I'd like to share a dilemma one of our clients recently had:
"I got married 3 years ago and one of my friends and her boyfriend who were invited to our wedding didn't give us a gift or card. That's fine, I understand that "gifts aren't required" and just sent them a thank you card for attending.
Now, 3 years later, the same couple is getting married and we're invited. Should we give them a gift? Usually I wouldn't question giving a wedding gift as I always do at a wedding, but for some reason, I feel like I shouldn't feel obligated to since we didn't even get a card from them for our wedding. What would you do?"
I have seen this kind of thing impact friendships over the course of time. It is kinda nuts the way the importance the keeping up of appearances is measured.
At it's core, we are friends with people because we do get something back from our relationship with them. We are rewarded with something. It could be that the person is funny or seems to be positive, they could be a person who's always 'there' in a pinch, something we admire. We internally assign the level of that connection, it can vary with time and even be broken, especially when it comes to unmet expectations. A friend who 'fails' at these times is failing to meet OUR OWN internal hierarchy, not theirs. It's a real shame too when material things take the place of other qualities that over the course of time greatly outweigh a card or gift.
Truly those are easy gestures for some who can safely make a grand statement but when a true test of character comes up, they bail because it would put their appearance on the line. If you measure a friendship from a singular act so minor as a card or gift, you SHOULD reevaluate the friendship. Ask yourself this, WHY is that person a friend? Why? Base your decision on that not what the expectation they failed to meet. Were they their in a time of crisis? Did they help you? Did they give when it MATTERED and not expected? Even if it's that they've just always been nice and you've enjoyed their company, THAT gift stays with you, THAT uplifts your life..their presence made your life better.
Now extend that to YOUR wedding, YOUR party that you set up...granted with consideration for others but YOUR day right? To make a cheesy comparison, a person who gave you salad forks and a card you'll acknowledge but a person you invited because they made your life better and failed to give that drops?
Disappointment is understandable, even somewhat unavoidable when an expectation YOU set isn't met but to assign intent and emotions to another person because of it is wrong. It is NOT a measure of how much THEY care, its a measure of YOU and HOW you care.
I'd bet a ton of salad forks get outdone by ONE moment of friendship over time.
Post Processing of Event Photos
There was an article in American Photography a few years ago debating the "pure" form of photography vs. the more "modern digital" art. The purists proposed that the skill in taking the photograph well in the first place; where no post processing of individual sections just re-sizing, cropping and overall image processing changes to the entire photo as a whole should be allowed in shows and contests. Another side was that any image where only a part of an image is adjusted because of an error of some type should have a separate classification indicating that type of modification. Not judging, just looking for peoples perspectives.
As someone who spent a lot of time working with transparencies, film, and prints, and relatively new to digital, i'm still working out my relationship to the e-medium.
I was trying to draw distinctions between the level and kinds of "processing" that most people would feel is appropriate to work that has different purposes, markets, or audiences, so i would not use overly broad terms like "true photography."
For better or worse, i think most people's notion of how a photograph "should" look has been mostly formed by the long period in which film-based technology was the primary means of image making. I think that's still the standard by which a photograph is viewed.
But, again, depending on the venue, there are different levels of acceptance of "manipulation." Documentary photography had, perhaps, more of a requirement to look "real," whereas "fine art" photographers, or commercial illustrative photographers had more license to take images in directions apart from "straight" documentation.
But even in photojournalism, the photographer can make choices in lens selection, framing, viewpoint, exposure, etc. to emphasize some particular aspect of a scene, even for a "straight" photograph.
People now grumble about "overcooked" processing and HDR, but this is really just the modern equivalent of burning a print too heavily burnt or dodged.
I think that when the techniques applied to an image—all through the process of making the image—serve the intent of the photographer and the integrity of the image, then it's valid. When something is done randomly, or excessively, or just for it's own sake without regard to the overall concept of the image, then it's just so much random visual noise, much like a musician playing notes randomly too loud in an orchestra.
As someone who spent a lot of time working with transparencies, film, and prints, and relatively new to digital, i'm still working out my relationship to the e-medium.
I was trying to draw distinctions between the level and kinds of "processing" that most people would feel is appropriate to work that has different purposes, markets, or audiences, so i would not use overly broad terms like "true photography."
For better or worse, i think most people's notion of how a photograph "should" look has been mostly formed by the long period in which film-based technology was the primary means of image making. I think that's still the standard by which a photograph is viewed.
But, again, depending on the venue, there are different levels of acceptance of "manipulation." Documentary photography had, perhaps, more of a requirement to look "real," whereas "fine art" photographers, or commercial illustrative photographers had more license to take images in directions apart from "straight" documentation.
But even in photojournalism, the photographer can make choices in lens selection, framing, viewpoint, exposure, etc. to emphasize some particular aspect of a scene, even for a "straight" photograph.
People now grumble about "overcooked" processing and HDR, but this is really just the modern equivalent of burning a print too heavily burnt or dodged.
I think that when the techniques applied to an image—all through the process of making the image—serve the intent of the photographer and the integrity of the image, then it's valid. When something is done randomly, or excessively, or just for it's own sake without regard to the overall concept of the image, then it's just so much random visual noise, much like a musician playing notes randomly too loud in an orchestra.
The Wedding Planner
Selecting vendors can be a hit, or miss situation. I highly recommend highering a wedding planner first. If they're good, they'll take the time to get to know you, your personality and style. Planners typically have relationships with multiple vendors in the wedding industry. They'll be able to refer some that will be within your budget and complement your style.
So, your first move is to hire a planner. Make sure that your personalities mesh, you get a great vibe from them and they understand your vision. This person will be your closet friend throughout the planning process and on your special day, as well as the liaison to all of your vendors.
So, your first move is to hire a planner. Make sure that your personalities mesh, you get a great vibe from them and they understand your vision. This person will be your closet friend throughout the planning process and on your special day, as well as the liaison to all of your vendors.
Questions about family rules
After years of having my daughters left out of family get-together's with their female cousins I brought it to my sister in laws attention that my kids didn't feel like part of the family. They have tried over the last several years to try to include my kids but honestly my girls want no part of it, and I barely know my nieces. Now they are all older and this last weekend there was a wedding shower. I sent several gifts but did not attend.
I am very busy with 5 kids of my own ranging from 4 - 20 years and always have 6 - 9 kids at my house. I have no time for myself let alone for someone who purposely moved over an hour away to put distance between her family and her siblings. I did my shopping at the last minute and instead of buying one expensive gift I purchased several inexpensive gifts and sent them with another relative, opting out of traveling for the day. When I saw the other relative later I was chided several times for purchasing more than one gift and not attending. I cant help being a realist. I have helped many kids get there first apartment and I know this kid was going to end up with a $100 coffee pot and no cup to drink it out of so why the big deal over multiple gifts and not attending?
As for the shower thing, I would just forget about it. I can maybe see how sending the gift with someone else as opposed to mailing it could send a slightly off message. Clearly you have kids and barely have time, but maybe they felt like you didn't feel it was important. To them it probably was important. Everyone sees these things differently. Also, if you were the one that's been asking for more inclusion, I guess I am not understanding why you aren't taking them up on things.
And not all family has to live 10 minutes from one another. It's perfectly normal that family members live within a few hours from one another. Jobs, schools, work, it's all a factor in where one lives.
I am very busy with 5 kids of my own ranging from 4 - 20 years and always have 6 - 9 kids at my house. I have no time for myself let alone for someone who purposely moved over an hour away to put distance between her family and her siblings. I did my shopping at the last minute and instead of buying one expensive gift I purchased several inexpensive gifts and sent them with another relative, opting out of traveling for the day. When I saw the other relative later I was chided several times for purchasing more than one gift and not attending. I cant help being a realist. I have helped many kids get there first apartment and I know this kid was going to end up with a $100 coffee pot and no cup to drink it out of so why the big deal over multiple gifts and not attending?
As for the shower thing, I would just forget about it. I can maybe see how sending the gift with someone else as opposed to mailing it could send a slightly off message. Clearly you have kids and barely have time, but maybe they felt like you didn't feel it was important. To them it probably was important. Everyone sees these things differently. Also, if you were the one that's been asking for more inclusion, I guess I am not understanding why you aren't taking them up on things.
And not all family has to live 10 minutes from one another. It's perfectly normal that family members live within a few hours from one another. Jobs, schools, work, it's all a factor in where one lives.
Another question about lenses
So the canon loyalty program only has certain refurbished lenses in stock. My SIL in buying today, so I am hoping I get an answer to this question quickly (please?)
Again, I'm shooting on a T3 crop body. I was looking for a shorter ranged lens a prime.
They only have these lenses
10-22 f 3.5
17-40 f4
24-105 f4
28-135 3.5
These lenses are available refurbished and at a discount ranging from 20-30% depending on the lens. I am debating the 17-40 and the 10-22. I hear the 17-40 isn't THAT great on a crop body. The 10-22 is an efs lens so I'm leaning more towards this one but wanted to get a second opinion (or two or three!)
10-22 f 3.5 is a very good lens for only a crop sensor body. It's extremely wide angle, good for certain shots, but definitely not a general purpose lens. It will give some great creative abilities -- perspectives you simply cannot get with other lenses.
17-40 f4 is a well-build 'L' lens, which works as a nice GP lens for crop sensors, and a wide angle for full-frame. The image is good, and the price is very good. I do not own one, but have considered buying one.
24-105 f4 is another well-built 'L' lens, which has decent image, although a bit of distortion at the wide end. I use this a lot on a full-frame camera, but it's not as wide as I like on a crop.
28-135 3.5 is a very inexpensive lens with decent image quality. Build quality isn't as good, although it will give better images than your existing 18-200. It is rather long for a crop body, so don't expect to shoot indoors unless it's a close-up. These are often available used for $250.
Of those, I would suggest going with the 10-22 just to give you some great options to go with your existing lens selection. If you like prime lenses, this will still make you happy... throw in a 30mm at some point, and you'll have all the important ranges for general photography using just your primes and this.
Again, I'm shooting on a T3 crop body. I was looking for a shorter ranged lens a prime.
They only have these lenses
10-22 f 3.5
17-40 f4
24-105 f4
28-135 3.5
These lenses are available refurbished and at a discount ranging from 20-30% depending on the lens. I am debating the 17-40 and the 10-22. I hear the 17-40 isn't THAT great on a crop body. The 10-22 is an efs lens so I'm leaning more towards this one but wanted to get a second opinion (or two or three!)
10-22 f 3.5 is a very good lens for only a crop sensor body. It's extremely wide angle, good for certain shots, but definitely not a general purpose lens. It will give some great creative abilities -- perspectives you simply cannot get with other lenses.
17-40 f4 is a well-build 'L' lens, which works as a nice GP lens for crop sensors, and a wide angle for full-frame. The image is good, and the price is very good. I do not own one, but have considered buying one.
24-105 f4 is another well-built 'L' lens, which has decent image, although a bit of distortion at the wide end. I use this a lot on a full-frame camera, but it's not as wide as I like on a crop.
28-135 3.5 is a very inexpensive lens with decent image quality. Build quality isn't as good, although it will give better images than your existing 18-200. It is rather long for a crop body, so don't expect to shoot indoors unless it's a close-up. These are often available used for $250.
Of those, I would suggest going with the 10-22 just to give you some great options to go with your existing lens selection. If you like prime lenses, this will still make you happy... throw in a 30mm at some point, and you'll have all the important ranges for general photography using just your primes and this.
Can anyone answer a digicam video question?
My camera is nothing special, but I love it. It is a late model Canon Powershot. Unfortunately, it's the only video camera I have currently. For a work assignment, I had to shoot two short clips, the first - one minute and the 2nd - 38 seconds. I am trying to figure out how to loop the two and make them run smoothly on my laptop. I will be running them from a late model iMac tomorrow. I installed the user's manual, but I still can't figure out why the shorter clip is out of sync. They were shot one right after the other.
Will they likely run more smoothly on a newer laptop? Are there editing tools built into the camera? Elementary questions, I know.
Will they likely run more smoothly on a newer laptop? Are there editing tools built into the camera? Elementary questions, I know.
Do people think the money is in photography?
I am scratching my head trying to work out who on earth actually pays for photography.
Brides and Grooms - aside from the fact there are hardly any weddings any more - all the B&Gs that I have encountered are quite happily using friends/relatives with cameras and crowdsourcing the iPhone snaps from the congregation.
I remember one woman getting married and her mother insisting on a photographer so she went online and found one that ended up being pretty crummy.
Business tends to use whatever lies to hand. I have been watching people at ribbon cuttings at my chamber of commerce all happily photographing events with iPhones and iPads. I could do a hell of a lot better with my digital SLR. I never get asked. The photos on the Chamber website are pretty grim.
The problem is... people are content with poor quality wile refusing to pay for better quality. With an attitude whereby anything free is better than something of high-quality that costs money, how does anybody make any money from photography?
I was just looking at one of the online photographers websites - photos that weren't straight, were't particularly sharp, weren't well framed - in general photos that were complete garbage. I contrast that with my well exposed, well framed images that nobody even looks at. The only thing those websites have going for them is hundreds of bad quality images that scream amateur while I tend to prefer a few higher quality images.
Am I wrong in presenting a few higher quality images? Should I be plastering the place with thousands of crap images?
The biggest problem is that we have to many MWACs out there taking crappy snaps then milking the market. I don't know how they make their money when their photography is so lousy.
Brides and Grooms - aside from the fact there are hardly any weddings any more - all the B&Gs that I have encountered are quite happily using friends/relatives with cameras and crowdsourcing the iPhone snaps from the congregation.
I remember one woman getting married and her mother insisting on a photographer so she went online and found one that ended up being pretty crummy.
Business tends to use whatever lies to hand. I have been watching people at ribbon cuttings at my chamber of commerce all happily photographing events with iPhones and iPads. I could do a hell of a lot better with my digital SLR. I never get asked. The photos on the Chamber website are pretty grim.
The problem is... people are content with poor quality wile refusing to pay for better quality. With an attitude whereby anything free is better than something of high-quality that costs money, how does anybody make any money from photography?
I was just looking at one of the online photographers websites - photos that weren't straight, were't particularly sharp, weren't well framed - in general photos that were complete garbage. I contrast that with my well exposed, well framed images that nobody even looks at. The only thing those websites have going for them is hundreds of bad quality images that scream amateur while I tend to prefer a few higher quality images.
Am I wrong in presenting a few higher quality images? Should I be plastering the place with thousands of crap images?
The biggest problem is that we have to many MWACs out there taking crappy snaps then milking the market. I don't know how they make their money when their photography is so lousy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
