«

On 6/29/07 5:13 AM, in article PW4hi.4047$,
"Roy G" <> wrote:

>
> "Pat" <> wrote in message
> news: oups.com...
>> On Jun 28, 8:25 pm, "Roy G" <roy.gibs...@REMOVE.tesco.net> wrote:
>>> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news: oups.com...
>>>
>>>> On Jun 28, 6:42 am, "Roy G" <roy.gibs...@REMOVE.tesco.net> wrote:
>>>>> <baliroyalwedd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> news: oups.com...> Dear
>>>>> Members,
>>>>>> Can anyone give me little advise on how to check my vendors camera
>>>>>> specs before assigning to shoot my customers' wedding. Several
>>>>>> cases,
>>>>>> Wedding during night time, under the low light for long distance
>>>>>> objects, the result turn unsatisfactorily, not so well catched.
>>>>>> Reasons sometimes I got was :
>>>>>> - Ocean humidity (open air shoot)
>>>>>> - Different quality of light affect (fires, bulb, and th eflast
>>>>>> itself)
>>>>>> How shal I respond to this situation?
>>>>>> Several successful picture, I took and put on the sites...(some of
>>>>>> them are affcting by theis case).
>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>> www.baliroyalwedding.com
>>>
>>>>> You are asking very basic questions about photography.
>>>
>>>>> Do you really think you are qualified to be doing Commercial Wedding
>>>>> Photography.??
>>>
>>>>> You could very easily ruin their memories of the "Once in a Lifetime"
>>>>> event.
>>>
>>>>> If you were operating in the UK or USA, you could find yourself being
>>>>> sued
>>>>> for considerable sums of money due to your professional incompetance.
>>>
>>>>> It sounds to me as if you do not have a sufficiently powerful
>>>>> Flash-Gun,
>>>>> and
>>>>> do not know how to set the Camera to the correct White Balance or work
>>>>> out
>>>>> correct exposure settings.
>>>
>>>>> Roy G
>>>
>>>> Roy, did you look at the web site??? The stuff there is VERY good.
>>>> It is on par with (or better than) most pro stuff in the US.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> I did look at the Website and most of the stuff shown was good, but he
>>> did
>>> say that " the result turn unsatisfactorily, not so well catched".
>>>
>>> Naturally he is not going to put the rubbish on the site, and he does not
>>> include any Galleries of actual Weddings, so we can't assess the general
>>> standard of the work.
>>>
>>> The comparison to US Pros might not be all that good a recommendation, if
>>> theirs is anything like some of the output I have seen from UK Pros.
>>>
>>> I am not saying they are all bad, but a number of them are not even as
>>> good
>>> as me, and I just don't trust myself to do Weddings, not even as an
>>> unpaid
>>> favour.
>>>
>>> (I recently shot some snaps at a Wedding using my wife's Fuji S5100, and
>>> the
>>> Mother of the Bride said my pics were better than the Pro's stuff, and
>>> she
>>> was correct. I don't use that camera much, so its control is not
>>> instinctive, and I was nothing like stone cold sober).
>>>
>>> If he knew enough, he should have been able to work out the answers for
>>> himself.
>>>
>>> He is supposed to be, or is employing PROs, and is charging money for his
>>> /
>>> their services, so any degree of incompetance is inexcusable.
>>>
>>> Roy G
>>
>> My reading of the OP is radically different than yours -- granted
>> there's a bit of a language barrier here.
>>
>> I read the post as the OP is a sort of caterer, if you will, who
>> arranges wedding packages: food, locations, licensing, photography,
>> etc. and that the OP is dissatsified with some picture some of his/her
>> vendors are providing to the clients. Therefore the OP is asking for
>> assistance is specifying an equipment list for photographers -- with
>> the assumption that good equipment equals good photographer. Okay,
>> than might more-or-less hold true, but it's sort of like saying a good
>> stove means that the person knows how to cook.
>>
>> If you are shooting as good as on the website, you should go pro.
>> Those shots are hard to pull off in wedding photography where you are
>> dealing with people, weather, time, etc. etc.
>>
>
> I suspect you may be right that he is a Venue Manager, or similar.
>
> He needs to start checking that any Photographers he employs, are capable
> Professionals. Too many of this type of Agency will employ just any-one,
> who comes cheap but seems to have the right equipment.
>
> Roy G
>
>
I would surmise it being stock photography on the site.