I was in retail for many years, on both the wholesale and retail ends. Generally, I purchased an item at wholesale and doubled it for retail. Those who bought items from me at wholesale doubled it for retail. When I sold to places that then resold to retailers, I had to discount my price by 30%. Example, an item sold for $3 to wholesalers, $5 to retailers, and $10 to the public. Your set price should allow you to make a small profit if sold to wholesalers (because they buy in volume, it is often a profitable way to go), a reasonable on if sold to retailers, and a nice one if you go to a show and are selling the item yourself at retail. Do not plan to sell at less than "suggested retail" if you sell an item yourself - retailers quickly learn who is undercutting them to the public and would quickly stop buying from you. What a retailer choses to sell an item for is up to them.
Hope that helps.

For making lead bullets?

It is unfortunate, and adds to the divisiveness between those who see photography only in a journalistic regard and others who consider it as an art form. Surely it is both. We need to be careful about reading the requirements for competition.

Barb


Here is a link you should find informative:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/539279/photographer-loses-10k-crown-claims-editing-not-major



For those who prefer not to click to the link, the article includes the following (in a larger article):

Byrne has since said he did not read the rules, admitting that he digitally added clouds and 'cloned out small details' on a b&w image of Lindisfarne Castle in Northumberland which triumphed over thousands of other entries.

.....
Certain image editing, including HDR and the ‘joining together of multiple frames', is allowed in all categories.

But, competition rules state that for ‘Classic view' - the section in which Byrne's image had been entered - ‘the integrity of the subject must be maintained and the making of physical changes to the landscape is not permitted'.

Banned editing procedures include removal of fences, moving trees and stripping in sky from another image.

Byrne's triumphant photo had drawn stinging criticism from photographers online.

...

Disqualifying the winner, competition founder Charlie Waite said on 2 November: ‘This is extremely regrettable and it appears there was no deliberate intention to deceive the judges.

.....

Byrne admitted: ‘Unfortunately, I did not read the regulations and certain editing, such as adding clouds and cloning out small details, is not allowed.'

Writing on his website after being stripped of his title, he said: ‘While I don't think what I have done to the photo is wrong in any way, I do understand it's against the regulations so accept the decision. I apologise for any inconvenience caused.'

...
Charlie Waite added: ‘The integrity of the competition is very important to all involved and it was clear that disqualification was the only course of action open to us.

‘We will be reviewing our checking processes to ensure that such issues are picked up earlier in the judging process for 2013 and beyond.'

How were the judges unfair? The rules said not to add any elements. It was discovered that elements were added. Why was the disqualification unfair?

It is a lovely photograph. Perhaps it was the wrong contest in which to enter it?

The photographer apologized. The rules did say that nothing could be added to the image, and he added clouds and some other elements. Lovely picture, but he did not follow the rules.

What if the two boat hull were not on the same beach, and he inserted one and cloned the background to allow the two hulls to appear in the same image? Without saying what the Photoshopping was, the questions will continue. I think rightly so. It is a beautiful image, but perhaps contests need to define what a photograph is. Is a photograph a capture of a spot in a moment in time? Or was this image purely art - the image, how it evokes an emotion in the viewer? I think there is room for both, but the contests should state whether both are welcome and what the qualifications are.

Really stunning piece! Very impressive - thanks for sharing it.

Excellent. Thanks for sharing!

I specifically asked Apple if Windows (run via Parallels) became infected by a virus, would it affect my Mac or just the Windows application. They said it would affect only the Windows programs - viruses targeting Windows do not affect Mac. But, your Windows and Windows based software could be badly affected. So, I do not connect to the internet when running Windows software. (The only program I need to run on Windows is for a volunteer organization.)

These are AWESOME!

I think it is not the equipment that makes the art, it is the photographer. Dewitt Jones takes great photos, using all kinds of equipment.

"The law IS the law until someone changes it, however it can be changed by any judge that disagrees with previous interpretations of the law - and this is one of those cases. That is precisely why lawyers have myriads of clerks, interns and paralegals examining books and other court records in search of precedents. This is why the only legal solution is an attorney who specializes in this field and can argue case law versus legislated law."[/quote]

NO. A law does NOT get changed by a JUDGE. Judges may rule in a defendant's favor for individual cases, and may set precedents that other judges may also use for similar rulings, but they do not MAKE LAWS, the MAKE RULINGS.

Lovely light. Great shot. Thanks for sharing, Bekkie.
Barb

The pop-up flash does not show in my metadata.

Try taking a subject (similar to the one shown, subject clearly standing out in front of background) with force flash off on the camera, or cover the flash. Then take a picture with the pop-up flash. Compare the two shots (both visually and metadata). Does the flash show in the metadata? You should see a definite difference in the two shots visually.

Hmm. No pop-up flash, either? Well, a mystery, then!