Ashanali

It's always a pleasure to work on quality images... these were a breath of fresh air. SBT123 has a great understanding of light and composition and Poodie is perfect as always (I am dying to photograph her myself. She had a very 'old world' beauty. )

Hey Tess, you may want to remove the link. If he tracks hits to his website it will lead straight back to this thread.

I really don't think so. Children also regularly taken to shopping centres, carparks, supermarkets, parks etc etc etc it is NOT up to the supermarket owners, car park users, shopping centre employees nor park employees to be responsible for everyones children. It is up to the PARENTS. That is half the reason we have so many uncontrolable, ratbag, no mannered children today,,because the parents don't take any responsibily for them. What ever happened to the parent being responsible for their own children?? Why isn't the parent watching the child?? So business owners now not only have to run a business, deal with customers and accounts but offer FREE babysitting for customers as well??? So that would mean IF the child was about to touch something dangerous, the business owner, (who by your thinking is responsible for the child) has FULL right to walk up and SMACK the child?? Most businesses have things kept up or away and it ISN'T because they are volunteering to take responsibilty for your children it is due to OH&S laws. +1 Parents need to take responsibility for looking after their own children and not expect staff of businesses they use to do it on their behalf. If I ran a hairdressing salon and a customer let their child run rampant I'd be telling them to get their child under control or ask them to not return unless they can find a babysitter. I know I would lose customers this way but it is not my job to look after someone else's kids. ETA: Other patrons shouldn't have to put up with it either. I had to bold that bit as it really is important in a salon. It IS the staffs' responsibility to store everything correctly and take due care BUT it IS NOT the staffs' responsibility to look after the children of clients.

You can't avoid having children in a hair salon. Whether you agree with it or not, the fact is people can and do bring their children with them to the salon. So it is the responsibility of the hairdressers to make sure they are not leaving dangerous things withing reach of small children. I've never been to a salon where dangerous chemicals were not stored at height, or in locked cupboards or a seperate room with a closed door, and hairdressers keep their scissors, hot irons, and other dangerous equipment stored away in trolleys (or sitting on top of the trolley while in use). Its simple really. If a child manages to get their hands on anything dangerous and gets hurt, then obviously someone has been irresponsible by leaving it where the child could get to it. You don't have children... that is clearly obvious.

I think it's more the use of filters than anything in post production. I think the camera work for Top Gear is great - it makes the show watchable

Helen, your last one is better. It takes a bit of practice. Subtletly is key but too sublte and the effect is lost. Your last one is just right; the dog 'pops'. (however you have brushed back the top of the head just a wee bit too much and it has a slight halo on my monitor)

I'm also going to throw these guys into the mix http://www.frontierdigital.com.au/ They are around the corner from us (so Qld based) but they process orders from all over Aust. We have never had an issue with them and their prices are brilliant. Love them!!

http://www.theedgephoto.com.au/ http://www.nulab.com.au/ Here are the links. As I said PC - I've never dealt with DW. The forum I'm on is a closed, private photography forum so they aren't the sort to go around 'bashing' suppliers. The thread began as a heads up with most people saying that they love DW, but it's long running and by the end it seems to be the same story over and over (great product, bad service). I have been tempted to try them (and still might) because everyone keeps saying how great the product is - it's just the service side that scares me.

Multiply works similar to burning - not a bad option.

There is a looooong and ongoing thread about DW on another forum I am on. This is just one of the more mild (and shorter) responses in the thread I understand their quality it good which is why I've been tempted in the past, but one of my pet hates is sloppy service. That is only one person in the thread, there are other similar stories where everything is good then all of a sudden it's very bad... I don't want to chance it.

You're lucky KJA. We've never used DW - heard too many bad things about their customer service to want to risk it. We are fortunate though, we live around the corner from Frontier Digital and they are awesome so it's ideal for us.

RL - a bit off topic here but I have been noticing you have been picking on the posts of a few people lately and it seems to be the same people over and over. You're not following people around the boards are you?

I had them posed differently when the bride goes, 'This reminds me of ballet' and she did a little arabesque. I started yelling at her, "Do it again! DO IT AGAIN!" and as she did the wind lifted her veil. It was just one of those moments (joint effort between the husband and I, my posing, his taking of photo, my magnificent placement of flash , my editing ) As for the rest of your post - yes, yes and YES!

Shmoo, this image has had a vignette applied The vignette was achieved by using an exposure brush at about -.50 in Lightroom (but a similar effect could be achieved using the 'burn' tool in photoshop.) The vignette is used to draw attention to the bride and the groom and take attention away from the buildings... but still leaves the detail in the surrounding environment. Subtlety is the key. Heavy handed vignetting is what kills many images.

*nods vigourously in agreement* Can you show examples of oval vignetting and why it is so bad please. Since I dont use it I haven't really taken alot of notice of it. When dealing with 'antique' or antique styled images - it's acceptable However when dealing with contemporary subject - it's a DO NOT GO NEAR zone (the white oval vignette is a style that seems to be popular with some dog show photographers )

*nods vigourously in agreement*

I actually HATE the LR vignettes. I feel they appear muddy and 'blech' when not handled right. Me personally; when in LR I prefer to use an exposure brush and burn the areas I want darker. It doesn't end up looking gray and pastey. but that's just me.

PC -why aren't you using a pro lab like 'The Edge' or 'NuLab'? More consistency. btw - the issues with the rabbit photo are more likely to do with them changing the type of paper they use rather than the different ownership. (either that or they may have recenlty replaced their machines in those stores.) The machines in mini-labs are calibrated each morning when they are switched on so if you have had a dramatic change it would be more to do with either a change of paper or somethig in the machine itself.

I like the blade of grass one

There are good vignettes and bad vignettes... bad: White (one on about 5000 images looks good with a white vignette *shudder* ) oval Too sudden a change in the gradient (whether lighter or darker) vignette for no reason good: subtle change in tones highlights an element of the image without taking away from the image handled with delicacy

DPI is the term they use when printing... eg - a printer can print 200 dots of ink per inch PPI is the term when the image is on the screen... eg - the image is 300 pixels per inch

Unfortunately, as has been said in this thread many times, just because ONE person (or many people) have a great relationship with the dog in question doesn't mean that everyone does. Dogs may like one person and the next smells funny to them. Dogs also don't see children the same way that they see adults. I haven't relied on the media as I don't read the paper and I don't watch the news (too depressing). I read the initial article here then formed my own opinions based on anectdotal evidence having grown up in hairdressing salons having two parents who are hairdressers and also growing up around dogs with most of my family involved in showing and breeding. Also based on the fact that I have four children, two who are the same age as the girl in question and one of my older sons who was bitten on the face by a dog who had no previous history of aggression and had no incidents past that one day. Another anectode - I've been in an ambulance with someone suffering a heart attack. Person was stable so they went to the hospital without the sirens blaring and the didn't run red lights either - they got there with haste, but not rushed. I have since discovered that the sirens only come on if it's life or death and the patient isn't stable (in Qld anyway - no idea about interstate policy and it also could have changed in the last 15 years since I was in the ambulance.) AGAIN - two innocent victims. Poor dog and poor child. Both pawns.

My three would have been on either a Canon 30D or a 40D and using the 50mm 1.4 lens for two images. I think the school room photo was taken with the 18-55mm kit lens. (yes, a cheapie lens. )

Also if you don't have a correctly calibrated monitor it can make a huge difference. Most monitors are too bright so when you print, the photos come out way darker than you expect. Set your monitor 6500k (or whatever is closest), 100% contrast and take your brightness down until the white stops appearing 'white'. That is a start to calibrating your monitor. To do it properly you either need Adobe Gamma OR a calibration tool like a Spyder.

We use AIS insurance www.aisinsurance.com.au It's true. We did alot of homework and AIS came out on top. Definitely look them up. As members of the AIPP we MUST have insurance and public liability of at least $10 million. We also MUST have insurance if we are promoting at expos (as we will be next month). You will rarely get sued over photography (it happens, but not that often), but you will get sued if someone trips over a camera bag, falls down, hits their head on a table on the way and breaks their neck. In today's world where everyone is keen to sue everyone else, at least $10 million is necessary.