Facebook is a great place to share your photos, just don't think of it as your storage space.

The Washington Post reports the pros and cons of using Facebook for storing your photos. I’m astonished that people would consider this as a storage media versus using your own computer hard drive or a secure off-site online storage company (“cloud computing”). The article implies that people are uploading their photos to Facebook (FB) and then deleting the original files, not realizing that FB is reducing the photo size significantly from the original. I just tested an image that was 4600 pixels on the long side and 6MB. After uploading it to FB and then copying it off the site, it came back as 720 pixels and 38.9 KB! A small sample of the original.

There are other reasons to not use this site for photo sharing, and it’s often discussed how photos are taken off the site without permission and used in ads or for other purposes. One such story is that of the husband who didn’t realize he was searching for hot singles! There’s a few good tips in that article about changing your user settings if you are on FB; and who isn’t these days?

So back to the Washington Post report. A few statistics from the article:

• 65 percent of people sharing pictures online are doing so using Facebook.
• Nearly 40% of households with digital cameras no longer print out their pictures.
• Photo printing is estimated to drop by 30% by 2013 from 2008.
• Estimates of 124 billion photos are on pace to be shared through social networks that year (2013).
• Facebook size limit is 720 pixels, not sufficient for a good quality 4×6 print.
• Fewer than 30% of people surveyed knew that photos on social-networking sites are stored at a decreased resolution.
• With 400 million users uploading 3 billion photos a month, Facebook has become the largest photo-sharing site on the Web by far.

So if you want to share your photos, of course be careful what you share and always save the originals on a secure storage media and not only on a social network. It might also be a good idea to watermark or sign any images that you feel are important and you don’t want someone to use without permission.

Cheers and good shooting – Peter Zack

Vote for us by clicking on the button below!

Related posts:

1. Don't Post Your Photos on Facebook!
2. Protect Your Photos with TinEye
3. Photos from the Edge of Space

I pose this question for a couple of reasons: The ISO scale is 1) misleading and 2) misunderstood. I would be surprised if manufacturers pushed to adopt a new scale though. More is better, right? If brand X can shoot at ISO 6400 and Brand Y can shoot at ISO 12,800, then Brand Y must be, like, 6400 times better or something. Right? Nope it’s only 1 stop. The ISO scale was developed in the film days and as far as I’m aware, the fastest film available (other than maybe some specialized scientific films) was Kodak T Max at 3200. Digital sensors have far exceeded that today.

Aaron Johnson's What the Duck http://www.whattheduck.net/

While not exactly on point, I think the cartoon sums up part of what I feel is a misleading issue. The cartoon does make light of the technical understanding of ISO. Have you ever read the WiKi article on that subject? Even my eyes glaze over. I am willing to bet that a lot of shooters (I’m guilty of this) have set the camera at ISO 4000, thinking they gained a lot of sensitivity but not as much noise as 6400 gives them. Well not really. That’s only 1/3 of a stop and they really gained very little in shutter speed, just lost some detail and increased the noise a bit. The 1/3 boost in shutter speed certainly isn’t going to make much difference in freezing the action in low light. Other choices, a tripod, faster aperture, adding a flash or more light etc, shot at a lower ISO, would create much better photos in many situations.

From here on I’ll drop the ISO part, assuming you know what I’m talking about.

The scale makes no sense with today’s sensors and the ones coming in the future. We already have cameras that can shoot above 100,000. Who knows where they will be 2,3, 4+ years from now. Shooters at all levels of experience may not understand the sensitivity steps, make the wrong choice in a hurry, or get a little hoodwinked at how much extra latitude you get from 6400 to 12,800 because the number sounds so much bigger than it really is. Think in terms of salary: If you make $51,200 a year and the boss offers you a new job at $102,400, that’s a huge leap. Your entire life just changed. Well that’s how we think; we don’t see that it’s just one stop faster.

The Nikon D3s can shoot at ISO102,400 which one site loudly proclaimed has, 'Night Vision' and 'ISO 102,400. Yeah, that's a six-digit ISO.'

Is one full stop a big deal? Sure it is, shooters go nuts to buy a lens that is 1 stop faster. Also, the scale is exponential. So 200 is twice as sensitive as 100 and 400 is 4 times as sensitive as 100. In terms of what you can do with that 1 stop, It means you could shoot at 1/60th at 1600 and 1/125th at 3200 and get the same exposure results. That could be the difference between stopping the action and not while taking family photos indoors. In my thinking though, if the scale was more straightforward, people would understand better what they gained when going from 3200 to 6400. Sometimes, that one stop and added noise might not be worth the trade-off for a faster shutter speed.

I’d suggest a new scale that really reflects the steps and gain as you turn up the dial. Plus the smaller numbers would be much easier to display in the viewfinder. This way, you can better understand the advantage and relationship with the other 2 parameters, shutter speed and aperture. This would really benefit new buyers, people who have never shot film or who moved from a point and shoot to a DSLR for the first time and never really considered ISO before.

My hope is that some day, sensors will natively go below 100. I really miss how incredible Kodachrome 25 was. So I suggest the scale start at 1 which would equal 100 now and consider the possibility of even lower sensitivities. Then if we get ISO’s below 1 (100) the scale would show a negative. Further, the scale would need to be similar to the aperture scale. for half and 1/3 settings.

Maybe something like this, reflecting 1/3 and 1/2 adjustments:
ISO 12, 25, 50, 64, 80, 100 = -2, -1, 0, 0.3, 0.7, 1.0
ISO 100-200 = 1.0, 1.3, 1.5, 1.7, 2.0
ISO 200-400 = 2.0, 2.3, 2.5, 2.7, 3.0
ISO 400-800 = 3.0, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7, 4.0
ISO 800-1600 = 4.0, 4.3, 4.5, 4.7, 5.0

So then your basic scale is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. If 100 = 1, then 102,400 would equal 10. We’ll call it the EtL scale. Simple and straightforward. Fractional steps would directly correspond to 1/2 or 1/3 step adjustments to your shutter speeds. I think a much less confusing and more logical way to display your shooting information in the viewfinder. You instantly realize that you’ve only gained a stop and may be better to open the lens up a stop, or decrease the shutter speed when you can, to get a cleaner image.

Cheers and good shooting. –Peter Zack

Vote for us by clicking on the button below!

No related posts.

Used via CC through FreeFoto.com.

In every photography conversation that takes place anywhere in the World, the subject will eventually come up. Someone will innocently ask: Do you shoot RAW or JPEG? And a friendly conversation turns into an ugly bloodbath, ending with photographers spinning their cameras over their heads held by the strap, as modern-day photographic flails, mouths frothing, shrieks of hate filling the air as they attack one another in defence of their chosen file format. It’s not coincidence that ‘RAW’ is ‘WAR’ spelled backwards.

It needn’t be this way. I believe photographers of all races, colours, creed and shooting format can coexist and live together, in peace. Seriously, I do.

So what’s the big problem? Let me begin with the negative things each faction says about the other.

What the JPEG Zealots Say

RAW shooters are pussies who don’t know the first thing about photography, if they did, they wouldn’t have to use the crutch of RAW because they’d get their exposures right at the time they took the picture. JPEGs capture the real scene in front of the camera without any bias from the photographer. Real professionals only shoot JPEG.

What the RAW Zealots Say

JPEG shooters are amateurs who don’t know how to extract the maximum IQ from a digital file and are too lazy to learn how to use Photoshop. Why would they even buy a DSLR if they’re going to shoot JPEG? They’d be better off just shooting with a P&S. Real professionals only shoot RAW.

Who Is Right?

Neither! Or both, depending how you look at it. Let’s examine the pros of each format.

• Pros of JPEG:
  • File sizes are smaller by a huge percent.
  • No time is wasted in front of the computer doing postprocessing, so you can actually spend more time taking pictures.
  • You can shoot many more photos in continuous shooting mode because the files get written to the memory card quickly due to their smaller size. This small size also means you don’t need huge memory cards or hard drives to store your photos in. Oh, and uploading images from the memory card to a computer or over the internet is faster
  • Once you find the camera settings that you like, all your photos will have your look and you’ll never have to worry about settings again.
• Pros of RAW:
  • You retain all the information captured by your camera sensor allowing you to make adjustments in postprocessing without losing IQ (or with minimal loss).
  • Adjustments you make in postprocessing are non-destructive.
  • You can postprocess a picture in many different ways and keep each version.
  • Ansel Adams would’ve shot RAW.

I’m sure zealots in each band can come up with more pros, but in essence they reduce to this: If you shoot JPEG you get smaller files (with all the associated benefits) and you spend less time in front of the computer and more out shooting; if you shoot RAW you have a file that offers a lot more latitude for being manipulated in postprocessing. And that’s it. Really, it is.

The thing about pros shooting only JPEG or RAW is rubbish—pros shoot whatever is most convenient for them. Sports shooters and journalists shoot mainly JPEG because they need to get their photographs uploaded to their agencies or newspapers as soon and quickly as possible. They don’t have time to upload 10-20MB files, not when they have a few hundred files to transmit; and they certainly don’t have time to postprocess the images. If any postprocessing needs to be done to the particular photos that will be published, it’s usually a small bump in contrast or levels adjustment, which a JPEG should be able to handle. If you’re talking landscape photography, then chances are those photographers will be shooting RAW. Landscape photographs routinely present challenging situations where parts of the photograph need to be lightened, while others need to be darkened; maybe ugly power-lines need to be erased and the tone of the image be warmed up (or cooled down) to fit in better with the emotional content of the scene.

That said, there will be sports photographers that shoot RAW and landscape photographers that shoot JPEG. JPEG and RAW are more than just file formats—they’re tools. Good artists use tools to their advantage and start off by choosing the appropriate ones; remember that.

What Format Should I Shoot?

The choice is easier than you think:

• Shoot RAW if you enjoy postprocessing or you feel the subjects you shoot are too complex from a dynamic range perspective and/or the camera cannot capture the scenes you shoot as you see them. If you shoot B&W and want to do more than just press the monochrome button, then RAW is probably the best option. If you are shooting under tough lighting conditions (and pressed for time) and are not sure the camera will meter correctly, shoot RAW to give yourself some leeway if you need to adjust a shot in postproduction.
• Shoot JPEG if you don’t enjoy postprocessing and have your camera set up such that the photos that come straight out of it are to your liking. If you are strapped for space on your computer, shooting JPEG will allow you to store many more files, and you can also fit more images on each memory card when you’re out shooting. Many people are not computer savvy and would like to stay as far away as possible from a laptop—there’s nothing wrong with that, and these people are one of the reasons engineers spent so long programming the JPEG engine in those cameras.

Whatever you choose, don’t consider it a decision for life. There may be shooting conditions when one or the other is better, and a wise photographer will change format if the situation requires it. Be at the mercy of the Photograph, not at the whim of your idiosyncrasies.

Most of all, dear reader, don’t think you have The Answer; don’t diminish your fellow photographers if they don’t shoot the same format as you. Each of us has different needs and tastes; we’re all individuals; but maybe more importantly: We don’t need another war.

Related posts:

1. 15 Lies about Photography
2. Landscape Phtography in the Dark
3. Justifying 15 Lies about Photography

Newcomers to Photography, and even seasoned shooters, are often confused as to what it is exactly that makes a Great Photograph. We all know what a pretty, or cute, or moving photograph is, at least at some emotional, non-verbal level, but we find it hard to define in words what separates the Good from the Great.

Fret not my children, Miserere has spent a few minutes thinking hard about this and has it all figured out for you. A Great Photograph is…

A Photograph Taken in an Exotic Location

©Michel & Christine Denis-Huot

Humans are curious creatures who are drawn to adventure—it’s one of the reasons we spread around the Globe after Africa became too much of the same old, same old. But we still miss our old homeland, which is why photos taken in Africa are all Great. Unless you actually live in Africa, in which case they’re just photos of your own back yard. Show the average group of Westeners a photo of elephants majestically traversing the Serengeti and you’ll receive a chorus of “ooohs” and “aaahs”. Show it to one of the local Maasai tribe members, and he’ll let you know exactly what he thinks of those $@#&ing elephants that walk around thinking the plains are all theirs and keep stomping on his vegetable patch. Show this same Maasai warrior a photo of a polar bear on an iceberg, and you’ll get “ooohs” and “aaahs”. Now, show this same photo to an Inuit, and…well, you get the idea.

A Photograph Taken in a Remote Location

© Mars Exploration Rover Mission
(click for huge size)

This category of Great Picture is sometimes confused with the preceding, and indeed, there can be overlap in some cases; but they are different. A remote location is one that is difficult to get to, which makes it rarely visited, and even more rarely photographed. Many exotic locations used to be remote, but since the advent of affordable air travel and vaccinations, almost anyone can visit Africa, Mongolia, Antarctica… Remote locations are becoming more and more difficult to find, but there are still some remaining: Mount Everest, deep caves, oceanic beds, the Moon, Mars… The reason these photos are great is obvious: There are very few of them. Take a look at the photo of Mars illustrating this section; I could call up the guys at the Mars Exploration Rover Mission and tell them how much they suck at stitching photographs (haven’t they heard of Hugin?) and how terrible the photo looks. They would probably say, you think you can do a better job? Then go ahead and get your arse over to Mars to take some pics with your fancy panorama head and tripod. That isn’t going to happen, is it? Like the great philosopher said: When there ain’t no competition, you’re best by definition™.

A Photograph Taken with Old Equipment

©Sally Mann

When Carleton Watkins hauled his mammoth camera into the wilderness, he made Great Pictures of remote locations. Nowadays, he would be making Great Pictures simply by using the camera anywhere. It doesn’t matter what you photograph—as long as you do it with an old camera, it will be a Great Picture. The best part of this category is that greatness increases proportionally with the age of the camera used.

You can even buy a whole book of Great Photographs made recently with old cameras.

A Photograph Taken with Bad Equipment

©Arthur Liou

Maybe the easiest of the Great Photographs that one can take. Just use a broken camera, or better still, a toy one. Point it at something, anything, and voilà, instant greatness. The fact you could have used a perfectly good camera and achieved the same effect with a click of a button in Photoshop is totally irrelevant. If you want to jump start your Great photographic career, get yourself a Holga!

A Photograph Postprocessed into Surrealism

©Jill Greenberg

Nothing says I know what I’m doing like a healthy dose of Photoshop, and if being unique helps a photo become Great, then it’s your duty to separate the image from reality as much as possible. In fact, you shouldn’t settle for surreal, make it unreal! HDR (High Dynamic Range), DHE (Dave Hill Effect), PPE (Plastic People Effect), it doesn’t matter, just use the effect, and make sure you buy the software version that goes up to 11. Then apply it twice, just to be on the safe side.

See that photo above? Is that the real Aaron Eckhart or a photo of his statue at the local wax museum; or is it a painting? It doesn’t matter! (Those were trick questions.) It’s a Great Photo, period.

A Photograph Taken with a Medium or Large Format Camera

©Ansel Adams

This is a double-whammy, because using a medium/large format camera not only produces Great Photographs, but you also get to call them, and sell them as, Fine Art. Fine Art is just like Standard Art, except the prices paid have 3 or 4 extra zeroes added on. For example, had the above image been made with a P&S, nobody would pay more than $6 for a print; but because that photo was taken with either a 4×5 or 8×10 view camera… the print costs $60,000. Of course, it was also taken by somebody famous, which overlaps with, and brings us to, the next category.

A Photograph Taken by a Great Photographer

The most efficient way for you to make your photographs Great is by becoming a Great Photographer. After that, every photograph you take will be Great by definition. This applies to any Art, be it Photography, Painting, Sculpture, Bonsai Growing… There is a catch: In order to become a Great Artist, you first need to make Great Art, but in order to make Great Art you need to be… You get my drift. (Although some artists have managed to become Great by other means…)

A Photograph Containing 3 or More Clichés

Robert Doisneau – Kiss by the Hôtel de Ville

Nothing says Great Photograph like a bunch of clichés thrown together. Take Doisneau’s Kiss by the Hôtel de Ville for example:

Cliche #1:

A street photograph in Paris. How original—nobody ever did any street photography in Paris during the 50′s.

Cliche #2:

A photograph taken from a street café. In Paris.

Cliche #3:

Love. Oh, Love…the ultimate artistic cliché.

Cliche #4:

A couple in love. In Paris. Wouldn’t it be perfect if they were kissing, carefree, in the street, to express their great love for each other?

Cliche #5:

Black and White. You gotta have B&W if it’s a street photo. C’mon! Everyone knows that.

I’m surprised this photograph didn’t make the camera explode the moment it was taken. Just imagine you’re shooting street photography (using B&W film) in Paris. And you’re sitting at an outdoor café, in Paris, when you happen to see two people, in love, in Paris, on the street, kissing. Because they’re in love, in Paris. And you’re there with your B&W-loaded camera. Shooting street photography. In Paris. Just imagine!

The only thing that would make this Great Photograph reach critical cliché mass and annihilate the whole internet is if the photographer had actually posed the photo and not told anyone for decades. Now that would be something…

A Photograph of Somebody Famous

©Dennis Stock

Is this a good photograph of an unknown young man walking in the rain in New York’s Times Square…or is it a Great Photograph of the famous actor James Dean?

A Photograph Everybody Else Considers Great

©William Eggleston

I have one name for you: William Eggleston. Critics, photographers and other beret-wearing artists tell me what a masterpiece of contemporary photography William Eggleston’s Guide is. And yet…I don’t see it. But that lonely tricycle must be a Great Photograph…because everyone tells me it is. The legendary MoMA curator John Szarkowski wrote the introduction to the book, which is certainly saying something about the book. That’s what people tell me, anyway.

A Photograph Within an Important and Larger Body of Work

Robert Frank - The Americans, book cover

If you look at any of Robert Frank’s individual photographs taken in and around the US during the mid-50′s, you wouldn’t necessarily gasp in amazement. Look at them again within the context of his great opus The Americans, and they slowly begin to shine. In fact, Robert Frank’s book is a great example of that worn cliché about the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. Each photograph within the book is Great by virtue of belonging to this Great Work. And the book itself is Great despite not containing Great Photographs. There’s a bit of Zen in this one…

Wikipedia has a pretty good entry on The Americans.

Conclusion

I hope that with these examples it has now become clear to you what a Great Photograph is. And now that it’s clear, you should be well on your way to making each and every one of your photographs a Great Photograph. Anything less would be an insult to me, who just spent ages writing it all down for you in detail.

Now grab your camera and run off to take some photos—make sure they’re all Great. Don’t let me down!

Note: Links in this article might be to one of our affiliate stores. Purchases made from our affiliates through these links will benefit Enticing the Light at no extra cost to you.

Related posts:

1. Great Nature Photography Found in…March of the Penguins!
2. How to Photograph Fireworks Reminder
3. God Save the Queen! (Just Don’t Photograph Her)

Photo courtesy of B&H Photo

The release of the new Canon EOS 550D (T2i Digital Rebel in the US) got me thinking. Is a Sub $800.00 18MP camera really required? What’s the upside to the shooter? Is this an advancement of the “more is better” megapixel race? I’m sure I’ll stand in the minority on this but I feel there are a few valid points to consider. I welcome your thoughts in the comment section. Before you consider these the ramblings of an old-school shooter, let me make it clear that I do welcome necessary advancements in camera features and quality, but I’m just not sure how this is a benefit to advancing the APS-C format. It sure will grab some headlines, though.

So let me start out with a few disclaimers. I’m no engineer or physicist, I have just enough of a basic understanding to get me in a little trouble discussing CMOS and CCD designs. This is not a brand-bashing article either, it’s just that Canon has offered the first 18MP camera with a street price of $799.00¹. Finally, I haven’t handled this camera. It’s introduction really made me wonder why we need an 18MP camera that seems to be tailored to the first time DSLR buyer. Following are some of the points I want you to consider when thinking about high pixel count APS-C DSLRs.

Computer Requirements

To start with, if you are moving into DSLRs for the first time, do you need 18MP, or for that matter 15MP? If you shoot RAW (and I would think most should) to get the most out of a DSLR, you’re probably looking at a computer upgrade. The file size of a RAW file with a sensor this size is about 24.5MB (5184 x 3456 pixels)². So load that file size into a program like Adobe Photoshop and if you’re at 2GB of RAM, it’s going to be really slow to load or edit anything, maybe even at 4GB. If you can upgrade the computer memory, then you have a relatively cheap fix. But if not, you’re going to want a new system very quickly. Laptop owners may be very limited with upgrade options.

Hard Drive Space

I never delete files totally; I’ll sort the poor shots from the good and store the poor ones as unused. Why? Well, my post processing skills improve on a regular basis. What I could do with a poor shot 2 years ago is very different than what I can do today. Who knows what software improvements will bring in the future? So unless it’s complete junk, I save it somewhere. 24.5MB files will fill a hard drive very fast, so you’ll need external hard drives or a new internal upgrade fairly quickly.

Memory Cards

If you have a bunch of 1 and 2GB SD cards from your P&S, well they will be tossed fairly quickly. Consider that a 1GB card will probably hold 38-40 images at full RAW size. That takes us back to the 36 negative film days. You’re going to fill that card up in 11.1 seconds at 3.6 fps chasing that bird in the backyard. One of the benefits of a digital camera is meant to be the ability to blast away if you choose to because there are no film costs. So add a bit more to the budget for some 32GB cards for that vacation trip. Of course, you can always lower the image size (by shooting JPEG), use your 1GB cards and….in the end, maybe the P&S would be have been better for the vacation.

Any or all of these issues may cost you more than just getting a new camera body.

Display Sizes

What does the buyer of this camera use it for to show off their photos? Sites like Flickr? On the computer? 4″×6″ or 5″x7″ prints with the occasional 8″×10″? Do you need 5184 x 3456 pixels for that? Nope, sites like Flickr will restrict image sizes and most monitors have between 1024 x768 to 1280×1024 pixel displays³. Web sites you might create will be less than this. You can make 18″x27″ prints with 6MP images from a DSLR without a problem.

Image Quality

That’s the huge appeal for the buyer. 18MP must be better than 15MP, or 12MP right? So why did the new full-frame Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III come out at only 21.1MP? Wouldn’t 40.5MP (keeping the same pixel density as the T2i) be the right pixel size? My basic understanding of pixel density is that the smaller the pixels on the sensor, the noise will increase.

The output read noise power is directly proportional to the vertical resolution of the imager and inversely proportional to the pixel area, resulting in a strong dependence between noise and pixel density.⁴

The 1Ds Mk III uses a full-frame sensor which is 864mm² vs the APS-C sensor at 413mm², and as a result the pixels are going to be roughly twice the area. Why so few pixels? Because this camera is aimed at the Pro market where good low light control and fine detail is demanded. More pixels aren’t necessarily better. To get clean images from a high megapixel APS-C camera a lot more noise processing is going to have to happen before the RAW image is written to the card. So you’re not going to have the fine detail nearly as much as the RAW image that is a less processed native image from a full-frame sensor. Pro shooters don’t want the image processed by the camera, they want that control for post processing work.

So What Are the Advantages?

1. You can crop the heck out of your shots, but you need to be using top quality lenses to achieve maximum resolution.
2. You can print images to sizes that we just normally don’t do (24″x36″, for example).
3. Marketing for the camera companies. Not really to our benefit but to sell more cameras.

So the T2i is a stripped down 7D that retains the 18MP sensor to sell this entry-level model. For me, that just doesn’t make sense and I certainly hope the camera companies don’t go down this road together.

Cheers and Good Shooting –Peter Zack

¹ Price: Adorama and B&H
² Canon USA web site specs: Canon
³ W3Schools
⁴ MIT paper Pixel density

Note: Links in this article might be to one of our affiliate stores. Purchases made from our affiliates through these links will benefit Enticing the Light at no extra cost to you.

Related posts:

1. For the Canon Shooter Who Has Everything
2. New Samsung M8910 Pixon12 Cameraphone Is Better than Canon 350D (Digital Rebel XT)
3. Some Canon S90 Sample Shots

A cautionary tale in case you get one of these emails.

From: What the Duck

Scams, if you have an email address (if you’re here you do, of course), you get the emails all the time. If you are like me, with a dedicated web site and a visible email address, you get dozens daily. Spam filters do a good job but just to make sure that something legit isn’t missed, I still check the spam daily for a real client who might be filtered.

I don’t need anything enlarged, I like my job and am not looking for a new one.  I’m happy that my wife arranges all my dates. I have enough credit cards and suspect there’s no free money anywhere. I hate survey’s and loved Seinfeld’s solution to that.

So recently I got one I knew was a scam. It sounded similar to many of the rest.  I decided I wanted to see how this was going to ‘play out’ and how much they might want to take me for.  Really it was a waste of time but possibly worth sharing with others in case you think you are going to land the “big deal”. Plus I kind of liked the idea of getting them all excited, wasting some of their time, that they might have a sucker on the hook to rob from.

In total, there were 12 emails back and forth . First I’m not a full time wedding planner, even if I do help brides with many of the arrangements. So there’s his first mistake, not knowing what I do.

So here’s how it works:

The wording changes from email to email but the common theme is a “logistics manager” or “agent” the scammer will mention in most at some point.

The very first email:
From: Williams Egobia <williamsegobia@live.com>
To: xxxxxxx@yahoo.com
Sent: Sat, January 30, 2010 1:37:09 AM
Subject: I need an experienced wedding planner

However,because of security reasons and confidentiality reposed on you and because they do not have credit card facility,we have decided that only you will have to handle the credit card information.

He couldn’t trust the “Logistics Agent” with the credit card info, only me! I feel so privileged!

Now when you think about this, the logistics agent is arranging travel visas and transportation for all the guests. So you trust him to get you safely into a country, get everyone to the same place on time etc. But you can’t trust him to see your Visa card? He has all your personal info for a travel visa but not the credit info.

Yeah sure. I’m some internet stranger that you don’t know, that you trust with thousands of dollars. Foolishness.

So at the end, I told him the deal was off and that I would no longer waste any more time with this. He threatens the FBI on me. Humm, since I don’t live in the USA, I guess I don’t have to worry about them much.

Finally I get these 2 emails, the last of which showed up in my spam folder, how ironic.

Related posts:

1. Recommended Wedding Photographer
2. Weddings Can Be Funny Too! Wedding Photographer Fails
3. How Hard Is It to Photograph a Wedding?

Friday morning, January 29^th 2010, I was having breakfast while perusing the usual suspects of Photography blogs, when I hit Photo Induced, curated by the tireless Damon (he’s been writing his blog since November 2005!). I was a bit behind on his latest news, because the first article that came up was talking about OnceMany.com, a 365 site with a twist.

Shane Rich sat down one day on a large rock in the Colorado Rockies and thought, I should start a 365…with a twist. That’s how I imagine it, anyway. The twist? He’s creating each daily photo for a different client, because he’s selling each one of them. And the price? Depends on the date you choose. On January 1^st it’s $1, on the 2^nd it’s $2, on the 3^rd it’s $3… I think you get the idea. And yes, on December 31^st the price will be $365. Not only will Shane come up with an idea for a photograph and shoot it, he’ll also send you a print.

Back to Friday morning. I thought I’d buy my wife’s birthday but it was taken. Not to be deterred, because I always like supporting good ideas, I decided to get a date for EtL. Seeing January 31^st was free, and wanting to help Shane with empty days, I booked it. Shane e-mailed me quickly to ask about any ideas I might have and I unloaded my request: Shane, you have 48 hours to come up with a single photo describing EtL. And believe me, Shane delivered.

If you want to see what he came up with, check out January 31^st on OnceMany.com. Make sure you see his other days too; and while you’re at it, consider buying a day for your business, your spouse, or even yourself! C’mon, don’t make him eat that camera…

Related posts:

1. Shedding Light on Dan Phelps, from A LEGO a Day
2. Vote for EtL!
3. Justifying 15 Lies about Photography

Dear Readers,

We’re moving the blog to its own host and domain name. This will allow us to customise the blog to our needs, and hopefully make posting easier for us. From now on all new content will be published on EnticingTheLight.com.

Please update your bookmarks and RSS feeds. Anyone clicking through to any articles in the (now officially) old blog, will be redirected automatically to the new site. In fact, if you’re reading this, you already are on the new site. Did you even notice?

Keep coming back for more articles, humour, and general Photography talk. If you don’t, we’ll miss you.

Cheers,

    –Miserere and Peter

Related posts:

1. EtL Hack Causes Major Disruption to Service
2. Facebook – Not the Place to Store Your Photos
3. Please Update Your EtL RSS Feed Subscription

Oh…how time flies…they grow up so quickly… Yes, gang, EtL is 1 year old today!

The statistics on blogs are not very optimistic, with some sources stating that 60-80% of blogs are abandoned within the first month. Looks like I beat the odds—and that always feels good.

During this year we’ve published 152 posts and received over 156,000 visits, with readers leaving 1,065 comments (OK, I’ll admit, some of those are mine). I’ve written some comedy, conducted interviews, philosophised about Photography and given you my opinion on interesting technology being introduced; I also pointed you towards interesting blogs and photographers I chanced upon during my web travels. Of course, I showcased some of my own Photography every now and then, lest you think I’m all talk and no click. Peter Zack wrote some great tutorials and thinking pieces for us all, and Sean Leahy took us behind the scenes at Grand Central Terminal.

Our busiest day, with 3,784 visits, was Thursday, September 10, 2009. Curiously, no article was published that week. The most viewed post was Peter Zack’s The Most Important Images of the Last 100 Years, with almost 11,000 visits, followed by my Canon S90 review, Part 1, with some 8,500 visits.

In this coming year I would like to interview more photographers—I think we can all learn much from them. I want Peter to share more of his knowledge with us. After Sean’s contribution, I would like to publish other people’s adventures with Photography, so if you have a story to tell, please e-mail me and we’ll see if it can get published.

But most of all, I hope that you guys keep coming back to enjoy what we have to offer at EtL. If you have requests, let me know! I’m all ears (or eyes, if you write me).

So here’s to another year full of ideas, Photography and laughter.

Cheers!

  –Miserere

PS: If you’re wondering what my first (real) post was, see here. And the very first post of all time, the introduction, can be found here.

Related posts:

1. Happy New Year 2010!
2. Happy New Year 2009!
3. Coming Soon to EtL: F-BoM

I bought a piano; nobody called me a pianist.

I climbed a mountain; nobody called me a mountaineer.

I caught a fish; nobody called me a fisherman.

I bought a car; nobody called me a racing pilot.

I started a blog; nobody called me a writer.

I calculated the tip at a restaurant; nobody called me a mathematician.

I made a sandwich; nobody called me a cook.

I cleaned a wound; nobody called me a doctor.

I bought a camera; and suddenly I’m a photographer.

Why?

No related posts.