Watched part of a wedding shoot today. My opinions on them have not changed

On Sat, 6 Jul 2013 20:42:42 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote:
: The tedium, the conventionality, it was all there. But, I guess it's
: what people want? Conventionality, that is. The woman shooting the stills
: (Nikon D800, 70-200mm zoom) was pretty young, I'd guess 27, and she wasn't
: doing the video, which lead me to believe she was at least a "purist" in
: the photographic sense. But there may have been a few reasons for it.

The most compelling reason, probably, is that anyone who photographs a wedding
and thinks (s)he can do justice to both the still photography and the
videography, is a fool.

Bob

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 6 Jul 2013 20:42:42 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote:
: The tedium, the conventionality, it was all there. But, I guess it's
: what people want? Conventionality, that is. The woman shooting the stills
: (Nikon D800, 70-200mm zoom) was pretty young, I'd guess 27, and she wasn't
: doing the video, which lead me to believe she was at least a "purist" in
: the photographic sense. But there may have been a few reasons for it.

The most compelling reason, probably, is that anyone who photographs a wedding
and thinks (s)he can do justice to both the still photography and the
videography, is a fool.

FWIW, there are set pieces that should be in any wedding album, but that
doesn't have to be the whole story. I understand that this one went
viral a while back http://www.thenewsburner.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/05/dinoweddingphotobomb.jpg.

On 7/7/13 12:29 AM, in article ,
"Robert Coe" wrote:

On Sat, 6 Jul 2013 20:42:42 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote:
: The tedium, the conventionality, it was all there. But, I guess it's
: what people want? Conventionality, that is. The woman shooting the stills
: (Nikon D800, 70-200mm zoom) was pretty young, I'd guess 27, and she wasn't
: doing the video, which lead me to believe she was at least a "purist" in
: the photographic sense. But there may have been a few reasons for it.

The most compelling reason, probably, is that anyone who photographs a wedding
and thinks (s)he can do justice to both the still photography and the
videography, is a fool.

Bob

I second that motion.

J. Clarke wrote:

FWIW, there are set pieces that should be in any wedding album,

I always find it amusing that there's supposedly a very
tight protocol on weddings that are followed everywhere.
(E.g. even having to hire a photographer.)

OK, "everywhere" reads as "in some social strata in some parts
of the US", but that doesn't seem to be even remotely visible to
the writers. (Everyone everywhere is a christian, obviously.)

but that
doesn't have to be the whole story. I understand that this one went
viral a while back http://www.thenewsburner.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/05/dinoweddingphotobomb.jpg.

The question is, how much did the owner of the beast save on
pet food due to that?

-Wolfgang

On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 09:38:40 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 6 Jul 2013 20:42:42 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote:
: The tedium, the conventionality, it was all there. But, I guess it's
: what people want? Conventionality, that is. The woman shooting the stills
: (Nikon D800, 70-200mm zoom) was pretty young, I'd guess 27, and she wasn't
: doing the video, which lead me to believe she was at least a "purist" in
: the photographic sense. But there may have been a few reasons for it.

The most compelling reason, probably, is that anyone who photographs a wedding
and thinks (s)he can do justice to both the still photography and the
videography, is a fool.

FWIW, there are set pieces that should be in any wedding album, but that
doesn't have to be the whole story. I understand that this one went
viral a while back http://www.thenewsburner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/dinoweddingphotobomb.jpg.

"Error 404 - Page not found!"
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens