# My Trash The Dress session is up!



## i Kandi Photography (Sep 21, 2009)

I posted about a TTD session a few weeks ago and we did the shoot yesterday. This girl was married for 8 months and is in the process of a divorce, so she was excited to trash her dress, not to mention that her 1 yr anniversary would have been today so she was that much more excited to never see the dress again. We shot for about 5 hours (longest shoot ever besides a Wedding) but we captured some great shots. I have them up in my client proofing. I know a few of you wanted me to post them. I still have a million more to go through, but this is enough for now. Go to www.ikandiphotography.com Client proofing and the password is - ttd
Would love your feedback! This was my first time shooting something like this and I think its my new favorite thing to shoot!


----------



## Randall Ellis (Sep 21, 2009)

Not to nitpick, but do you have written permission to use that audio? You should be cautious in your use of copyrighted audio just as with copyrighted images - the RIAA is not overly friendly about that sort of thing...

- Randy


----------



## i Kandi Photography (Sep 21, 2009)

Randall Ellis said:


> Not to nitpick, but do you have written permission to use that audio? You should be cautious in your use of copyrighted audio just as with copyrighted images - the RIAA is not overly friendly about that sort of thing...
> 
> - Randy


 
Seriously? Do you send that note to everyone with a website that has music? Don't know if it makes a difference, but I purchased the download.
*** Out of curiosity, when your puchase music from another site, does it make it legal?? And if not, is all music on websites downloaded illegally? Never looked into that much


----------



## jcblitz (Sep 21, 2009)

i Kandi Photography said:


> Randall Ellis said:
> 
> 
> > Not to nitpick, but do you have written permission to use that audio? You should be cautious in your use of copyrighted audio just as with copyrighted images - the RIAA is not overly friendly about that sort of thing...
> ...



What license was the music you purchased released under? Even if it was CC (I don't know the song, don't have speakers), it's a violation of the terms. 

http://creativecommons.org/choose/music


----------



## Soocom1 (Sep 21, 2009)

How to Use Music You Don&#8217;t Own &#8211; The Legal Way | THE Work At Home Guide

BTW.. nice shots.... The dude was stupid to drop her.


----------



## Randall Ellis (Sep 21, 2009)

i Kandi Photography said:


> Randall Ellis said:
> 
> 
> > Not to nitpick, but do you have written permission to use that audio? You should be cautious in your use of copyrighted audio just as with copyrighted images - the RIAA is not overly friendly about that sort of thing...
> ...



As an information professional, I do indeed tell people when they may be violating laws that they don't know of or understand, for their own protection. The ability to rebroadcast of copyrighted music is not included most license agreements with the public. Radio stations have special agreements with copyright owners to pay royalties based on the number of times the song is played. Commercial websites that use copyrighted music pay for that privilege specifically. I'm no expert on statistics of this type of thing, but in my personal experience much of the music on personal web sites is copyrighted, but because they are non-commercial sites they only get cease-and-desist letters occasionally. Commercial sites, having the potential, or at least the perceived potential, to pay larger fines often get more attention. Again, I wasn't try to be a (Potty Mouth), I'm just trying to keep people from getting nasty legal wake-up calls...

- Randy


----------



## i Kandi Photography (Sep 21, 2009)

Randall Ellis said:


> i Kandi Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Randall Ellis said:
> ...


 
I appreciate the info. I'll see how I can legally have music, if there is a way. I'll read the other link on the post above. That just sucks because IMO, music gives a photo a whole different feeling. They just feel boring to me without the music playing =(


----------



## Soocom1 (Sep 21, 2009)

In other times, it wouldnt be an issue... In fact some people in the past were actually praised for their music choices. But with napster and the highlight of the RIAA and thier venomous persute of the issue.. times get tricky.


----------



## Randall Ellis (Sep 21, 2009)

i Kandi Photography said:


> I appreciate the info. I'll see how I can legally have music, if there is a way. I'll read the other link on the post above. That just sucks because IMO, music gives a photo a whole different feeling. They just feel boring to me without the music playing =(



Sorry to provide only off-topic comments in your thread :er:, but I totally agree that presentation has a strong impact on how people view any piece of art. And, as the creator, you should be able to present it the way you want it to be seen. Sadly, it's not always easy to do so. Also, thanks for understanding why I said what I did above  :cheers:

- Randy


----------



## musicaleCA (Sep 21, 2009)

The first thing I did when I got there was muted my speakers. So much for listening to The Gathering while looking. A mute button would be nice.

Pretty cool session. I would prefer fire though. FIRE!!! BURNT IT ALL!!! >.>


----------



## leighthal (Sep 21, 2009)

Some great shots in there. I like the one where she is sitting the hallowed out dirt mound. It took a few shot of me going "oh my is her neck ever wrinkly....why put so much focus on the problem area with that pose?" Then I realized it was artistic dirt. LOL


----------



## i Kandi Photography (Sep 21, 2009)

leighthal said:


> Some great shots in there. I like the one where she is sitting the hallowed out dirt mound. It took a few shot of me going "oh my is her neck ever wrinkly....why put so much focus on the problem area with that pose?" Then I realized it was artistic dirt. LOL


 
LOL You're sooo right! I actually noticed that as I was going through them. It didnt look that bad in person and here in the photos, it looks like neck/chest fat. ugh So funny


----------



## mariusz (Sep 22, 2009)

nice work!


----------



## Flash Harry (Sep 22, 2009)

closed your site as soon as the first four bars played, as, I think many do, I love sounds but I listen to my own when browsing, so no pics comments. H


----------



## Plato (Sep 22, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> The first thing I did when I got there was muted my speakers. So much for listening to The Gathering while looking. A mute button would be nice.



Ditto.


----------



## astrostu (Sep 22, 2009)

I closed the site when it started to load.  Music with no way to turn it off = escape.  Who cares about copyright when you're being obtrusive with providing audio.  I don't understand why photographers feel required to put audio on their websites - it's obnoxious and uncalled for.


----------



## i Kandi Photography (Sep 22, 2009)

astrostu said:


> I closed the site when it started to load. Music with no way to turn it off = escape. Who cares about copyright when you're being obtrusive with providing audio. I don't understand why photographers feel required to put audio on their websites - it's obnoxious and uncalled for.


 
I suppose i should have made a post about "music on websites" instead of viewing my recent TTD session. Has anyone ever heard of the volume key on the keyboard??? Just asking out of curiosity. Its easier than complaining about someone choosing to play music on their personal website. I have never heard of so many complaints regarding such a ridiculous thing. 
Step 1) simply adjust the volume by using the keyboard or turning the knob on the speaker
Step 2) Enjoy (or not ) the photos.


----------



## astrostu (Sep 22, 2009)

i Kandi Photography said:


> astrostu said:
> 
> 
> > I closed the site when it started to load. Music with no way to turn it off = escape. Who cares about copyright when you're being obtrusive with providing audio. I don't understand why photographers feel required to put audio on their websites - it's obnoxious and uncalled for.
> ...



Some of us listen to other things while online.  I don't mean to necessarily be rude, but this is one of my biggest pet peeves about websites.


----------



## i Kandi Photography (Sep 22, 2009)

astrostu said:


> i Kandi Photography said:
> 
> 
> > astrostu said:
> ...


 
I just think its dumb to make such a deal about it such as.. i'm not going to view your photos because you have music playing..What??? It's just music. I go to websites, LOTS of websites, everyday that have music. If they have something I dont like, i turn my volume down. I have never gotten upset about it or made comments about it to the owner of the website. MOST Photographers do like to have music because it DOES give their photos a certain feel. I was putting together a video of all of my daughters photos from birth to 1 year the other day and the video with no music is just horrible. Everyone I spoke to agreed that the music made a huge difference. So for so many people to make negative comments about it, just in this forum, just throws me for a surprise.


----------



## kundalini (Sep 22, 2009)

Some good shots in the TTD, but feel you have some much stronger work in the other galleries.  TBH, I got really bored with seeing her legs spread wide open so often.  However, it's in the Client Proofing, so I'm guessing you need that many shots for her to select from.

Okay, since all the above doesn't seem to go along with the path this thread has turned onto, I'll chime in with my thoughts on the music.  As I will usually be streaming music or news on-line, turning down the volume is not my first choice.  Firstly, you should have an option on the home page for the viewer to not play it if they wish.  Secondly, each gallery should have their own selection(s) and they should run the length of the slideshow without looping.  Thirdly, a personal choice of mine would be to not have current "popular" music and most likely to be instrumental.  I agree with you that a slideshow with (properly choreographed) music can certainly enhance the entertainment value.

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## i Kandi Photography (Sep 22, 2009)

kundalini said:


> Some good shots in the TTD, but feel you have some much stronger work in the other galleries. TBH, I got really bored with seeing her legs spread wide open so often. However, it's in the Client Proofing, so I'm guessing you need that many shots for her to select from.
> 
> Okay, since all the above doesn't seem to go along with the path this thread has turned onto, I'll chime in with my thoughts on the music. As I will usually be streaming music or news on-line, turning down the volume is not my first choice. Firstly, you should have an option on the home page for the viewer to not play it if they wish. Secondly, each gallery should have their own selection(s) and they should run the length of the slideshow without looping. Thirdly, a personal choice of mine would be to not have current "popular" music and most likely to be instrumental. I agree with you that a slideshow with (properly choreographed) music can certainly enhance the entertainment value.
> 
> Thanks for sharing.


 
Thank you very much for your suggestions. I didnt think I had an option to add a mute button to my website but I looked into it and made my jukebox visible and there is a button you can press to stop the music. 
Yes, her legs are wide open alot it seems in these photos. I hated putting so many of the same poses up, but as every photographer knows, what I may like, she wont like and vice versa. Women will find every little thing to complain about in a photograph so i just posted as many as I could. I did however think this was some of my best work yet so it's nice to see a difference of opinion on that. Thank you =)  
Hopefully adding the mute button to my page will allow some to enjoy the photos that they were not able to enjoy previously.
Thanks again


----------



## rub (Sep 23, 2009)

There were some great shots in there. Neat locations. Lighting and exposure are great. 

 Maybe too many with her sitting and her legs open though.  I also have to say that in the first 1/3 of the slideshow, I didnt know if there was a scar on her, some weird chest fat, or what.  But it was VERY distracting.

And I alsothink that the veil got in th way is a lot of the shots.  Made her look like she was just in a puffball of fabric, and really lost the shape of her body underneath.  I realize that you may not have been going for a sexy shoot here, but I think all women want to look sexy in photos.  Some made her look heavy and frumpy.


----------



## Missdaisy (Sep 23, 2009)

Wow!  Apparently I totally missed out, my speakers were turned down.  I thought I was just going to look at pictures.:er:

I think you did a great job!   My personal favorite was her floating on her back in the lake.  I was thinking finally she's going to ruin the dress.  I would have liked to see her standing there in her undergarments watching the dress sink to the bottom of the lake, deeper and deeper it goes until it's gone.


----------



## i Kandi Photography (Sep 23, 2009)

Missdaisy said:


> Wow! Apparently I totally missed out, my speakers were turned down. I thought I was just going to look at pictures.:er:
> 
> I think you did a great job!  My personal favorite was her floating on her back in the lake. I was thinking finally she's going to ruin the dress. I would have liked to see her standing there in her undergarments watching the dress sink to the bottom of the lake, deeper and deeper it goes until it's gone.


 
Thanks! Yah, I really wanted to destroy that thing and we shot for 5 hours straight (longest regular shoot I have ever done) so I think we were all just ready to get it over with. We did have the undergarment idea in mind but we did that shoot in Forest Park and I didnt want her to get attacked! lol - Thanks again!


----------



## UUilliam (Sep 23, 2009)

i Kandi Photography said:


> Randall Ellis said:
> 
> 
> > Not to nitpick, but do you have written permission to use that audio? You should be cautious in your use of copyrighted audio just as with copyrighted images - the RIAA is not overly friendly about that sort of thing...
> ...


Okay dude...
I would thank Randy, He is helping you
If you want to be an ass about it, we could always alternatively contact RIAA and direct them to your site... which would you rather :/
To use audio you really should ask permission from the owner of the copyright licence, even though you purchased it, you only bought a Personal Viewing (listening) Licence

You can be fined anywhere from 500 - 2000 pounds or more... there was a recent news story of a person fined 1 million (pounds or dollers? cant remember)
For 1 song!!! and the guy had never made 1 million pounds/ dollerz in his life!


----------



## kundalini (Sep 23, 2009)

Sorry Kandi, but every once in a while, I really dig the internet and the sidebars that come into play.

If I'm not mistaking, this is where we should all chant "you go girl".














"where the f*** is the Buddha statue?  C'mon guys.... give the it up.*


----------



## i Kandi Photography (Sep 23, 2009)

kundalini said:


> Sorry Kandi, but every once in a while, I really dig the internet and the sidebars that come into play.
> 
> If I'm not mistaking, this is where we should all chant "you go girl".


 
I sent a private msg and I guess i misunderstood him. Honestly, Im not trying to stir up anything. I hate that stuff in forums. I simply posted my TTD session because a few members wanted to see them and just felt attacked by the comments on the music on my site. Hopefully teh subj. can be changed now and we can refocus on what the thread was originally about. OR....i wish there was a way to just delete the whole thing so i dont have to read anymore negative comments about my illegal download that i paid $ for.


----------



## fokker (Sep 23, 2009)

Sorry to persist with the music thing, but I too found it annoying, and kind of hard to turn off (plus I don't have a big volume knob on my keyboard like you assume everyone does). 
I just thought it odd that you get so defensive, when you are getting a helpful tip on something that is turning traffic away from your site - I would have thought these insights to be valuable, not something to be swatted away like an annoying bug.


----------



## i Kandi Photography (Sep 24, 2009)

fokker said:


> Sorry to persist with the music thing, but I too found it annoying, and kind of hard to turn off (plus I don't have a big volume knob on my keyboard like you assume everyone does).
> I just thought it odd that you get so defensive, when you are getting a helpful tip on something that is turning traffic away from your site - I would have thought these insights to be valuable, not something to be swatted away like an annoying bug.


 
I just find it weird because this is the only forum and you all are the only people that have ever made negative comments about the music on my site. So not to be defensive, but i just totally disagree with it and its something I like, so maybe that may cause me to come off defensive. Not trying to be, I just disagree and most pro photographers that do the type of photography I do, have music on their sites. So maybe alot of you are into a different type of photography and websites? I have only been to several websites that dont have it (again, along the lines of similar to what i shoot ) in the past several years. It doesnt matter, it's just annoying to constanatly hear about the same complaint when that wasnt why i posted. Its one thing if i was getting defensive about the photos you are critiquing, which I'm not, its something totally irrelevant and off the subj. from what this thread was suppose to be about...


----------



## inTempus (Sep 24, 2009)

There were some good shots in there, nice work.  The location is outstanding.  I really like the shots of her between the buildings and your creative angles.


----------



## SrBiscuit (Sep 24, 2009)

my speakers were off so i didnt even know there was music until this thread...

i loved the pics...really well done.

the only thing i was hoping to see was some real damage to that dress. :twisted:

shred it!
throw paint on it!
FIRE! lol

awesome series though. well done.


----------



## i Kandi Photography (Sep 24, 2009)

SrBiscuit said:


> my speakers were off so i didnt even know there was music until this thread...
> 
> i loved the pics...really well done.
> 
> ...


 
I WAS HOPING to do so also!! At the very beginning of the shoot we were at a location of nothing but mud. I wanted her to lay in the mud puddles and just roll around but she didnt want to drive in her car like that. We also talked about cutting the dress up into little pieces at the end and her throwing the peices into the air in joy but we were so wiped out and it was beginning to get dark. THE GREAT thing of not trashing it completely was that I got to keep the dress and veil so hopefully can use it another time with someone that may not want to trash their own dress. We shall see!


----------

