March 06, 2015, 11:39:23 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Jay Khaos

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 14
You have to keep in mind when you call support, their minimum wage people dont give a S___ about you—and probably dont care about Canon beyond receiving their paycheck.  Of course there might be some outliers, but in general if you go in from this POV you'll get better results.

I would have called back mentioning that their must have been a mistake and that you need help.  Acting frustrated, making threats, asking for managers, pointing fingers and name dropping how much gear or how long you've been a customer isn't going to get you far.  It's just pointless, and they hear it all day.  (I assume you must have mentioned all your L glass, like you did in this post)  At that point, you've only guaranteed that they will refuse to do anything for you that they dont absolutely have to do.  Instead, act concerned about the issue and come at it from the POV that you are relieved to be in contact with the rep and be thankful whenever they do say anything helpful (because everyone likes feel accomplished—especially phone reps, since its a break from the 95% of angry callers).  You might even get them offering up solutions you didnt know were possible if you play your cards well enough.

I'm not saying dont be mad—I would be too.  But when you show it you get no where (I can speak from experience there lol).

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What is 20,000 shutter clicks worth?
« on: August 13, 2013, 11:10:18 AM »
With that much money, why not get a NEW 5D III from authourized dealer ;)

I thought I was the only one thinking this...  +1

Even if 20K clicks is nothing... for me, the deceptive listing justifies asking for a refund.  Something to the effect of "Given your shutter count (the most important factor in considering a used camera) is higher by over double what your listing claims, I propose that....etc"  I'd probably make a subtle hint that you plan on reporting/leaving negative feedback if they don't agree to credit you a reasonable difference.

The fact is, if you DON'T know the actual shutter count, dont make one up.  Even if it's an innocent mistake—it's still the seller's mistake and he has to be left accountable for destroying his own credibility and the piece of mind of the buyer.  And now the buyer is responsible for shipping a 10lb package and being out thousands of dollars in the bank for something they didnt even want in the first place.  I say you deserve a credit (do it by issuing the seller an invoice through PayPal and be clear about what it's for).  If you decide to return it, I say the seller should be responsible for taking it back without hassle and comping you the return shipping.  I've done that on eBay as a seller when I made a mistake in the listing...

Street & City / Re: Reprimanded for a photograph
« on: August 09, 2013, 01:41:43 PM »
I know everyone loves to jump on the "americans are ignorant fatasses" bandwagon because it's easier than making a rational argument.... but come here to Orlando, FL (Disney and all of the parks/resorts) and tell me westerners are the only ones who are ignorant to foreign cultures and norms... Youll find easterners and europeans by the boatload portraying a bunch of lame stereotypes commonly associated with their own cultures that probably don't pertain to the average person where they are from...

I like the photo and I like it even more knowing there is controversy or risk of injury in getting it... Fuck that lady's ankle (jk lol)...

Lenses / Re: canon 50mm 1.4 vs 1.2
« on: August 09, 2013, 01:10:38 PM »
I think where others are impressed with the 1.2's picture over the 1.4, you will be left underwhelmed since you already own the 85 1.2.

Street & City / Re: Reprimanded for a photograph
« on: August 09, 2013, 10:09:35 AM »
An ankle shot in Dubai is like a full nude in NYC...

Key & Peele: Karim and Jahar

Lenses / TS-E 90mm f2.8 photos???
« on: August 08, 2013, 02:16:50 PM »
Anything shot with the TS-E 90mm?  Would be cool to know the settings used if you can recall them...

Lenses / Re: 40mm f2.8 STM - Lens Hood?
« on: August 08, 2013, 12:47:52 PM »

Putting a hood on 40mm pancake?

You guys are taking the beauty out of this baby :-\

What's the real amount of protection you get with this anyway? Think of the amount of ways the lens could actually be impacted and saved by a 8mm lip that protrudes less than the actual distance from the glass to where the hood starts...  I mean, you'd have to hit literally hit a surface exactly head on and even then, is it really any more protected than it is without the hood?

And what light source is it going to protect from flare?  A laser thin strip of light coming in from almost perpendicular to the lens surface?

Id be interested to see if something so seemingly insignificant really makes a difference.  A before and after shot would be awesome...

Lenses / Re: lens vs. body
« on: August 07, 2013, 11:30:46 AM »
Hard decision..........

Personally, I would go for the 5DIII... especially for the ~$2500 price.  And especially if you're keeping the 60D as well—you would essentially be upping your range AND getting some potential out of the 24-70 on FF.

Then again... the 70-200 mkii is beastly.  Especially if you shoot in it's range (crop range?) a lot.  And there are the new bodies coming out within the next year too...

Canon General / Re: Photographer logo?
« on: August 06, 2013, 10:16:27 PM »
Do ya'll have opinion one way or the other....regarding having your NAME as part of your business name and logo?

Do you feel it is better to put your first and last (or one or the other) as part of your company name, or do you feel it is better to have a company name that is not your name?

You think it is better to have Joe Shmoe Photography, or better to maybe have XYZ Photography, and maybe on your images  have something like "XYZ Photography by Joe Shmoe"....

Just curious. I'm a bit of a privacy concious person, I don't do facebook, twitter..etc.

However, I would consider possibly having a FB account, but I'd rather ONLY put company info there and leave my name out of, wondering if ya'll see that as a negative affect on a business...or does it make any difference whatsoever?

Thanks in advance,


I think a name is good for a photography brand.  Depends on the name I suppose.  You might solve your dilemma by using an alias, as opposed to your real name or the usual "[insert fancy adjective] Photography".  You have the freedom to choose exactly the name you want... plan a seo-friendly URL, plan something that won't leave you being forced to use horizontal AND vertical versions AND alternative/simplified versions...

Canon General / Re: Photographer logo?
« on: August 06, 2013, 12:55:43 PM »
The copyright thing is kind of a big misconception.  Anything created by anyone is technically copyrighted, but that doesn't mean much.  Having raw files or design files is the only way you can prove it's yours, and even then, good luck doing something about the stolen image unless it was stolen by a company in your country and used for gain, or posted on a legitimate website that will take it down once you can prove it's yours... and in both of those situations, having the copyright doesn't legally do anything or help you.  The only time adding a legal mark will help you is if you've paid to register something with a trademark.
I agree with your general statement. I have a good friend who is an IP/Patent attorney and he said its a friggen nightmare and that my best bet, is to put MY name with the year on my images. Then of course have a copy of the RAW files and that's about the best you can do without going whole hog like corporations and full businesses do. Hence the "poor-man's copyright" comment. Its kinda like the old idea of coming up with a concept, writing it all down and snail-mailing it to yourself in a sealed envelope that you'd only ever open in front of a judge with the US Post Mark date on the front. /shrug

I don't have experience with challenging a stolen photo online, but I do have experience with other digital content.  I make and sell 3D content in an online game.  People buy it directly from my account.  Hackers can copy (pirate) the content and resell it or give it away under their own name.  I can fill out DMCA paperwork along with screenshots of the items in the 3D software, and the game company will remove the pirated items from circulation and delete the accounts that were responsible. BUT, they cant really stop people from exporting the files as XML and posting them to third party forums where others can download and import them back into the game... that would be up to the forum domain owner

Basically it's up to whoever is in charge to enforce it... for example, flickr would take someone's photo down if you posted it first and report them.  A friend of mine had her portfolio listings on removed without notice because the company they were designed for found them and decided to file a DMCA complaint since the designs she posted weren't the final versions signed off on... even though she did make them... and in that situation it was Behance who honored the complaint and removed it, not any kind of law enforcer...

Canon General / Re: Photographer logo?
« on: August 06, 2013, 10:19:14 AM »
This is a great thread btw! I've been looking to improve my logo / watermark but as I'm not a graphic designer I haven't got a clue where to begin. I just use a simple font with white text in the corner. I tried googling my watermark and it came up with a few hits from an old website I hardly use. Looks like there are loads of folk using the same name as me! Should I change it? I like the idea of a logo though rather than text. Seems more recognizable.

I don't think there's anything wrong with not having a symbol.  Although on the other hand it could be appropriate for you (depending on your name, URL, etc).  I would only suggest making the decision to add one with a good reason.  It's always good to be recognizable, but you can accomplish that through making the actual font unique.  But at the end of the day, people will remember the name more than a fancy/clever illustration.

The only symbol I've seen in a logo that seems appropriate enough, simple, and consistently non-obtrusive against different subjects is the cliche aperture blade one.  Like Lewis said, that's way over done... so attempting it would probably fall flat as a logo unless you can come up with an equally as simple, but new/creative/clean rendition of it

Canon General / Re: Photographer logo?
« on: August 06, 2013, 10:09:20 AM »
The copyright thing is kind of a big misconception.  Anything created by anyone is technically copyrighted, but that doesn't mean much.  Having raw files or design files is the only way you can prove it's yours, and even then, good luck doing something about the stolen image unless it was stolen by a company in your country and used for gain, or posted on a legitimate website that will take it down once you can prove it's yours... and in both of those situations, having the copyright doesn't legally do anything or help you.  The only time adding a legal mark will help you is if you've paid to register something with a trademark.

Here is mine, the simple type "caslux". 
It's not 100% finalized.  I have yet to watermark any photo Ive taken.  I may do something different with the C, but my thinking is:

I do branding/identity design every day, so part of my motivation was to NOT do what I'd normally do that clients normally expect... no monogram, no conceptual icon... just a simple font thats only unique enough to separate itself from the most common slab fonts but no extra, unecessary elements.  Basically the extreme of what I preach to clients.  Clients think minimal means they are getting less for their money, usually. The work becomes presenting the logo.. so this kind of just helps my argument for simplicity and lets me demonstrate the flexibility of having a minimal logo.

In use, the logo will be used alongside photos and graphic design.  Keeping the type this simple (and greyscale), lets the logo remain non-distractive to the subject, and works regardless of the theme/tone/color palette of the subject.  It can also be incorporated easily with other elements

Canon General / Re: Photographer logo?
« on: August 05, 2013, 01:47:12 PM »
My logo can be seen as my avatar, its basically a f and b ;) in my pix I also add a Photography font underneath. I like to blend it into the remaining picture so that it does not disturb the viewer, and make it only so big that you can easily read it when you watch the pic at 100% size, like here for example.

Considering this one includes a symbol, name/URL and "photography" I like how you keep it drawn back... secondary to the photos.  The photo of the girl is awesome btw

The key thing to remind folks is that while a creative logo can stand out, unless it is easily entered into google to find you, it's more or less worthless.  Lots of script/signature logos can be too hard to translate.  My line is Sal Cincotta's - and that he does it in white against a black background means I can't post it here and have it show up...

This is my theory as well... It's true that you may get a potential search online, but is one possible client worth 1000+ (or way more) people seeing a watermarked photo versus a clean one??  I guess it all depends on the content and how and where it is being used.  If it's client work for a fast-talking small business owner, I'll take every measure to make sure nothing can be stolen before it's purchased lol....

Canon General / Re: Photographer logo?
« on: August 05, 2013, 10:55:49 AM »
Since your post is likely to open up a floodgate of logo=good/logo=bad flame throwing, I'm hoping that the naysayers can skip over this one and let others answer your most important question here. "What makes a good logo?" 

I'm not a design guy, but a good logo would be simple and uniquely you. If people have to think about it, it hasn't done it's job. When it's on a photo, it's noticeable but unobtrusive. I've seen several excellent photographers pull this off nicely.

That said, my logo is simply my website name in a certain font.

Yeah... I tried to word the question as open-minded sounding as possible to hopefully avoid negativity.  I'm a designer first, photographer second (that's what I like to think anyway...), so that's why I was interested if there are any trends or photography-specific things people think need to be considered. 

I agree with you about simplicity and unobtrusiveness.  It's a hard thing to discuss open-mindedly or advise on, especially with friends/aquaintances, and especially when someone has designed their own logo and already received rave compliments from friends and family about it.  Personally, I get a little excited when I come across someone who is negative about my design or photography (even if its trolling)... if I can pull knowledge from it, anyway

Canon General / Photographer logo?
« on: August 05, 2013, 10:10:48 AM »
Would anyone like to share their logo, how you use it, and/or what you think makes a good logo for a photographer (and why)?

Opinions on watermarking photos with logos?

I've discussed this with friends and it's a topic that not many seem to agree on so it would be interesting to get an opinion from all different shooters, skills levels, brands etc...

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 14