tough to be a wedding photographer

On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 23:17:31 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:
: On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:55:05 -0700, "Mr. Strat"
: wrote:
:
: In article , Alan Browne
: wrote:
:
: For all the faults of the wedding photog in the video, the placement of
: his light, while _energy inefficient_, was on the other hand the most
: flattering light he could provide absent a high and larger diffuser in
: that situation while taking care to avoid red eye.
:
: My question is - what was the dork doing inside the church while the
: ceremony was going on to begin with. That's a professional no-no.
:
: Is it? When my daughter was married we hired a well-established
: professional photographer with a great deal of experience with wedding
: photography. When she laid out the plan (we asked her for one) it
: included shots inside the church, at the altar, and of my daughter
: and now-husband walking back down the aisle.
:
: We told her that we did not want photographs taken in the church
: during the ceremony. The in-church photos were posed after the
: ceremony when we went back into the church.
:
: That was at our request, though. Someone in the family - bride,
: groom, parents, someone - should go over in advance the rules for the
: shoot. The more the photographer knows what the family expects, the
: better experience it will be.
:
: It would have been my preference for none of the guests to shoot flash
: photos during the ceremony, but that's not really something you can
: control. They bring in the point-and-shoots and snap away.
:
: The photographer, by the way, was a bit surprised that we wanted a
: "game plan" for the shoot. She followed the instructions to the
: letter and the results were excellent. We didn't have a videographer.
:
: I have been to weddings where the photographer did shoot during the
: ceremony, but from the choir loft or the wings. Not a bad compromise,
: but I just don't like the idea of the distraction of a photographer
: during the ceremony.

I guess I see your point, Tony, but surely there's a vast middle ground
between not shooting in the church and falling into the baptismal pool.

My daughter got married in the chapel of the prep school where she and her
husband met. Neither is particularly religious, so they brought in a Unitarian
minister from a church in the area. I don't recall that the issue of shooting
during the ceremony ever came up. What I do remember is that one of my nephews
got the best pictures taken in the chapel. Frankly, the professional we hired
turned out not to be very good. (In fact, I'll hurl the ultimate insult: he
wasn't as good an event photographer as I am now.)

Bob

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:09:48 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
: On 10-07-14 21:55 , Mr. Strat wrote:
: In articleL4ydnbw30evE_qPRnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@giganews. com, Alan Browne
: wrote:
:
: For all the faults of the wedding photog in the video, the placement of
: his light, while _energy inefficient_, was on the other hand the most
: flattering light he could provide absent a high and larger diffuser in
: that situation while taking care to avoid red eye.
:
: My question is - what was the dork doing inside the church while the
: ceremony was going on to begin with. That's a professional no-no.
:
: Hardly. Many weddings have photogs in the church, running all over,
: using available light and flash as they see fit. Some clergy might not
: allow it, but I've not been to a wedding where there hasn't been a pro
: photog (or 2) all over the church.
:
: In predominantly Catholic Quebec, where less that 50% of couples bother
: getting married (and the last Catholic wedding I was at, the bride was
: visibly pregnant), I suppose the clergy is going to tolerate anything to
: get more kids to the altar.

In predominately Catholic Massachusetts the clergy have far more pressing
issues to deal with than whether flash gets used during a wedding. That said,
at my granddaughter's First Communion, the Executive Nun (who was clearly in
charge, the priest assuming the role of an amiable member of the supporting
cast) laid down the rules at the outset: There would be no further pictures
taken once everyone was seated, but the kids would remain on the stage for As
Long As It Takes afterwards. Nobody made a fuss, and it worked out fine.

Bob

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

Right. So you don't recognize the common technique of the high stofen.

Whatever that means...

I suspect you have 1 year of experience repeated time and again over 40
years.

The guy in the video was an obvious amateur who had no clue what he was
doing.

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

Hardly. Many weddings have photogs in the church, running all over,
using available light and flash as they see fit. Some clergy might not
allow it, but I've not been to a wedding where there hasn't been a pro
photog (or 2) all over the church.

It's likely a regional thing, but in these parts (Pacific Northwest),
it's not done by professionals.

In rec.photo.digital C J Campbell wrote:
On 2010-07-12 20:07:40 -0700, Robert Coe said:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:45:35 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:
: On 2010-07-12 12:03:52 -0700, tony cooper
said:
:
: On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:10:23 -0700, C J Campbell
: wrote:
:
: On 2010-07-12 10:48:13 -0700, Bowser said:
:
: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9HD5GZooPQ
:
: He blocks the videographer from filming the entire wedding retreat. He
: doesn't know where the fountain is.
:
: Font, not fountain. That's a baptismal font.
:
: So it is! Well, he baptized himself, eh?
:
: It also seems to me he could have dressed appropriately for a wedding.
: Too many photogs out there looking like slobs.

Interesting point. I thought all wedding photographers dressed in black. I've
been told that it's to prevent any reflected light from colorizing the bride's
dress.

Bob

Black has that advantage, of course. It also makes you less visible.
People do not 'see' people who are wearing black. My outfit consists of
black slacks, black shirt & tie, black shoes, and a black jacket if a
jacket is necessary. Everything has a discreet logo embroidered on it.
My assistant wears a long black dress, but she is the sort that is just
not invisible no matter what she wears.

A black scarf can be a handy photographic accessory. You can use it to
set up a small bit of black background, to block a light coloured
accidental annoying reflector, to shroud off the reflections from some
glass you want to shoot through, to shroud your head and screen when
using an LCD in bright sunlight, and so on.

I recall a shoot where the photographer wanted to illuminate all the
small nooks, crannies, and cubicles of a complex interior space and
hadn't enough flashes to cover them all. So he did it at night in near
total darkness, set up the camera with a long exposure on a tripod,
and ran round the lot dressed in black with a black balaclava and
gloves, firing off a a flash gun in each spot. The gun was set to its
local autothyristor control to equalize illumination.

Dressing so as to be unobtrusive depends on the circumstances. At posh
events you can dress like the toffs to mingle or like an event
supporting employee to be ignored. At publicity seeking events all you
need to do is to dress like a photographer :-) In the wild military
style camouflage works best, and you mustn't forget to camouflage the
big white lens :-)

--
Chris Malcolm
Warning: none of the above is indisputable fact.

On 27 Jul 2010 18:28:25 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote:
: In rec.photo.digital C J Campbell wrote:
: On 2010-07-12 20:07:40 -0700, Robert Coe said:
:
: On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:45:35 -0700, C J Campbell
: wrote:
: : On 2010-07-12 12:03:52 -0700, tony cooper
: said:
: :
: : On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:10:23 -0700, C J Campbell
: : wrote:
: :
: : On 2010-07-12 10:48:13 -0700, Bowser said:
: :
: : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9HD5GZooPQ
: :
: : He blocks the videographer from filming the entire wedding retreat. He
: : doesn't know where the fountain is.
: :
: : Font, not fountain. That's a baptismal font.
: :
: : So it is! Well, he baptized himself, eh?
: :
: : It also seems to me he could have dressed appropriately for a wedding.
: : Too many photogs out there looking like slobs.
:
: Interesting point. I thought all wedding photographers dressed in black. I've
: been told that it's to prevent any reflected light from colorizing the bride's
: dress.
:
: Bob
:
: Black has that advantage, of course. It also makes you less visible.
: People do not 'see' people who are wearing black. My outfit consists of
: black slacks, black shirt & tie, black shoes, and a black jacket if a
: jacket is necessary. Everything has a discreet logo embroidered on it.
: My assistant wears a long black dress, but she is the sort that is just
: not invisible no matter what she wears.
:
: A black scarf can be a handy photographic accessory. You can use it to
: set up a small bit of black background, to block a light coloured
: accidental annoying reflector, to shroud off the reflections from some
: glass you want to shoot through, to shroud your head and screen when
: using an LCD in bright sunlight, ...

or when it's as bald and reflective as mine is.

: Dressing so as to be unobtrusive depends on the circumstances. At posh
: events you can dress like the toffs to mingle or like an event
: supporting employee to be ignored. At publicity seeking events all you
: need to do is to dress like a photographer :-) In the wild military
: style camouflage works best, and you mustn't forget to camouflage the
: big white lens :-)

As I've been walking my city lately taking stock photos for our new Web site,
the following thought has occurred to me: if it bothers you to look ridiculous
in public, you probably don't have much of a future as a photographer. :^|

Bob

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On 27 Jul 2010 18:28:25 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote:
: In rec.photo.digital C J Campbell
wrote:
: On 2010-07-12 20:07:40 -0700, Robert Coe said:
:
: On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:45:35 -0700, C J Campbell
: wrote:
: : On 2010-07-12 12:03:52 -0700, tony cooper
: said:
: :
: : On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:10:23 -0700, C J Campbell
: : wrote:
: :
: : On 2010-07-12 10:48:13 -0700, Bowser said:
: :
: : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9HD5GZooPQ
: :
: : He blocks the videographer from filming the entire wedding
retreat. He
: : doesn't know where the fountain is.
: :
: : Font, not fountain. That's a baptismal font.
: :
: : So it is! Well, he baptized himself, eh?
: :
: : It also seems to me he could have dressed appropriately for a
wedding.
: : Too many photogs out there looking like slobs.
:
: Interesting point. I thought all wedding photographers dressed in
black. I've
: been told that it's to prevent any reflected light from colorizing
the bride's
: dress.
:
: Bob
:
: Black has that advantage, of course. It also makes you less visible.
: People do not 'see' people who are wearing black. My outfit consists
of
: black slacks, black shirt & tie, black shoes, and a black jacket if a
: jacket is necessary. Everything has a discreet logo embroidered on it.
: My assistant wears a long black dress, but she is the sort that is
just
: not invisible no matter what she wears.
:
: A black scarf can be a handy photographic accessory. You can use it to
: set up a small bit of black background, to block a light coloured
: accidental annoying reflector, to shroud off the reflections from some
: glass you want to shoot through, to shroud your head and screen when
: using an LCD in bright sunlight, ...

or when it's as bald and reflective as mine is.

: Dressing so as to be unobtrusive depends on the circumstances. At posh
: events you can dress like the toffs to mingle or like an event
: supporting employee to be ignored. At publicity seeking events all you
: need to do is to dress like a photographer :-) In the wild military
: style camouflage works best, and you mustn't forget to camouflage the
: big white lens :-)

As I've been walking my city lately taking stock photos for our new Web
site,
the following thought has occurred to me: if it bothers you to look
ridiculous
in public, you probably don't have much of a future as a photographer.
:^|

Bob

Perhaps, The flip side of that statement explains why I love the art so
much?

Take Care,
Dudley