Do you make a living as a wedding photographer?

http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Funny. I tried viewing your site at work. Look at what the smart
content filter brought back.

Access denied by SmartFilter content category
The requested URL belongs to the following categoriesNudityPornography.

On 2005-12-06 16:53:53 -0800, said:


http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Funny. I tried viewing your site at work. Look at what the smart
content filter brought back.

Access denied by SmartFilter content category
The requested URL belongs to the following categoriesNudityPornography.

Funny, indeed - I tried the site and found nothing pornographic on
it.....mostly wedding pictures....

PC

wrote in message
oups.com...

http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Funny. I tried viewing your site at work. Look at what the smart
content filter brought back.

Access denied by SmartFilter content category
The requested URL belongs to the following categoriesNudityPornography.

Yep, that's why we're moving the fine art section off of the overall
website. I had some images published in "How to Photograph the Nude," which
of course, I note in my Bio, and there are some nudes on the site, since
that is what I've shown in galleries. I do so love the knee jerk connection
between "nude" and "pornography" in these United States...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

DD wrote:

I looked at a few US Wedding photographers sites and the average price
for a wedding seems to run at about $2,500 per date. Assuming the
photographer books a minimum of 4 shoots of this nature per month, that
rounds out at $10k gross. Take off about 25% for costs (being generous
here given the output that seems to be offered) the "average" wedding
photographer should be grossing in the region of $7,500 per month. Is
that not an above average income for working only a few days per month?

Your estimate of expenses is woefully low, and your estimate of time
spent working is laughably low.

Charge $2500 for a wedding, and do it well, and you're barely scraping by.

This thread is not intended to be about whether you are good enough or
whether you can deal with people. I am interested in the financial
aspects of running a wedding photography business ONLY.

You might as well be interested in the financial aspects of being a plumber,
if you're going to compare what they charge to what a person makes in a
normal salary. That has very little to do with running a business.

--
Jeremy |

What a shame to have to move those images off the website. Your work is
about as obscene as the sculptures in Greece and Rome. By the time
the"arts police" get finished we will have every sculpture or print
look like a tour inside the Vatican...Photoshop a fig leaf on
everything. This certainly ain't the age of enlightenment.

"uw wayne" wrote in message
ups.com...
What a shame to have to move those images off the website. Your work is
about as obscene as the sculptures in Greece and Rome. By the time
the"arts police" get finished we will have every sculpture or print
look like a tour inside the Vatican...Photoshop a fig leaf on
everything. This certainly ain't the age of enlightenment.

Actually, I've been considering pitching this to the ACLU, it is a clear
abridgement of my right to free speech. I admit that businesses have a
right to limit access to the internet from company owned computers, but that
limitation should be to all non business related sites, not just ones that
the management deems "unacceptable."

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Proconsul wrote:
On 2005-12-06 16:53:53 -0800, said:


http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


Funny. I tried viewing your site at work. Look at what the smart
content filter brought back.

Access denied by SmartFilter content category
The requested URL belongs to the following categoriesNudityPornography.


Funny, indeed - I tried the site and found nothing pornographic on
it.....mostly wedding pictures....

PC


Google SmartFilter & find out how it selects sites for its databases.

Then go back and really look around the Shadow Catcher site.

Click on the link for "Fine Art", you'll find the WORD "nudes", which is
apparently sufficient to get them black-listed as a porn site.

uw wayne wrote:

What a shame to have to move those images off the website. Your work is
about as obscene as the sculptures in Greece and Rome. By the time
the"arts police" get finished we will have every sculpture or print
look like a tour inside the Vatican...Photoshop a fig leaf on
everything. This certainly ain't the age of enlightenment.


FWIW the censorware lists also block pictures of those Greek & Roman
sculptures. The Vatican's art collection too.

In article Deslf.115$6N2.113@fed1read06, "Skip M"
wrote:

Actually, I've been considering pitching this to the ACLU

Aw, Skip.

Finally, after all this time you finally posted something I disagree with. I
wouldn't touch the ACLU with a 10-ft pole. In fact, I consider it a rather
urgent priority that the organization be DE-funded.

it is a clear abridgement of my right to free speech.

I respectfully disagree.

That the provider of computer on-line services blocks access to your website
isn't even a MURKY, much less CLEAR, infringement of your right to free speech.

I admit that businesses have a right to limit access to the internet from
company owned computers, but that limitation should be to all non business
related sites, not just ones that the management deems "unacceptable."

Again, I disagree.

It has become sound business practice to restrict or deny access to particular
sites and domains OUTSIDE the business's intRAnet. Among other things, this
helps keep non-business consumption of bandwidth (resources) in check.

A good friend is IT geek at a local, VERY prominent university. Back when
Napster was going strong, the U kept adding T1 connections ($$$$$etc) only to
see the bandwidth promptly consumed by ever more dormitory downloaders. Some
time later, the school installed a software "throttle" that, quite literally,
throttled-back the bandwidth to a configurable list of sites and domains. DLs
from Napster slowed to a VERY leisurely pace. You'll notice they did not DENY
access. Rather, they just assigned a higher priority on bandwidth used to
access university sites.

That access to your fine site was blocked by some software package certainly
isn't surprising, particularly if the word "nude" is on the first/banner page.
Back in the BBS days, I had to make special accommodations on my board to
allow access to my daughter's boyfriend. His surname is Mitchell. You'll
notice it has "hell" in the word. Yep. It tripped-up the mostly brain-dead
"objectionable language" interception process for new sign-ups.

I wrote a simple email to my wife at her work. It was to advise that I had
transferred funds between our checking accounts. The Subject was "Money
Transferred". The message was temporarily intercepted by their anti-spam
routines. I can only assume it was due to the word "money" in the Subject.
(As in Make Money Fast, I guess.)

In days past, one could encode their HTML so that email addresses on web pages
were coded in hex. This apparently camouflaged the email address so web
crawlers didn't catch it for spam purposes. I suppose the same thing could be
done for words such as "nude" (etc). Whether doing that TODAY would elude the
type of software that blocked your site for the OP is unknown.

How do you like your 5D? (Topical, right? grin)


JR

"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
...
In article Deslf.115$6N2.113@fed1read06, "Skip M"

wrote:

Actually, I've been considering pitching this to the ACLU

Aw, Skip.

Finally, after all this time you finally posted something I disagree with.
I
wouldn't touch the ACLU with a 10-ft pole. In fact, I consider it a
rather
urgent priority that the organization be DE-funded.

Nah, this country is in desperate need of a devil's advocate, if nothing
else...

it is a clear abridgement of my right to free speech.

I respectfully disagree.

That the provider of computer on-line services blocks access to your
website
isn't even a MURKY, much less CLEAR, infringement of your right to free
speech.

Well, actually, I was really thinking of some government systems that had
blocked access to our site, rather than a business one, but, in a way, it's
the same.

I admit that businesses have a right to limit access to the internet
from
company owned computers, but that limitation should be to all non
business
related sites, not just ones that the management deems "unacceptable."

Again, I disagree.

It has become sound business practice to restrict or deny access to
particular
sites and domains OUTSIDE the business's intRAnet. Among other things,
this
helps keep non-business consumption of bandwidth (resources) in check.

That's what I meant, it should relate to websites that don't pertain to the
business, not just ones that say "nude" somewhere on it.

A good friend is IT geek at a local, VERY prominent university. Back when
Napster was going strong, the U kept adding T1 connections ($$$$$etc) only
to
see the bandwidth promptly consumed by ever more dormitory downloaders.
Some
time later, the school installed a software "throttle" that, quite
literally,
throttled-back the bandwidth to a configurable list of sites and domains.
DLs
from Napster slowed to a VERY leisurely pace. You'll notice they did not
DENY
access. Rather, they just assigned a higher priority on bandwidth used to
access university sites.

That access to your fine site was blocked by some software package
certainly
isn't surprising, particularly if the word "nude" is on the first/banner
page.
Back in the BBS days, I had to make special accommodations on my board to
allow access to my daughter's boyfriend. His surname is Mitchell. You'll
notice it has "hell" in the word. Yep. It tripped-up the mostly
brain-dead
"objectionable language" interception process for new sign-ups.

I wrote a simple email to my wife at her work. It was to advise that I
had
transferred funds between our checking accounts. The Subject was "Money
Transferred". The message was temporarily intercepted by their anti-spam
routines. I can only assume it was due to the word "money" in the
Subject.
(As in Make Money Fast, I guess.)

In days past, one could encode their HTML so that email addresses on web
pages
were coded in hex. This apparently camouflaged the email address so web
crawlers didn't catch it for spam purposes. I suppose the same thing
could be
done for words such as "nude" (etc). Whether doing that TODAY would elude
the
type of software that blocked your site for the OP is unknown.

How do you like your 5D? (Topical, right? grin)


JR

Absolutely love it! I'm rediscovering lenses that I'd pretty much quit
shooting with on my 20D, like my 100mm f2. And the image quality is just
short of stunning!
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com