You missed his entire thesis. Give away the photography to the brides, charge the second shooters for the privilege of working for him. So while the bride is getting it for free - he is still making money from the second shooters that are willing to pay for the experience. A real life workshop so to speak.

To be clear, personally, I think this is one of the stupidest ideas I have seen come down the pike, and the fact that there are so many here that think it is a reasonable proposition, says a ton about the lack of professionalism that exists in the industry.

But that is exactly what he is looking for. And then hoping they are dumb enough to pay him to teach them.

Personally I hate Adobe products and the whole idea of subscription. They screwed me big time on the initial package. So when I say that Lightroom is still my go to program for photographs, it says something about what it can actually do. The biggest advantages - import presets that you can build that will do probably 90% of your editing without even looking at the images. Key wording so that you can find an image that you took 10 years ago with a quick search. Smart collections that allow you to automatically group photos from across your catalogs by just about any criteria you want to create. For example I have time based smart collections that allow me to look at all photos taken today, yesterday, this week, last week, this month, last month, this year, last year. By catagories - sports for all sports, or by type of sport. It takes a bit to realize the power of this feature, but my catalog has over 500,000 images in it and I can find any specific image in seconds.

I think the exposure compensation not working in manual - is camera dependent. It works just fine on my D300 and D200.

It is not manual if you are using auto ISO. That is still auto exposure. You are just deciding to let the camera determine the ISO instead of determining the shutter speed when you use aperture priority, or determining the aperture when you use shutter priority.

that is simply wrong.

Maybe you should be thinking about digging your head out of where it is firmly planted and instead breath fresh air.

Here is a secret about official reports - they always say what the person paying for the report wants them to say. You always need to go back to the terms of reference that the report was created under. For a local example. We have a small river here in our semi-arid part of the plains. The government commissioned a report to determine just how much land in the area could be irrigated. assuming an unlimited supply of water. It was 100's of thousands of acres, and it had all the farmers wide eyed and tongue drolling over all that prospected land that is only good enough to raise cows on, becoming a rich paradise under irrigation, if we just built the dam. Here's the catch - that unlimited supply of water doesn't exist. In another report (god forbid you put facts together in a single report) you have the actual capacity of the dam. No where in that report does it mention how many acres can be irrigated. To get that number you have to go back to the first report - and then do the math with the actual amount of water that could be supplied by the damn.

The result - those 100's of thousands of acres actually come down to a little over 10,000 acres and that was with a total yearly draw down on the dam. That means that it would fill up to be a lake in the spring, but by the end of summer, it would be empty. Then you take out a map, and look at where that land is, and who owns it. Would you be surprised to learn - it was owned by the very politician pushing for the creation of the dam?

But there were more reports - one dealing with the potential for recreational use of the dam. We have boating, and fishing, and swimming, and all sorts of potential. Again the terms of reference for the report specifically said, to assume that the dam would be at full volume all of the time. Well that 100% draw down of the dam from irrigation would give you a body of water that varied by 90 vertical feet through the year. So those boat docks that are at the edge of the water when full, are nothing but mud flats by the middle of the summer.

It goes on and on. Each repot being accurate in relation to its terms of reference - but a total pile of shit when looked at in totality.

The point - climate change is nothing but a bunch of useless reports that don't deal with all of the facts in totality. Just follow the money to who is commission the reports and why. Yes, the climate changes - it has been changing for billions of years. We are still coming out of the last ice age, and if history repeats itself we will be going back into another ice age at some point in the future. Man has nothing to do with any of it, and there is nothing that man can do to change it. Pollution and climate change are not equal, and one does not cause the other.

Examples of inaccuracy's of the report are evident right in the first paragraph. Where it states that average temperatures have risen rapidly and drastically since 1980. That alarming statement - right at the start of the report - can be easily proven false by a Grade 5 science class. Where I live, I have a neighbour that has been recording the daily weather since 1908 when the grandfather first moved onto the homestead. That is over 100 years of records from one spot. And it doesnt' take much effort to see that the local weather follows a 30 year cycle, and that temperatures today have not increased rapidly and drastically since the 80's.

All you need to do is go back to when Gore made his onerous predictions of what the world would look like today - to realize just how full of shit his predictions were. But he continues making them because he makes 10's of millions of dollars from pushing the whole climate change story.

Much of the predictions are based on computer models where the model is flawed in some basic forms, and the predictions from the models have never been corretct. Which is what happens when you feed garbage into a computer - you get garbage out.

And again just picking from this story - they are quoating a political science professor - what the fuck does she actually know about weather. It is just more proof that the whole thing is politically motivated for a political conclusion. Not a scientific conclusion.

I know you were being facetious in your response. But actually 6MP is all you need for just about most photographic needs. I've printed murals that are 16 feet high by 90 feet long from a file that is only 3000 pixels wide. And no they don't have grain the size of volleyballs, and hold fine detail. And high ISO - that isn't a real necessity. Look at all the great work that was done from the days when 64 ISO was considered high speed. Frame rate - same thing. It's more a crutch for poor timing than it is a necessity for learning to time your shots.

Lightroom would make simple work of this. In addition it would allow you to keyword files for other data such as location, who or what is in the photo, etc. In addition, if you don't want to play with moving the files, it allows you to search your entire catalog by specific date, and it doesn't matter where the particular file is stored.

You know part of what needs to be known is what 3-4 lenses are you talking about. Something that will carry a 600 f4 is quite different than something that only needs to hold a 80-200 f4

well you might. But it will be an interesting view as the cat chews away on your body

cell phones impact the point and shoot market, not the DSLR market.

That's why I don't trust any cloud service at all. Free or not. It puts your work in a third party hands who's got no loyalty to you. If they go bankrupt, sold, close, etc. your work is gone. And it's happened more than once. So hard drives are cheap.

Other pics with the back showing?

From the wing shape it belongs to the accipiter family of hawks. The Cooper's Hawk is a member of that family and is found in Louisiana. The back is Blue Grey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper%27s_hawk the dark white bands on the tail are consistent with Cooper Hawk.