If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Wedding Photographer Certificates $10!"
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Wedding Photographer Certificates $10!"
"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) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Wedding Photographer Certificates $10!"
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Wedding Photographer Certificates $10!"
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Wedding Photographer Certificates $10!"
"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?) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Wedding Photographer Certificates $10!"
"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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Wedding Photographer Certificates $10!"
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Wedding Photographer Certificates $10!"
"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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Wedding Photographer Certificates $10!"
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Wedding Photographer Certificates $10!" | Savageduck[_3_] | Digital Photography | 1 | July 7th 11 09:40 AM |
"Wedding Photographer Certificates $10!" | Savageduck[_3_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | July 7th 11 09:40 AM |
Famous Wedding Photographer from "Down South" shows portfolio | George Kerby | Digital Photography | 0 | August 29th 08 08:09 PM |
A Wedding Photographer in Brisbane hears this all the time: "Till death do us part" | D_Mac | 35mm Photo Equipment | 8 | September 5th 07 09:05 AM |