Everyone, without exception will get conned in one way or the other, some share it with others, some prefers to keep to themself. Some got BIG damage ( e.g. LEHman bros ), while some suffer with small dent ( like this case ).
Most CSer take for granted that all who participate in this forum are well verse with photography and its related trade and etc, however, much is not true.
The $1.65K is obviously not equally distributed, I would have figure it most likely this guy Joseph, conned the TS, the photographer and may includes the model who pose for the styling.
The photographer skill / knowledge is incompetent for this simple product shot. The cross shadows are the tell tale. Not to mention the poorly maintained camera. The styling sucks too.
With a properly equipped studio, one light will do the job ( and do it well ).
An overhead softbox /bank lighting measuring 1.2 x 1.5 m in size, tilt at around 45 degree towards the camera. Camers will be heavily hooded.
A cyclindrical white veneer sheet wraps around subject from camera lens position with an aperture hole for camera to shoot thro, that's all it needs.
It will produce very soft shadow wrap round lighting effect, and combining small aperture, very hi-difinition image will result.
But with such facilities, charges will be more likely in the region of $2.5~$3.0k.
Time frame most probably will be a days work, given the amount of shoes and styling.
As for record, I think this thread has got the most Moderators interested / involved.
Last edited by cabbySHE; 16th June 2010 at 02:09 AM.
Like to offer a suggestion...
is it possible to start a section on..." Black sheep of the family "
with all these " proven " wrong doers listed ?
There's an example.
Really.. >50% of newbies can do better shots then the one posted.
PS: the comment is not valid for AD where there is no retake or 2nd chance.......
Last edited by Limsgp; 16th June 2010 at 09:06 AM.
Actually I believe the editor is out to con from the outset. I think he never ever intended to deliver a good product shoot. Studio was probably rented. Photographer was probably some casual hobbyist who don't know better. Model was probably some wanna-be (looking at the condition of her legs, and how she poses, I doubt she is a professional leg/feet model). My guess is editor made off with most of the money. Giving the photographer and "model" some token allowance.
Hey guys, found a link, duno whether its him.
here ***deleted by mod*****
John and Joseph Hong
Last edited by chngpe01; 16th June 2010 at 10:03 AM.
I emailed this guy to give him a chance to hear his side of the story and respond..... his 2 email replies to me
I am not interested in settling the thread bec the persons concerned didn't
know the legality of the situation.
And, I am not wasting my time with the matter. They can say what they like I
don't want to waste my time defending myself but they better watch what they
say all this time before I start a legal suit against them.
Just to let them know that I have spoken to my lawyer and will commence
legal action against them if they don't stop the threads. The only thing
that is stopping me from taking legal action is that the sum involved is too
small for me to pursue the matter legally.
Anyway, I am not interested in the matter, they can say what they like.
I m not going to waste my time defending myself when she should have claimed
for the amount of money she paid for digital imaging work. Her claim is
fraudulent and she should stop her rattling before I go to the police and to
the courts to sue her.
I think as moderator you should put a stop to the rattling by the woman,
Angeline of Lavena shoes. I state categorically her claim are fraudulent and
it should have been set aside. I just don't want to waste my time doing this
at the Small Claims Tribunal bec it is an utter waste of time.
Anyway, I also thank her for driving traffic to my website, I am going full
steam generating revenue for my site!!!!
Last edited by ed9119; 16th June 2010 at 10:19 AM.
shaddap and just shoot .... up close