Wedding photogs expensive? Have you seen other professions eroded by hacks?

"MC" writes:

Mr. Strat wrote:


What passes these days for professional photography is mostly crap. I
hate the crooked horizons and washed out trendy junk. Nobody learns
about light and shadow, musculature, posing, etc.

And with digital, the craftsmanship is gone. Today, all you have to do
is press a button, and you'll probably get something well-exposed and
in focus. You don't have to spend time in a darkroom sloshing around
chemicals...using the right combination of film, paper, and chemistry.

Exactly. Many of those who own such cameras think that the camera
alone will make them a pro. It does take some learning, admittedly, to
use the depths of photoshop but for slight retouching only a miniscule
amount of skill and time is required.

It's much easier now to take a decently-exposed sharply-focused
picture than it was 30 years ago, certainly.

But that's a GOOD thing; anybody telling you anything else has money (or
maybe prestige) riding on the outcome.

Besides, wedding photography is done for specific clients. Doesn't
matter what WE think of the results, it matters what the clients think
of the results.

Some people don't especially *like* old-fashioned, static compositions.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 06:05:31 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
: Robert Coe writes:
:
: That argument can be pushed only so far, though. Better equipment makes almost
: any photographer better. The more skilled a photographer already is, the more
: difference better equipment makes.
:
: Examine the correlation (if any) between the world's best known and most
: praised photographs and the equipment used to produce them.

You mean Alfred Eisenstädt's late-model Leicas? Ansel Adams's handmade view
cameras? Weegee's Graphic, the universal choice of newspaper photographers at
the time? Vivian Maier's Rolleiflex? Jun Miki's Nikons (not as famous as the
other photogs, but I actually spent an afternoon with him once)? Adams'a
Brownie? (Oh, wait; that was when he was twelve years old. Well, ...)

What's your point?

Bob

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

That equipment cannot substitute for talent, although talent can often
substitute for equipment.

There is no magic in the box.

Mxsmanic writes:

Robert Coe writes:

You mean Alfred Eisenstädt's late-model Leicas? Ansel Adams's handmade view
cameras?

No.

What's your point?

That equipment cannot substitute for talent, although talent can often
substitute for equipment.

I figured that was your point. Your suggestion of examining the cameras
used for the best-known pictures isn't going to support it, I don't
think; most of those photos come from professionals, and most
professionals are using the best available tool for the job at the time.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Mxsmanic writes:

David Dyer-Bennet writes:

I figured that was your point. Your suggestion of examining the cameras
used for the best-known pictures isn't going to support it, I don't
think; most of those photos come from professionals, and most
professionals are using the best available tool for the job at the time.

Well, Eisenstadt might has used Leicas, but they weren't necessarily the best
possible equipment. Would his photographs have been any better if he had used
better equipment? Would they have been any worse if he had used lesser
equipment?

What better equipment do you have in mind? I'm doubtful there was
anything clearly better than what he used, or that he wasn't using his
first choice most of the time. And I'm very doubtful that we should
second-guess his choice, if he really was using his first choice
equipment.

Would people have forgotten his famous photo of Goebbels if he had
used a Brownie instead of a Leica (or whatever he actually used)?

I'm not finding anything on what he used for that photo, but 1933 is
late enough for early Leica models, and Eisenstadt is the quintessential
Leica photographer, so I guess that's likely.

That photo is outdoors, not especially close, and not involving anything
moving. Amusingly, I think it's possible that a Brownie might actually
have done better -- or at least a larger-format folding camera with a
good lens might have done better.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:57:14 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

Mxsmanic writes:

David Dyer-Bennet writes:

I figured that was your point. Your suggestion of examining the cameras
used for the best-known pictures isn't going to support it, I don't
think; most of those photos come from professionals, and most
professionals are using the best available tool for the job at the time.

Well, Eisenstadt might has used Leicas, but they weren't necessarily the best
possible equipment. Would his photographs have been any better if he had used
better equipment? Would they have been any worse if he had used lesser
equipment?

What better equipment do you have in mind? I'm doubtful there was
anything clearly better than what he used, or that he wasn't using his
first choice most of the time. And I'm very doubtful that we should
second-guess his choice, if he really was using his first choice
equipment.

Would people have forgotten his famous photo of Goebbels if he had
used a Brownie instead of a Leica (or whatever he actually used)?

I'm not finding anything on what he used for that photo, but 1933 is
late enough for early Leica models, and Eisenstadt is the quintessential
Leica photographer, so I guess that's likely.

That photo is outdoors, not especially close, and not involving anything
moving. Amusingly, I think it's possible that a Brownie might actually
have done better -- or at least a larger-format folding camera with a
good lens might have done better.

I don't think it was the camera that mattered but the opportunity.

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue9911/icon02.htm
"In 1933, I traveled to Geneva for the fifteenth session of the
League of Nations. There, sitting in the hotel garden, was Dr.
Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda.... Sunddenly
he spotted me and I snapped him. Here are the eyes of hate.
Was I an enemy? Behind him is his private secretary and
interpreter. This picture was published many times throughout
the world. I have been asked how I felt photographing these men.
Naturally, not so good, but when I have a camera in my hand I know
no fear."

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 1/31/2012 6:43 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:57:14 -0600, David
wrote:

writes:

David Dyer-Bennet writes:

I figured that was your point. Your suggestion of examining the cameras
used for the best-known pictures isn't going to support it, I don't
think; most of those photos come from professionals, and most
professionals are using the best available tool for the job at the time.

Well, Eisenstadt might has used Leicas, but they weren't necessarily the best
possible equipment. Would his photographs have been any better if he had used
better equipment? Would they have been any worse if he had used lesser
equipment?

What better equipment do you have in mind? I'm doubtful there was
anything clearly better than what he used, or that he wasn't using his
first choice most of the time. And I'm very doubtful that we should
second-guess his choice, if he really was using his first choice
equipment.

Would people have forgotten his famous photo of Goebbels if he had
used a Brownie instead of a Leica (or whatever he actually used)?

I'm not finding anything on what he used for that photo, but 1933 is
late enough for early Leica models, and Eisenstadt is the quintessential
Leica photographer, so I guess that's likely.

That photo is outdoors, not especially close, and not involving anything
moving. Amusingly, I think it's possible that a Brownie might actually
have done better -- or at least a larger-format folding camera with a
good lens might have done better.

I don't think it was the camera that mattered but the opportunity.

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue9911/icon02.htm
"In 1933, I traveled to Geneva for the fifteenth session of the
League of Nations. There, sitting in the hotel garden, was Dr.
Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda.... Sunddenly
he spotted me and I snapped him. Here are the eyes of hate.
Was I an enemy? Behind him is his private secretary and
interpreter. This picture was published many times throughout
the world. I have been asked how I felt photographing these men.
Naturally, not so good, but when I have a camera in my hand I know
no fear."


There are some people who have the ability to bring a subject's
personality, and/or character out in a photograph. I know two, neither
of whom can explain how they do it.


--
Peter

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
That equipment cannot substitute for talent, although talent can often
substitute for equipment.


Sure some people will prefer an "art" photo from a pin hole camera, to a
"happy snap" from a Hasselblad, but BOTH are necessary for TRUE quality!

Trevor.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
That photo is outdoors, not especially close, and not involving anything
moving. Amusingly, I think it's possible that a Brownie might actually
have done better -- or at least a larger-format folding camera with a
good lens might have done better.

So it was the photographer who made the photo, and the equipment really
didn't
matter.

Nope, a pin hole camera probably wouldn't have been nearly as good.

Trevor.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Nope, a pin hole camera probably wouldn't have been nearly as good.

A view camera would have probably been orders of magnitude better, in
terms of
image quality. So what?

So the camera *IS* important to some extent! How important depends on the
viewer and purpose of the photo.
Similarly there are many opportunistic shots taken by many poor
photographers that are still important because of the subject matter and
lack of alternatives. This is becoming very common these days where photo
quality AND composition etc. are often considered irrelevent to the subject
matter, and phone camera's in the hands of those who can't even spell
photography, still surfice.

So maybe your statement should be BOTH camera AND photographer ARE less
important than subject matter to most people in many cases, or many people
in most cases.

Trevor.