"Wedding Photographer Certificates $10!"

On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 14:27:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote:
: I don't usually comment on other photog's style or skill, but if you
: are going to use shots to highlight what a camera is capable
: of...then...well...
:
: http://neilvn.com/tangents/2011/06/1...ing-a-wedding/

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

Bob

On 7/10/11 3:26 PM, in article ,
"Robert Coe" wrote:

On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 14:27:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote:
: I don't usually comment on other photog's style or skill, but if you
: are going to use shots to highlight what a camera is capable
: of...then...well...
:
:

http://neilvn.com/tangents/2011/06/13/review-fuji-x100-photographing-a-wedding
/

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

Bob

'Fraid so. Anything goes...

"George Kerby" wrote in message
...

http://neilvn.com/tangents/2011/06/13/review-fuji-x100-photographing-a-wedding
/

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

Bob

'Fraid so. Anything goes...

FFS...
...how many time does the chap have to say that he was an "Uncle Bob"
photographer - a backup - *not* the formal, classical type.

Apart from an apparent inability to hold the camera level (which is strange,
since the x100 has a "spirit" level in the VF), exactly what is wrong with
these perfectly pleasant, casual snaps?

Be specific.

Mention:
* exposure
* contrast
* colour balance
* focus
* composition
* subject matter (appropriateness)
or whatever-the-heck-criteria you choose to judge these snaps.
(BTW - the costumes which the participants choose to wear are surely their
own business, and nothing to do with the photographer.)

Remember - there was a multi-DSLR-toting "classical", "professional"
photographer at the same event, recording all the dull, monotone,
lined-up-like-a-firing-squad portraits that youse blokes seem to long for.

....or is it just that some folks are intimidated by a camera that seems to
make it so easy?

You know - nothing's worthwhile unless it's complicated and difficult -
right?

--
Jeff R.
(put up or shut up)

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:41:30 +1000, "Jeff R." wrote:
:
: "George Kerby" wrote in message
: ...
:
: http://neilvn.com/tangents/2011/06/13/review-fuji-x100-photographing-a-wedding
: /
:
: To Hell with what camera he used. Is this really what wedding photography
: has
: come to, these days? :^|
:
: Bob
:
: 'Fraid so. Anything goes...
:
: FFS...
: ..how many time does the chap have to say that he was an "Uncle Bob"
: photographer - a backup - *not* the formal, classical type.
:
: Apart from an apparent inability to hold the camera level (which is strange,
: since the x100 has a "spirit" level in the VF), exactly what is wrong with
: these perfectly pleasant, casual snaps?
:
: Be specific.

I don't like them. I think they're tacky.

: Mention:
: * exposure
: * contrast
: * colour balance
: * focus
: * composition
: * subject matter (appropriateness)
: or whatever-the-heck-criteria you choose to judge these snaps.
: (BTW - the costumes which the participants choose to wear are surely their
: own business, and nothing to do with the photographer.)

Who are you to tell me what I have to "mention"? I just don't much care for
the pictures. In many of them the subject matter and composition are absurdly
contrived. IMO.

: Remember - there was a multi-DSLR-toting "classical", "professional"
: photographer at the same event, recording all the dull, monotone,
: lined-up-like-a-firing-squad portraits that youse blokes seem to long for.

Oh, right. And he got to set up his own pictures while the "classical"
photographer and the assembled guests (at least one of whom was paying for all
this) cooled their heels? Be serious.

: ...or is it just that some folks are intimidated by a camera that seems to
: make it so easy?

What? Are you daft?

: You know - nothing's worthwhile unless it's complicated and difficult -
: right?

What did I say that could possibly justify that supposition? I already said I
don't care what camera(s) he used.

Bob

On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:01:25 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:41:30 +1000, "Jeff R." wrote:
:
: "George Kerby" wrote in message
: ...
:
: http://neilvn.com/tangents/2011/06/13/review-fuji-x100-photographing-a-wedding
: /
:
: To Hell with what camera he used. Is this really what wedding photography
: has
: come to, these days? :^|
:
: Bob
:
: 'Fraid so. Anything goes...
:
: FFS...
: ..how many time does the chap have to say that he was an "Uncle Bob"
: photographer - a backup - *not* the formal, classical type.
:
: Apart from an apparent inability to hold the camera level (which is strange,
: since the x100 has a "spirit" level in the VF), exactly what is wrong with
: these perfectly pleasant, casual snaps?
:
: Be specific.

I don't like them. I think they're tacky.

: Mention:
: * exposure
: * contrast
: * colour balance
: * focus
: * composition
: * subject matter (appropriateness)
: or whatever-the-heck-criteria you choose to judge these snaps.
: (BTW - the costumes which the participants choose to wear are surely their
: own business, and nothing to do with the photographer.)

Who are you to tell me what I have to "mention"? I just don't much care for
the pictures. In many of them the subject matter and composition are absurdly
contrived. IMO.

Generally, the bride or the bride's mother pick the wedding
photographer based on his gallery of shots from previous weddings.
They pick him, or her, for style...not camera.

If the photographer's gallery includes a lot of tilted shots, and the
person paying for the photographer likes that look, that's who they
choose. The photographer would be foolish to deviate from his gallery
style because it would disappoint the bride or the bride's mother.
Same with black and whites.

Good photographers, or - I should say - good businessmen who take
photographs, ask the bride and bride's mother what shots they want
included. If that cliche shot of the bride and groom's hand on the
cake-cutting knife is asked for, it damn well better be in the
package.

In the page linked to, I - like some other poster - noticed that the
groom had on a horribly ill-fitting suit. It's not the photographer's
job, though, to provide sartorial advice.

No one pays attention to the groom anyway, though.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:41:30 +1000, "Jeff R." wrote:
:
: "George Kerby" wrote in message
: ...
:
:
http://neilvn.com/tangents/2011/06/13/review-fuji-x100-photographing-a-wedding
: /
: Be specific.

I don't like them. I think they're tacky.

OK. Fine.
"Tacky."
You'd prefer "classical" I presume.
Sort of like the other bloke - the "primary" photographer - almost certainly
took scads of.


: Mention:
: * exposure
: * contrast
: * colour balance
: * focus
: * composition
: * subject matter (appropriateness)
: or whatever-the-heck-criteria you choose to judge these snaps.
: (BTW - the costumes which the participants choose to wear are surely
their
: own business, and nothing to do with the photographer.)

Who are you to tell me what I have to "mention"? I just don't much care
for
the pictures. In many of them the subject matter and composition are
absurdly
contrived. IMO.

Who am I?
My name is Jeff. Hi.
(did you miss my sig?)

I did append "whatever-the-heck" to the criteria - so obviously (?) my list
was intended to be a guide, not compulsory.

"...subject matter and composition are absurdly contrived. IMO."
OK. That's useful - partly.
Which ones?
Bear in mind it was a wedding.
People get dressed up at weddings, and do things that are otherwise strange.
(I agree, BTW, that any of the jumping-in-the-air-all-together shots are
pretty silly.)

: Remember - there was a multi-DSLR-toting "classical", "professional"
: photographer at the same event, recording all the dull, monotone,
: lined-up-like-a-firing-squad portraits that youse blokes seem to long
for.

Oh, right. And he got to set up his own pictures while the "classical"
photographer and the assembled guests (at least one of whom was paying for
all
this) cooled their heels? Be serious.

Um, yes. Why not?
Who says they had to clash?
I don't see any indication that the two of them were bolted together.
Why can't the casual photographer be somewhere else, taking his own shots,
while the "classical" is ordering people about?



: ...or is it just that some folks are intimidated by a camera that seems
to
: make it so easy?

What? Are you daft?

Well - otherwise - why are you (and others) so furiously antipathetic
towards what are - after all - just a bunch of pleasant, unintimidating
wedding snaps?
Why do feel the need to criticise the photos with unsupported blanket
condemnation(s)?
At least my criticism offered the "non-level-horizon" argument.
What constructive purpose did your (and other) slagging provide?

Sure looked like nervous intimidation to me.


: You know - nothing's worthwhile unless it's complicated and difficult -
: right?

What did I say that could possibly justify that supposition? I already
said I
don't care what camera(s) he used.

As I noted immediately above - I'm looking for your motive here. I see
none - just a blanket, unsupported condemnation of a set of photos that the
customer quite possibly liked a great deal (we don't know, after all).
If you cannot support your criticisms on the basis of the output (the
photos), then I'm driven to naturally assuming other motives.
What else do we know about the circumstances? The camera!
That was indeed the whole purpose of the OP - to highlight the
function(s)/abilities of that particular camera.
There.
That's the line followed - i.e. how I could "possibly suppport that
supposition."

Maybe you just _like_ to make mealy-mouthed, unsupported, uncharitable and
unreasonable blanket condemnations of others' work? I don't know you. I'm
simply asking (or trying to):
....what was wrong with those photos?
(given the published circumstances of their existence).

If you answer is simply: "I don't like them", then OK. Fair enough.
....but not very useful nor convincing.

I bet the client liked them.

--
Jeff R.
(and who pays?)

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...

Generally, the bride or the bride's mother pick the wedding
photographer based on his gallery of shots from previous weddings.
They pick him, or her, for style...not camera.

Yes but the point of the OP (as far as I could discern) was to demonstrate
that the camera in question should not be automatically eliminated from
one's arsenal if taking wedding photos. That it could actually perform that
function well.
....and the audience was photographers/ camera enthusiasts/ measurabators/
whatever - not the bride's mother.
I don't know if the post was made in rec.weddings.appreciation. I read it
in a camera NG.


If the photographer's gallery includes a lot of tilted shots, and the
person paying for the photographer likes that look, that's who they
choose. The photographer would be foolish to deviate from his gallery
style because it would disappoint the bride or the bride's mother.
Same with black and whites.

(I've already mentioned my aversion to the tilted shots...)

Is there a problem with providing a variety? In this case it seems to have
been free of additional charge or obligation, since the contracted
photographer no doubt did his job as agreed - presumably without deviation
from the script.

The second chap provided what I would suggest (at least) are many happy,
pleasant and quite usable snaps of what should indeed be a happy occasion.
I could easily envisage some of them making their way into a formal wedding
album. (PS can correct for tilt, after all)

Do we think the client would have shrieked with hostility at the *extra*
(presumably not "extra-cost") candid-style snaps as shown?
Would any of the other participants have welcomed some of those shots?

Does it take anything away from the client's contract to do *more* - at no
additional cost?
(anyway - this straying from the point - which was: "did the camera
suffice?")


Good photographers, or - I should say - good businessmen who take
photographs, ask the bride and bride's mother what shots they want
included. If that cliche shot of the bride and groom's hand on the
cake-cutting knife is asked for, it damn well better be in the
package.

As it almost-certainly was.
The other bloke didn't take anything away from the staged shots (AFAIK - I
wasn't there.)

In the page linked to, I - like some other poster - noticed that the
groom had on a horribly ill-fitting suit. It's not the photographer's
job, though, to provide sartorial advice.

Yes - and the straw hats the bridesmaids were flirting with - and the coin
stuck to the sole of the bride's shoe...
....all very tacky in MNSHO too - but hardly anything to do with the
photographer.
If they (the bridal party) did it, then presumably they approved of it - and
would like to see it (whatever the "it" was) recorded for posterity.


No one pays attention to the groom anyway, though.

Heh.
maybe so.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

--
Jeff R.
Sydney, Australia

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.

"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...;-).
--DR

On 7/11/2011 10:44 AM, 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...;-).
--DR

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