Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Wedding photogs expensive? Have you seen other professions eroded by hacks?

Reply
Thread Tools

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

 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2012
On 1/29/2012 12:33 PM, Chris Malcolm wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems MC<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:

>
>>> It sounds like some people here are bitter about the fact that people
>>> can take good-quality pictures today without "paying their dues" with
>>> hours in darkrooms and thousands spend at labs.
>>>
>>> What technology does is even the playing field. Now everyone can have
>>> a decent camera and take pictures with it easily. Which means that,
>>> to a greater and greater extent, the only thing that separates pros
>>> from amateurs is the photographer himself. Equipment doesn't matter,
>>> and doesn't help.

>
>> But the point that is being made is that it is this technology that has
>> given the really bad photographers a false sense of being good. This
>> leads to the world to being flooded with mediocre photographs and
>> photographers which, in turn, leads to the bar being set so low that
>> the ingnorant and uneducated will actually employ second rate
>> photographic services as being the norm.
>> Anyone can push the shutter button on a camera but very few understand
>> what makes a a good photograph, let alone how it is acheived.

>
> Those who can't tell the difference between bad photographs and good
> photographs are wasting their money hiring someone who can take good
> photographs. If there's a demand for cheap bad photographs what's the
> problem with satisfying it?
>


Agreed

> The people who can tell the difference between good and bad
> photographs will naturally want to hire a good photographer, so what
> are the good photographers complaining about? Surely not that they
> used to get paid for good photographs by people who would have been
> happy with cheap bad photographs but the technical difficulties and
> costs of photography made it difficult for cheap bad photographers to
> exist?
>


Neither. Photographers are complaining about substantial changes in the
nature of the business. Obtaining a stock image is considerably less
expensive than hiring a photographer to do a location shoot. There is a
proliferation of good to excellent stock photographs that are easily
reviewed for acceptability. There are a substantial number of potential
customers who are able to satisfy their needs with this stock. The work
still has to meet a certain standard, whatever that is, to be accepted
by a stock house.



--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2012
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 21:42:33 +0100, Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: Mr. Strat writes:
:
: > No, I'm bitter that people with no talent or understanding of the
: > basics are screwing people out of their hard-earned money.
:
: But they aren't, as long as their clients are happy with their work.
:
: What has really happened is that anyone can be a photographer now.
: It is no longer possible for mediocre photographers to pretend to be
: good just because they've spent a lot on equipment.
:
: Likewise, photographers with talent but no money now have a chance
: to use their talent, whereas before they were locked out by the high
: cost of equipment.

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.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2012
"MC" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-30-2012
On Jan 29, 1:21*am, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 21:15:31 +0000, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >: "Mr. Strat" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >: >In article
> >: ><(E-Mail Removed)>,
> >: >RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >: >> There is a complaint in the trade's industry in Toronto that Third
> >: >> Worlder's with no apparent training or skill are vastly underpricing
> >: >> jobs, eroding wages in the industries (mostly contractors) and hurting
> >: >> the industry's overall image by doing sub-par work.
> >: >>
> >: >> I've been asked numerous times by people to shoot weddings or
> >: >> portraits and I'll never do it. *I'm not a pro photog and I can'task
> >: >> the prices they would so I won't degrade their profession's reputation
> >: >> by doing a job I have no training or major experience doing. It's not
> >: >> as dire a someone without a medical license practicing medicine, but
> >: >> the results to the particular profession are just as bad, maybe
> >: >> worse.
> >: >
> >: >I've been doing photography in various forms for over 45 years - 16+
> >: >operating my own portrait studio. I estimate that I've photographed
> >: >600-700 weddings which isn't much compared to some in the biz. But it's
> >: >still a lot.
> >: >
> >: >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..
> >: >
> >: >I'm glad I got out of it when I did.
> >:
> >:
> >: My sentiments exactly. *I think wedding photography is one of the most
> >: stressful jobs I have ever done. *I am *so* glad that I don't do it
> >: anymore. *It was good while it lasted, but even better when it
> >: stopped. *
> >:
> >: I think the idea of buying 20 inexpensive digital cameras and giving
> >: them to the wedding guests is a very good one. *Whoever then has the
> >: job of collating and editing the results into a coherent record of the
> >: event will soon realise that wedding photography is rather more
> >: difficult than it might first appear, especially when the formal shots
> >: that people want (despite their prior protestations to the contrary)
> >: do not appear among those taken.

>
> >I've been to two or three weddings where they did that, but I believe there
> >was always a professional photographer there too.

>
> It's a great idea as a supplement to a competent pro, but not as a
> replacement. *20 guests will inevitably capture some shots that a pro
> working alone or with an assistant could not.
>
> But the major challenge of wedding photography isn't getting the
> shots, it is getting the people organised, alone, in couples, in
> families and in larger groups, in all the correct locations. *That's
> the most stressful bit,


Yes on teh coup[le of times I've asked to volenteer I*'ve mnade that
the point that someone else organises the people, I'll organise the
camera

> and it really helps if there is a family
> member who can assist in getting the people together in the right
> order at the right time. *Once that has been achieved, getting the
> images is relatively straightforward, weather permitting.


On tweo occasions were the couple, have had pro photographers
I''ve found myslef in their way.
Once I was kneeling down getting the fluffy clouses and the tower in
teh right place
and noticed a shadow behind me, it was teh pro photographer setting up
his tripod
so I moved out the way. Another tinme I kept hearing the words "Amego
move away ......"
I was doing my friends wedding in Spain and again I seemed to be in
the way.
At this wedding they had to employ two photographers, one for the
church and another for the reception.


>
> For amateurs who want to have a try, there are many good books, DVDs
> and online tutorials which set out what needs to be done. *However,
> reading them is one thing. *Doing it all on the day is something else
> altogether. *The ability to stay organised and keep a cool head when
> things go wrong - which they almost always do - is more important than
> photographic ability. *A missed shot is much worse than a poor shot.
>
> I enjoyed doing it, but I don't miss it at all. *I cannot think of any
> circumstances in which I would ever *choose* to do it again.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-31-2012
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 06:05:31 +0100, Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mr. Strat
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-31-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mxsmanic
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

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


There is no magic in the box.
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-31-2012
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> 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, (E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-31-2012
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> 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, (E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2012
On 1/31/2012 6:43 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:57:14 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet<(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> Mxsmanic<(E-Mail Removed)> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2012

"Mxsmanic" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Starlight being eroded, say astronomers cyber science Python 0 08-18-2009 05:09 PM
Like all great travelers, I have seen more than I remember andremember more than I have seen. shenrilaa@gmail.com Java 0 03-06-2008 08:11 AM
Like all great travelers, I have seen more than I remember andremember more than I have seen. shenrilaa@gmail.com C++ 0 03-05-2008 08:41 AM
Like all great travelers, I have seen more than I remember andremember more than I have seen. shenrilaa@gmail.com C Programming 0 03-05-2008 03:26 AM
WEDDINGO ON LINE WEDDING MALL! ------Wedding dresses, bridesmaid dresses for your wedding day! weddingo Digital Photography 3 06-08-2007 12:11 AM



Advertisments