keithg

Personally, I will only have family photos done with photographers that offer a DVD with images as part of the package. That is my opinion and how I choose to spend my money. There are photographers that offer DVDs, so obviously there is a market for it. And those who are good photographers and business people will find a way to be successful in that market.

My problem is not necessarily with the price, but the way prices are structured. People balk at paying $25 per print because they know it's a ridiculous price for a print. Even the highest end online printers are in the $2-3 range for 8x10. But we as consumers also know that you can get very good quality 8x10 prints for half that. So they rightfully question why they are paying $25 for something they know costs the producer 1/10th the price. In a world of $1 apps, $25 prints are bound to get some push back.

I understand the photographer needs to make money, so don't whine about all of the burdensome costs. Give me a bottom line and let me decide if you are worth it or not.

Last comment ... if the photographer is complaining about time spent retouching and post-processing, then they need to either improve their photoshop skills or improve their photo skills. If it's your job, you'd better get shots right out of the camera that need very little editing or touch ups.

Back in 1989 as one of our projects in a data structures course, we solved this problem and reached the same conclusions. We did it using Pascal!

My college roommate was a pilot, and his explanation was that on occasion some devices can cause static or interference on the pilot's headsets. Since communication with the tower is critical during takeoff & landing, the policy of power-off is in effect. I guess it's not as critical during taxi, since that is allowed.

I've done it a few times now, and they have always had me identify my bag, shoes, etc on the belt before the pat down. Then they set the bags aside. They also insist that you don't touch it until you are finished with the patdown.

There is nothing insightful in this article. The same comments are repeated ad nauseaum in the Android fan sights' article comments.

If you ran up to someone in a Verizon store and tried to convince them not to buy the Razr because it won't have ICS until February, they would laugh in your face.

A free market also implies some transparency does it not? If it's crystal clear what is being bought & sold, then everyone can make informed decisions and take their gains/losses honestly. When things like derivatives are created specifically to obscure the product and mislead potential buyers, then is it truly a free market? Shouldn't the government's roll be oversight (aka interference) if deception is creating a clear advantage for one party in the transaction? Your premise of mutual gain falls short in these cases.