Rude emails - DPChallenge Forums

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

07/28/2010 10:14:54 PM · #1

well if ts spoofed than don't bother, you can block that email address they keep bothering you.

purebabyphotography

07/28/2010 09:45:40 PM · #2

thank you!!! I love finding new boards to be part of!!!! I am checking out the FAQ.... :)

George

Nikon D60

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II

07/28/2010 09:20:54 PM · #3

Originally posted by Simms:

Originally posted by George:

Originally posted by mike_311:
wow, seems like that person is on a mission.

return the favor, sign them up for all kinds of spam email. porn works really, really well :)

[terrible explanation of why not to do it]

[great explanation]

Thanks for explaining it better, it's 4:20 AM here and... nevermind.

/I keed, I keed... it IS 4:20, but that just means I'm tired ;)

ETA: @

purebabyphotography I really like your stuff. Definitely NOT crap. Maybe you'll stay with us a while? Join a challenge or twenty? A few helpful links:
Welcome Center
Official FAQ
"The Unauthorized Beginner's Guide to DPC"

Message edited by author 2010-07-28 21:29:16.

purebabyphotography

07/28/2010 09:19:47 PM · #4

yeah they are on a mission... I have gotten the email 2 times now so far since I posted my ad 30 minutes ago.. what a joke!!!

oh well.... not much I can do

I didn\'t think my work was that horrible...

if you can look at my fanpage.... and tell me what you think... I don\'t think it is....

I don\'t mean to hijack this thread... its just the first one that came up when I goggled the email address

www. facebook. com/ purebabyphotography

without the spaces obviously

Simms

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II

07/28/2010 09:18:17 PM · #5

Originally posted by George:

Originally posted by mike_311:
wow, seems like that person is on a mission.

return the favor, sign them up for all kinds of spam email. porn works really, really well :)

Horrible idea. Anyone can hide their real e-mail address (get any of those @cia.gov emails lately?), so you may be sending spam to someone that doesn't deserve it. I'm willing to bet that this isn't studio1utah.com sending the emails, but someone pretending to be them.

I think this has been proven to be a faked email address - I believe it is an actual address, but it wasnt sent from there. It seems more of a vendetta against Studio1Utah than against the recipients of the email.

George

Nikon D60

07/28/2010 09:13:06 PM · #6

Originally posted by mike_311:

wow, seems like that person is on a mission.

return the favor, sign them up for all kinds of spam email. porn works really, really well :)

Horrible idea. Anyone can hide their real e-mail address (get any of those @cia.gov emails lately?), so you may be sending spam to someone that doesn't deserve it. I'm willing to bet that this isn't studio1utah.com sending the emails, but someone pretending to be them.

Message edited by author 2010-07-28 21:13:44.

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

07/28/2010 08:49:36 PM · #7

wow, seems like that person is on a mission.

return the favor, sign them up for all kinds of spam email. porn works really, really well :)

Message edited by author 2010-07-28 20:50:47.

purebabyphotography

07/28/2010 08:34:11 PM · #8

I am new to this site.... but found it through googling this email address that I received an email from today.

I posted an ad on KSL for newborn photography and this is a reply I got within 5 minutes

Name: Nancy
Email: studio1utah@live.com
Ad Number: 11763802
Ad Title: 40% off newborn portraits

40% off crap is not a good deal

I didn\'t think my stuff was crap... but maybe I am biased because it is my work??

Is this a real person??

Mikec87

Nikon D7000

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

06/22/2010 08:45:08 PM · #9

Hi Maddie. I love your work, way better than me lol! Keep up the great work, ignore Wombats like him. He's a drongo.

david_c

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

06/21/2010 05:38:13 PM · #10

Originally posted by cdrice:

Some say (if you believe many of the blogs/twitterings/etc) there are a growing number of GWC (Guys/Girls With Cameras) posting to various online forums, classified ad sites, etc, etc -- and undercutting "real" photographers by offering free services and/or heavily discounted services.

At what point does a GWC turn in to a "real" photographer? When their prices are too high for your average couple to afford? Once they've shot famous or semi-famous people? I mean, everyone was a GWC at some point. Can you justify charging $4000+ for an event if it's your first paying gig? Not pointing at you specifically, CDR, just responding to a line of reasoning that bugs me to no end.

Message edited by author 2010-06-21 17:38:24.

justamistere

Nikon D3s

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

06/21/2010 05:07:48 PM · #11

Yes some people are rude.

You may not need to support a spouse and 2 kids on your income. In the software and other industries price meant quality. Yes some photo and video software is as good as Adobe's that sell much lower. Many times you do get what you pay for, where higher price equates to better quality. They can afford to hight better skilled and knowledgeable labor.

And I thought Weddings in OH for $1200 were, too low. Average is about 1200 to 1800+ 26 years ago we paid an amateaur wedding photographer to shoot our wedding 24 8x10 and about 100 4x6 35mm size for about $400. Yes I also made an agreement to get all the 4x5 negatives. He said since I was buying enough pictures anyway he would do it for me, but doesn't normally do that.

Normally professional photographers are reluctant to give away photos on a disc. If the customer has a disc they can go to K-Mart and get them printed in off colors or quality and say you did those awful photos for them. Even if you color balance them.

1) You have more control of the results if you print them and edit them. Remember your prints out there are a showcase of your photography.

2) If they have a disc full of prints they don't need to buy any from you.

I saw a wedding photographer in Los Angelos start packages at $10,000 and go down from the highest to lowest, each on a separate page. All the way down to about $1,000. Each describing what they get. The highest included 2 photographers and a vedeographer.

I would start at $5,000 that includes maybe 1 main and 2 smaller albums, the kitchen sink, etc. and go down to the minimum of $1200, in 5-6 package increments.

The biggest stock investment loss in history was Steve Jobs selling off stock a few years ago. He didn't believe in "himself" and his business, which today would be worth really big (billions). He probably could've sold the iPad for $199 and still make a profit. I remember the "Skimming the market" concept from my early business courses in college 20 years ago.

eschelar

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

06/21/2010 07:34:41 AM · #12

Originally posted by battymaddie:

I had a quick look. I applaud your idea of increasing overall quality of pics, but I actually preferred the idea of having the different shoots separated into sections. It felt a lot more organized and more "Pro".

eschelar are you referring to my homepage or my site in general? I have always had the slide show on the front page with several shots, but i just changed my site so now under each section: bridals, engagements, etc there is a slide show of a few images. Do you still think I should have the albums in there?

Perhaps.

I didn't really notice. Before, when I looked at the site, the albums themselves seemed to be a big part of the site and I went straight to them. To me, the random gallery is a less important part of the site. I didn't even notice the sections. Part of that is probably related to A: the font used and B: there are 5 pics across the top, but there are 10 text based sections. They don't match up and my eyes are drawn to the pictures so much I don't notice the words. Probably a customer would be looking a bit harder than me though...

I wouldn't worry too much though, it still looks pretty darned good.

06/15/2010 04:53:15 AM · #13

your body of work speaks for itself
ohhh btw your site is sensational

Thank you! I just used smugmug and edited the html (with help) to customize the site.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II

06/14/2010 01:00:15 PM · #14

eschelar are you referring to my homepage or my site in general? I have always had the slide show on the front page with several shots, but i just changed my site so now under each section: bridals, engagements, etc there is a slide show of a few images. Do you still think I should have the albums in there?

I might suggest that the original link to the Studio 1 site be edited to indicate that they have been vindicated of responsibility, a lot of people read these threads but not everyone reads past the first page.

Good call!

Message edited by author 2010-06-14 13:14:40.

Ter

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

06/14/2010 04:43:39 AM · #15

hi
your body of work speaks for itself
ohhh btw your site is sensational

Message edited by author 2010-06-14 04:49:12.

JimiRose

Nikon D90

Nikon AF-S DX 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR

06/14/2010 04:31:47 AM · #16

I might suggest that the original link to the Studio 1 site be edited to indicate that they have been vindicated of responsibility, a lot of people read these threads but not everyone reads past the first page.

eschelar

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

06/14/2010 03:55:39 AM · #17

I had a quick look. I applaud your idea of increasing overall quality of pics, but I actually preferred the idea of having the different shoots separated into sections. It felt a lot more organized and more "Pro".

Maybe have the thumbnails 2x2 or 2x3 for 4 or 6 shots total for each section.

I think just doing a bit of pruning with the old format would probably be better than this adjustment.

Currently it feels just a bit too random. One second I'm looking at a girl with paint on her face, then a dog, then wedding pics....

It feels more like browsing a gallery for random pics than looking at an advertisement where someone (you) is saying "look at these, they show what I can do to fit your needs".

Each customer is going to only be interested in looking at the type of photos that they will want to have taken, so the album separation is good.

:)

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/13/2010 05:36:16 AM · #18

This is a case where language makes a difference -- I'm sure you mean you've decided to post fewer good pictures and not several "less good" pictures ...

Hahaha I didn't even think about that. Yeah I'm showing fewer good pictures :) Not LESS good pictures ha. Thanks

GeneralE

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

06/13/2010 02:20:27 AM · #19

Originally posted by battymaddie:

I have changed up my website after reading everyone's thoughts. I decided to put slideshows on each page so I show less good pictures ...

This is a case where language makes a difference -- I'm sure you mean you've decided to post fewer good pictures amd not several "less good" pictures ...

06/12/2010 11:01:54 PM · #20

I have changed up my website after reading everyone's thoughts. I decided to put slideshows on each page so I show less good pictures instead of several pretty good pictures. I also reviewed other photographer's pricing and raised mine. What do you think? //www.madelynwphoto.com/

eschelar

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

06/12/2010 01:11:57 AM · #21

I don't think that counts as spoofing though, that's just misrepresenting. Spoofing would be changing the header information in the outgoing email so it looks like it's coming from their actual website or by using a 'special' mail server that does that.

It's not likely a violation of federal law since it's a public account (live.com).

However, it might be possible to get the account shut down for breach of terms of service at live.com and that might be possible.

IMHO, people don't go to this amount of trouble for no reason. My personal guess would be that this is one of the photographers at studio1 who is acting outside of company policy or a disgruntled ex-employee.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/11/2010 10:43:47 PM · #22

Originally posted by Prash:

Originally posted by battymaddie:
So reading from your earlier email, the sender's email did not follow this pattern?

That's correct. The email I got was from: studio1utah@live.com

Glad that's clarified!

So now you can forget about all this and focus on getting the next ribbon/favorite/assignment:-)

Actually, what you probably should do is cooperate with studio 1 to help bust the culprit who is violating Federal law by sending spam while spoofing someone else's address ...

Prash

Nikon D90

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

06/11/2010 09:33:20 PM · #23

Madelyn is actually quite good! She came pretty close to a ribbon:

Originally posted by snaffles:

Originally posted by battymaddie:
Glad that's clarified!

So now you can forget about all this and focus on getting the next ribbon/favorite/assignment:-)

...Maybe someday I'll ribbon on here, but for now I'm happy getting comments and making friends :)

Great attitude to have, esp for here, and you will learn so much about photography in the process. And as for the ribbon thing? Well no reason why you couldn't, stranger things have been known to happen! ;-)

snaffles

Nikon D7100

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

06/11/2010 08:07:31 PM · #24

Originally posted by battymaddie:

Glad that's clarified!

So now you can forget about all this and focus on getting the next ribbon/favorite/assignment:-)

...Maybe someday I'll ribbon on here, but for now I'm happy getting comments and making friends :)

Great attitude to have, esp for here, and you will learn so much about photography in the process. And as for the ribbon thing? Well no reason why you couldn't, stranger things have been known to happen! ;-)