memories that they always dreamed of. You may do whatever you like (erm, but no standing on the alter preferably) within my Church providing that you are respectful to us and the proceedings etc" I don't get it either Bill! tan.
Re: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
There are far too many photographers chasing too few customers. (Thanks to automation - it was all downhill after the ME was widely available.) In the old days, the pro got involved with the booking of the formal portraits at the time photos were needed for the newspaper announcement (the papers had standards and wouldn't accept snapshots, usually wanting glossy B&W 8x10's). So things naturally progressed to the wedding photography being done by the studio (who had probably also taken the baptismal photos of the bride). Now, automatic point and shoots are good enough for folks who are glad to dump the expense of the studio from their lives. Mall photographer shots for special occasions are more that adequate for folks - relatives will supply the rest of the snaps for the albums. Many weddings around here only have a pro videographer in attendance, because VHS tapes are the desired item to send out of town relatives these days - or they email digital snaps. And 8 mm camcorders have seriously eroded that business. And they *do* haggle with the florist, dressmakers, caterers, etc. The last pro photographer I know from the 70's is running a framing shop, because that's when you make the money - and you don't have to lug 50 lbs of Mamiya gear around to do it. -- Robert - Original Message - From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 7:41 PM Subject: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. > Hello frank, > > I think some of them do try to bargain down everything. I have been > shocked at how much they can pay for some things. > > One real issue/problem is that the general percieved value of a > photograph has steadily declined as the ability to make/create one has > increased. Many years ago, the automation available for someone who > hasn't gained the knowledge of photography was pretty poor. But with > good P&S cameras and mini labs, the ability for anyone to create a > passable snapshot has made them feel that the value of the item > (photo) isn't very high. After all, all I did was press a button. I > really didn't have to know anything or learn anything. > > Most people who are looking at pictures are just looking at memories > or seeing recognizable subjects. When they see something done by a > "pro", they may exclaim "Wow, that is great!" But I don't think their > expectation is that high. A few are, and they are paying good money > to get a quality job. But many don't have high expectations or > budgets. > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > > > > Tuesday, January 6, 2004, 3:22:23 PM, you wrote: > > ft> As an aside to this thread, I wonder why it is that in so many weddings, the > ft> photographer seems to be an afterthought? Something to be done on the > ft> cheap? > > ft> Mygod, everything else in today's weddings, from the gawd-awful u-ly > ft> bridesmaid's dresses to the flowers to the limos to the reception hall to > ft> the hairdressing/make-up to the honeymoon costs HUGE money. I mean folks > ft> are spending $10 or $20K on a wedding these days? And yet, after it's all > ft> over, all you have is memories and some stale cake in a funny box and > ft> matchbook with the bride and groom's name on it. If not for the photos, > ft> what's to keep the memories alive? > > ft> Why would one skimp on that? > > ft> I wonder how many engaged couples (or their families) try to bargain down > ft> the limosine company? Or the reception hall? (HA! try that one!) > > ft> Just a casual observation... > > ft> cheers, > ft> frank > > ft> "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist > ft> fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer > > > > > >>From: "Malcolm Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Subject: RE: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. > >>Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 11:50:30 - > >> > ft> > >>Taking it as read that going 'pro' means you are capable of consistent, > >>excellent photographs, you have to then translate what people ask for into > >>what they *actually* want. They don't want to spend much money when any > >>other professional working at weekends or public holidays, would charge the > >>pants off them. > >> > ft> > > ft> _ > ft> Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. > ft> http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/features&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin. msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca > > >
Re: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
promised. Ceremony ends and priest "thanks" me for my assistance (?!?) and then congratulates me on a "job well done" I think some priests have had very bad experiences in the past and they prefer to be safe than sorry. We photographed a wedding where apart from us there were 7 or 8 other people clicking and filming. (3 other photographers, rest video). They were disgusting! Winding the film back standing 1.5 metres behind the priest, learning how to use a flash in the middle of the isle, blocking the B&G. We only had 3 photos that featured B&G, rest had B&G + someone else. No matter how hard you tried, no matter how tightly you cropped, there was another body, or a part of it there. Once you have done a good job, the priest realises that you did OK and they will thank you. Of course. (*)o(*) Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
- Original Message - From: "Amita Guha" Subject: RE: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. > The Presbyterian church where we got married (200 year old congregation) > didn't allow photography during the service, but we knew about that well > in advance. I was actually kind of happy not to have the distraction. > During a wedding we attended shortly after, there were cameras going off > all during the ceremony and it seemed to wreck the mood. My experience was that a no photos during the ceremony policy only shut down the working photographers. There will always be a number of pew warmers who don't observe the ban, I suspect on the theory that there isn't a hell of a lot that can be done about them. OTOH, a pro who doesn't listen can be barred from shooting there in the future. William Robb
RE: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Bitch and moan, bitch and moan, wah, wah, wah. Just to counteract the horror stories... - I like most of my clients. Every once in a while I get hired by a twit, but generally they're very nice people who treat me well. In fact, most of them treat me like I'm doing them a favor. - I shoot what I want, and I enjoy what I shoot. The only shots I'm not so interested in are family groups, but I can stand them for 20 minutes out of 8 hours. - Weddings are fun. Unless you're hired by rednecks, twits, or morons, people are going to be on their best behavior, treat you well, and give you cake. - If you get hired by rednecks, twits or morons it's your own damn fault. - If you act like a professional, people will treat you like one. tv
Re: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Unless I missed it in this thread somewhere, I've seen no one comment on the staging of the ceremony afterwards to compensate for either the lack of flash during or no shooting at all during the ceremony. I've had pretty good success and complete cooperation from the clergy in this matter thus far, doing the actual ceremony shots in this manner. I realize it fails to capture the moment of the ceremony, but is much better then getting nothing at all, or grossly blurred, off colored pictures. I see the biggest problem as being unprepared for what your going to encounter on that day. I like to go to the church about the same time of day as the proposed wedding and burning a roll of film while experimenting with filters and the like and maybe even an extra roll of tungsten balanced film as well. I don't need to get prints at this point, since scanning is enough to tell me how they are going to come out. I've even had clients purchase some of these preshots if they like the churches architecture. There is of course no guarantee that the ambient lighting will be the same on any given day, but I feel I definitely have an advantage this way. It also helps me to set up all the must get shots in my head ahead of time. The clergies have then had an opportunity to tell me their wish list and as a whole been much better to work with when I took this extra step. When your getting paid to do a shoot it is your responsibility to do everything within your power to make this job a complete success. Dave > On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, William Robb wrote: > > From: "Amita Guha" > > > The Presbyterian church where we got married (200 year old congregation) > > > didn't allow photography during the service, but we knew about that well > > > in advance. I was actually kind of happy not to have the distraction. > > > During a wedding we attended shortly after, there were cameras going off > > > all during the ceremony and it seemed to wreck the mood. > > > > My experience was that a no photos during the ceremony policy only shut down > > the working photographers. There will always be a number of pew warmers who > > don't observe the ban, I suspect on the theory that there isn't a hell of a > > lot that can be done about them. > > OTOH, a pro who doesn't listen can be barred from shooting there in the > > future.
Re: Re[2]: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
"Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Oh, give'em a couple of centuries. They'll thaw up. > >Buddhism looks better...:-) Speaking of which: Has anyone ever photographed a Buddhist wedding? And if so, what form of Buddhism? (Tibetan, Zen, etc.) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Gay weddings - was: RE: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
I've agreed to do the photography at a friends wedding this year. It still has no legal standing here, but the celebrant will still take their money and do a ceremony. I'm not sure at this stage how many of the traditional shots will still work without the girl in the white dress. Fortunately Michael has worked in advertising and will probably have a very strong idea of what he wants. Another friend up in Sydney is also getting married and that is going to be an interesting experience in tiptoeing around the culture. He is from a Greek family and contrary to a million jokes being gay is not an accepted part of life. I've also taken photos at a pagan wedding which wasn't as far removed from a regular ceremony as you might think. It was midday during summer and outside so harsh shadows were the order of the day. Paul Ewins Melbourne, Australia >Hey, if gay/lesbian weddings catch on just think of all the additional >work for wedding photographers! >-- >Mark Roberts
Getting way OT, Was: RE: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
The official LDS church based in Salt Lake City does not practice or condone Polygamy. Those who practice it are excommunicated from the LDS Church. However those who practice it do believe in the prophecy of Joseph Smith, and use The Book of Mormon as their holy text. So I guess you could call them fundamentalist Mormons. And no, Polygamy is not legal even in Utah. Believe it or not, with the official Church's blessing the State of Utah is trying to crack down on Polygamists. In fact, a "Polygamy summit" was held by a bunch of county and state attorney's this summer to formulate a plan to go after them. A big famous Polygamist, Tom Green, was just sent to prison on a sex with a minor conviction for sleeping with and impregnating his 14 year old umpteenth wife. What pisses me off is that his legal team is now appealing on the grounds of the Supreme Court's ruling on the Texas Sodomy case. I'm sorry, but having sex with minors doesn't come under that ruling to my way of thinking. One of the major major problems with Polygamists, is that they are a huge drain on the welfare system. Because they don't allow the wives to work outside the home, and can never hope to support their gigantic families on one Man's salary, they take gobs and gobs of welfare handouts to support their illegal lifestyle. I hope the State does come down on them and come down hard. Jeff Jonsson -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 1:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. Aren't the mormons the ones that engage in legal polygamy? jco J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: Bob W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 3:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. Hi, I've been to Mormon weddings and inside Mormon temples, and I'm an atheist. -- Cheers, Bob Wednesday, January 7, 2004, 7:53:12 PM, you wrote: > Hey, around these parts (Utah) there are no photogs allowed in the LDS > (Mormon) Temples. So all the pics the couple gets are portraits > outside the Temples with temple as backdrop, and pictures at the > receptions. Oh, and non-Mormons are not allowed inside the temples at > any time, so as is sometimes the case with converts, one half of the > family is not allowed to even GO to the wedding ceremony! Not being > Mormon myself, I refuse to call Mormon Weddings "Weddings" I refer > only to them as "receptions" because that's the only part I'm ever > invited to. > Jeff Jonsson
RE: My Meager wedding experience (Was: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.)
I've read the books, I also warn people about the risks. I'm an amateur, not inexperienced. ;) Thanks, Jeff Jonsson -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 8:16 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: My Meager wedding experience (Was: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.) For those about to venture into wedding photography, be careful and buy a few books on it. My wedding photos and planning was much better after some good reading. I also felt compelled to warn the client up front that photography processes are not 100% reliable and there is always a small chance of something going wrong. That way if something did go wrong they would be more willing to accept it. Also, when things went right ( they always did thank God ) they might tend to be a little more thankful for the photos they did get.. JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com
Re: My Meager wedding experience (Was: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.)
Awesome! Someone else in the land of Zion! :-) William (who's been "volunteered" for four weddings in the next 3 months) in Utah. - Original Message - From: "Jeff Jonsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 8:06 AM Subject: My Meager wedding experience (Was: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.) Most of the big photo houses around Salt Lake
Re: My Meager wedding experience (Was: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.)
I don't, and won't, be the "official" photographer at a wedding. Since the only weddings we attend are those of friends and relatives, my wedding "gift" is a set of candids. I always clear what I'm doing with the pro, get his/her okay, and do my best to stay out of their way. I usually know most of the people attending and, for candids, often have a better idea of who/what to look for, and am therefore able to get shots the pro may have missed. Bill
Re: My Meager wedding experience (Was: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.)
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Bill Owens wrote: > I don't, and won't, be the "official" photographer at a wedding. Since the > only weddings we attend are those of friends and relatives, my wedding > "gift" is a set of candids. I always clear what I'm doing with the pro, get > his/her okay, and do my best to stay out of their way. I usually know most > of the people attending and, for candids, often have a better idea of > who/what to look for, and am therefore able to get shots the pro may have > missed. I have done *exactly* the same things the one time I had the opportunity; it was great fun and they liked their present. I also won't be the prime photographer. Kostas
Re: My Meager wedding experience (Was: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.)
Hi, [...] > I also felt compelled to warn the client up front that > photography processes are not 100% reliable and there > is always a small chance of something going wrong. That > way if something did go wrong they would be more willing > to accept it. Also, when things went right ( they always did thank God ) > they might tend to be a little more thankful for the photos > they did get.. be like a surgeon and tell them all the circumstances during the shoot in which they might die. That way when they wake up at the end of it all they'll feel relieved that only the wrong leg has been sawn off. -- Cheers, Bob
RE: My Meager wedding experience (Was: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.)
Steve Sint's book is a nice starting place. Len --- * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 For those about to venture into wedding photography, be careful and buy a few books on it. My wedding photos and planning was much better after some good reading. I also felt compelled to warn the client up front that photography processes are not 100% reliable and there is always a small chance of something going wrong. That way if something did go wrong they would be more willing to accept it. Also, when things went right ( they always did thank God ) they might tend to be a little more thankful for the photos they did get.. JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com _ Tired of slow downloads? Compare online deals from your local high-speed providers now. https://broadband.msn.com
Re: Getting way OT, Was: RE: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Started to make a long comment to this then realized this definately is a religous/political issue. Not discussing such is one of the conscenses of the folks on this list. So I, and I hope everyone else, will forbare. -- Jeff Jonsson wrote: The official LDS church based in Salt Lake City does not practice or -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
RE: Getting way OT, Was: RE: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
Which part of our fore should we bare? Len * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 > -Original Message- > From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 3:27 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Getting way OT, Was: RE: Cheap bastards? -was: > Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. > > > Started to make a long comment to this then realized this > definately is a > religous/political issue. Not discussing such is one of the > conscenses of the > folks on this list. So I, and I hope everyone else, will forbare.
Re: Getting way OT, Was: RE: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
On 7 Jan 2004 at 16:26, graywolf wrote: > Started to make a long comment to this then realized this definately is a > religous/political issue. Not discussing such is one of the conscenses of the > folks on this list. So I, and I hope everyone else, will forbare. I hope that we can get off weddings and back to the PC vs Mac wars soon :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Getting way OT, Was: RE: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump.
The part that let that through the smell checker. Not only does my spelling stink, but apparently so does Mozilla Thunderbird's crappy spelling checker. PS: just discovered that TB's spell checker does not recognize the word thunderbird. Now, that is funny. -- Len Paris wrote: Which part of our fore should we bare? Len * There's no place like 127.0.0.1 -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 3:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Getting way OT, Was: RE: Cheap bastards? -was: Down off my "high-horse"... with a thump. Started to make a long comment to this then realized this definately is a religous/political issue. Not discussing such is one of the conscenses of the folks on this list. So I, and I hope everyone else, will forbare. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
