"Wedding Photographer Certificates $10!"

In article , David Ruether
wrote:

"Mr. Strat" wrote in message news:
:
In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

To Hell with what camera he used. Is this really what wedding photography
has
come to, these days? :^|

We used to have three studios in town, mine included. Now there are
none. There are plenty of amateurs with digital cameras passing
themselves off as professionals. And one studio doing the same. But the
quality of work is poor. They cover up their lack of understanding of
light and posing by doing these crooked horizon available light things.
But in the end, it's just bad technique.

People have become so accustomed to the mediocrity of YouTube and the
like that they accept crap. I'm glad I got out of the business when I
did.

The above assumes that there is only ONE approach to wedding
photography, which there is not. When a couple interviewed
me, I also interviewed them to find out where on the continuum
of work from "posed and lighted - and very disruptive of the
event itself" to "completely undirected fly-on-the-wall
photographic observation of the event" that they preferred.
Those who leaned toward the former (which was "not my thing")
I referred to other photographers; those who leaned toward my
approach I accepted, and we all had great fun at the weddings
and I could deliver MANY hundreds of good images caught "in
the moment" without interrupting anything. This worked well
for several decades until health issues stopped me. I still
dislike wedding photos that essentially rip the participants
out of their reality as people in order to make them look like
something they are not, although I recognize that is exactly
what some clients want (fantasy vs. reality...;-).

Crap sells...

In article , David Ruether
wrote:

"Mr. Strat" wrote in message news:
:
In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

To Hell with what camera he used. Is this really what wedding photography
has
come to, these days? :^|

We used to have three studios in town, mine included. Now there are
none. There are plenty of amateurs with digital cameras passing
themselves off as professionals. And one studio doing the same. But the
quality of work is poor. They cover up their lack of understanding of
light and posing by doing these crooked horizon available light things.
But in the end, it's just bad technique.

People have become so accustomed to the mediocrity of YouTube and the
like that they accept crap. I'm glad I got out of the business when I
did.

The above assumes that there is only ONE approach to wedding
photography, which there is not. When a couple interviewed
me, I also interviewed them to find out where on the continuum
of work from "posed and lighted - and very disruptive of the
event itself" to "completely undirected fly-on-the-wall
photographic observation of the event" that they preferred.
Those who leaned toward the former (which was "not my thing")
I referred to other photographers; those who leaned toward my
approach I accepted, and we all had great fun at the weddings
and I could deliver MANY hundreds of good images caught "in
the moment" without interrupting anything. This worked well
for several decades until health issues stopped me. I still
dislike wedding photos that essentially rip the participants
out of their reality as people in order to make them look like
something they are not, although I recognize that is exactly
what some clients want (fantasy vs. reality...;-).

I didn't say that there was only one way. But there is a difference
between professionalism and amateurism.

On 7/11/2011 9:14 PM, Mr. Strat wrote:
snip

I didn't say that there was only one way. But there is a difference
between professionalism and amateurism.

Especially in tennis.
An amateur jumps over the net.
A professionals manager jumps over the gross.


--
Peter

"Mr. Strat" wrote in message
...

I didn't say that there was only one way. But there is a difference
between professionalism and amateurism.

Yes.
The professional does it only for the money.
The amateur usually has nobler motives, and frequently has superior skills.

--
Jeff R.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:54:14 +1000, "Jeff R." wrote:
:
: "Mr. Strat" wrote in message
: ...
:
: I didn't say that there was only one way. But there is a difference
: between professionalism and amateurism.
:
: Yes.
: The professional does it only for the money.

OK, Jeff, I guess I finally see where you were coming from - questioning my
motives, etc. earlier in the thread. You apparently have something against
professional photographers and have somehow gotten the idea that I am one.

Actually, I'm at most a semi-professional. Photography is part of my day job,
but a small part. It's not the reason they pay me to stay.

: The amateur usually has nobler motives, and frequently has superior skills.

Well, I shoot landscapes and architecture for work and for my own enjoyment. I
shoot events for work and to please my friends and relatives, who assume (as
most people do) that any photographer is an event photographer. I'm a
moderately decent landscape photographer and a mediocre event photographer.
But I bring the same motive to all my photography: the desire to do the best I
can and not embarrass myself or the people who asked me to do the work.

And that's it.

Bob

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:54:14 +1000, "Jeff R." wrote:
:
: "Mr. Strat" wrote in message
: ...
:
: I didn't say that there was only one way. But there is a difference
: between professionalism and amateurism.
:
: Yes.
: The professional does it only for the money.

OK, Jeff, I guess I finally see where you were coming from - questioning
my
motives, etc. earlier in the thread. You apparently have something against
professional photographers and have somehow gotten the idea that I am one.

No on both counts.
Sorry I misled you - I can see how you could take my comments as such.

I have nothing against professional photographers - got 'em in the family,
after all.
What irks me is the suggestion (!) that a professional is better - more
skilled - just_by_simple_virtue_of_being_a_professional.
Silly bloody idea.

I could make analogies to other professions, but I'm sure you've heard them.


Actually, I'm at most a semi-professional. Photography is part of my day
job,
but a small part. It's not the reason they pay me to stay.

: The amateur usually has nobler motives, and frequently has superior
skills.

Well, I shoot landscapes and architecture for work and for my own
enjoyment. I
shoot events for work and to please my friends and relatives, who assume
(as
most people do) that any photographer is an event photographer. I'm a
moderately decent landscape photographer and a mediocre event
photographer.
But I bring the same motive to all my photography: the desire to do the
best I
can and not embarrass myself or the people who asked me to do the work.

And that's it.

Bob

....and nicely put, too.
I seem to share your circumstances and your opinions in this regard. I
shoot events and portraits at work, but I am certainly not a "professional".

....and I'm still moderately impressed with the wedding snaps taken with the
little Fuji - horizons and tackiness notwithstanding.

--
Jeff R.

In article , Jeff R.
wrote:

"Mr. Strat" wrote in message
...

I didn't say that there was only one way. But there is a difference
between professionalism and amateurism.

Yes.
The professional does it only for the money.
The amateur usually has nobler motives, and frequently has superior skills.

I've rarely found this to be the case.

"PeterN" wrote in message news:
:

In too many weddings the bride is in a state of fantasy. She, or her
parents are hosting a party they cannot afford. get so tied up with
posed photos, to "preserve memories" of the event that they don not
enjoy the party. there is fighting over seating, if they forget that
Uncle Joe and Aunt Mable aren't on speaking terms. etc.
--
Peter

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Maybe it was my "realistic" approach, and my willingness
to describe what I would do (and provide), and wouldn't do
(and would not provide) that saved me from such unreality
(and nonsense). In a long career shooting weddings (among
other things), I ran across only one minor "incident".
Unbeknownst to me, the two mothers didn't get along well
(the mother of the bride didn't like the mother of the groom),
and after completing a video of the wedding (I shot wedding
videos also...), the mother of the bride demanded that I
remove some footage of the mother-in-law. :-( I "chopped"
it out...
--DR

On 7/12/2011 9:29 AM, Mr. Strat wrote:
In .au, Jeff R.
wrote:

"Mr. wrote in message
...

I didn't say that there was only one way. But there is a difference
between professionalism and amateurism.

Yes.
The professional does it only for the money.
The amateur usually has nobler motives, and frequently has superior skills.

I've rarely found this to be the case.

Maybe he wasn't talking about photography ;-)

--
Peter

On 2011-07-11 21:54 , Jeff R. wrote:
"Mr. wrote in message
...

I didn't say that there was only one way. But there is a difference
between professionalism and amateurism.

Yes.
The professional does it only for the money.
The amateur usually has nobler motives, and frequently has superior skills.

I'd say there are indeed amateurs who can outshine a boatload of pros,
but that is not a "frequent" thing. And pros who specialize in a given
area of photography are often masters at their craft that few amateurs
can approach. In some cases due to specialized equipment and/or access
they are simply shut out.

The other thing about pros that few amateurs achieve is consistency in
output. Whether technical, composition, aesthetic, emotion, moment,
etc., many pros just get it right much more often than wrong in a wide
variety of situations.

As to "nobler motive" there is nothing ignoble about a professional
photographer plying his trade to earn his living.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.