Re: Digital Wedding

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Fritz Wuehler, Jan 15, 2004.

  1. "netnews" <> wrote:

    >I said I was a wedding photographer, and asked if they
    >had a photographer. He said no and the rest was history.


    uh...it seems they STILL had no "photographer." This is some kind of a joke or a troll, right? These are horrible photos, absolutely horrible in every conceivable way. Bad, bad, bad. These are even awful by snapshot standards, they truly have no redeeming qualities at all. No attention to detail, exposure, background, posing, nothing. These photos suck, period. Id expect better from a camera strapped to a pet. You want people to pay for these?

    There are so many problems with these images, there is really no place to start critiquing them. Not to mention everything thats obviously missing from what the most mediocre "wedding photographer" would cover, even at this "casual" wedding. I cant imagine you would use these as an example of your work expecting to generate business, but a quick look at your site confirms the obvious: dont quit your day job. Despite your "bargain-basement-give-it-away-for-nothing" prices. This is what happens when a wannabe buys a camera and makes a website. Another example of why wedding photographers get a bum rap (and Im the last to stick up for them).

    Its painfully apparent that you have no aptitude for this type of work. You should have stayed on vacation and left the camera home.
     
    Fritz Wuehler, Jan 15, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Fritz Wuehler wrote:

    > uh...it seems they STILL had no "photographer." This is some kind of a joke or a troll, right? These are horrible photos, absolutely horrible in every conceivable way. Bad, bad, bad. These are even awful by snapshot standards, they truly have no redeeming qualities at all. No attention to detail, exposure, background, posing, nothing. These photos suck, period. Id expect better from a camera strapped to a pet. You want people to pay for these?
    >
    > There are so many problems with these images, there is really no place to start critiquing them. Not to mention everything thats obviously missing from what the most mediocre "wedding photographer" would cover, even at this "casual" wedding. I cant imagine you would use these as an example of your work expecting to generate business, but a quick look at your site confirms the obvious: dont quit your day job. Despite your "bargain-basement-give-it-away-for-nothing" prices. This is what happens when a wannabe buys a camera and makes a website. Another example of why wedding photographers get a bum rap (and Im the last to stick up for them).
    >
    > Its painfully apparent that you have no aptitude for this type of work. You should have stayed on vacation and left the camera home.
    >

    So then, you didn't like them, right?

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Jan 15, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Fritz Wuehler

    netnews Guest

    "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote in message
    news:6vENb.43427$...
    >
    >
    > Fritz Wuehler wrote:
    >
    > > uh...it seems they STILL had no "photographer." This is some kind of a

    joke or a troll, right? These are horrible photos, absolutely horrible in
    every conceivable way. Bad, bad, bad. These are even awful by snapshot
    standards, they truly have no redeeming qualities at all. No attention to
    detail, exposure, background, posing, nothing. These photos suck, period. Id
    expect better from a camera strapped to a pet. You want people to pay for
    these?
    > >
    > > There are so many problems with these images, there is really no place

    to start critiquing them. Not to mention everything thats obviously missing
    from what the most mediocre "wedding photographer" would cover, even at this
    "casual" wedding. I cant imagine you would use these as an example of your
    work expecting to generate business, but a quick look at your site confirms
    the obvious: dont quit your day job. Despite your
    "bargain-basement-give-it-away-for-nothing" prices. This is what happens
    when a wannabe buys a camera and makes a website. Another example of why
    wedding photographers get a bum rap (and Im the last to stick up for them).
    > >
    > > Its painfully apparent that you have no aptitude for this type of work.

    You should have stayed on vacation and left the camera home.
    > >

    > So then, you didn't like them, right?
    >
    > Gary Eickmeier
    >

    Funny Gary, I guess he didn't like the images.
    I don't think my prices are bargain basement. I offer a value, I don't have
    a high overhead, all equipment is paid for, only expense I have is buying
    ads in Bridal Mags, theKnot, WeddingBells, and Dallas Wedding Book. not
    bargain basement publications.
    Still the Bride and Groom loked the images. thats what matters
    F
     
    netnews, Jan 16, 2004
    #3
  4. > So then, you didn't like them, right?

    I agree. They sucked big time.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jan 16, 2004
    #4
  5. The guy's Web site has better stuff but not by much. Selling 16x20's
    for $50...ya gotta be gettin' 'em at Wal-Mart. Nothing like giving
    your work away.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jan 16, 2004
    #5
  6. Fritz Wuehler

    netnews Guest

    Hey you get a 16x20 for booking a wedding, and no I don't use WalMart. do
    they even do 16x20. I have found a lab that does excellent 16x20 from
    dogotal that costs $19.99. I just pass along the savings.
    Do you ever post any of your work?

    --
    David Holliday
    HollidayPhoto
    www.HollidayPhoto.com



    "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    news:150120042148458285%...
    > The guy's Web site has better stuff but not by much. Selling 16x20's
    > for $50...ya gotta be gettin' 'em at Wal-Mart. Nothing like giving
    > your work away.
     
    netnews, Jan 16, 2004
    #6
  7. Fritz Wuehler

    George Kerby Guest

    On 1/16/04 5:26 AM, in article LTPNb.65336$Rc4.225472@attbi_s54, "netnews"
    <> wrote:

    > Hey you get a 16x20 for booking a wedding, and no I don't use WalMart. do
    > they even do 16x20. I have found a lab that does excellent 16x20 from
    > dogotal that costs $19.99. I just pass along the savings.
    > Do you ever post any of your work?

    Hey David! Looks like you're in a pissfight here. I'll get out of the way
    while I just want to say congrats on your smokefree year. I haven't been
    over to alt.support.smoking for awhile, but I need to go over and join the
    other one-yearers in the hot tub. Seeya!


    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
     
    George Kerby, Jan 16, 2004
    #7
  8. > Hey you get a 16x20 for booking a wedding, and no I don't use WalMart. do
    > they even do 16x20. I have found a lab that does excellent 16x20 from
    > dogotal that costs $19.99. I just pass along the savings.
    > Do you ever post any of your work?


    Some of my digital pictorials can be found at
    http://users.techline.com/randya

    I don't have anything from my studio days because I don't have any good
    scans of it. But...I had several articles published in The
    Professional Photographer and was one of the first 3 CPPs in the State
    of Washington, served 10 years on the Board of Trustees of the Pacific
    Northwest School of Professional Photography.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jan 16, 2004
    #8
  9. Fritz Wuehler

    Crownfield Guest

    Randall Ainsworth wrote:
    >
    > > Hey you get a 16x20 for booking a wedding, and no I don't use WalMart. do
    > > they even do 16x20. I have found a lab that does excellent 16x20 from
    > > dogotal that costs $19.99. I just pass along the savings.
    > > Do you ever post any of your work?

    >
    > Some of my digital pictorials can be found at
    > http://users.techline.com/randya


    impossible to pick a favorite!

    >
    > I don't have anything from my studio days because I don't have any good
    > scans of it. But...I had several articles published in The
    > Professional Photographer and was one of the first 3 CPPs in the State
    > of Washington, served 10 years on the Board of Trustees of the Pacific
    > Northwest School of Professional Photography.
     
    Crownfield, Jan 16, 2004
    #9
  10. > impossible to pick a favorite!

    I tend to be a fair weather photographer. And I just went back to
    work a couple months back so my free time has been limited. But I did
    get a chance to take some pics of the snow a couple weeks back. Damn I
    love this digital!
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jan 16, 2004
    #10
  11. Fritz Wuehler

    nosredna Guest

    In article <160120041553215656%>,
    Randall Ainsworth <> wrote:

    > > impossible to pick a favorite!

    >
    > I tend to be a fair weather photographer. And I just went back to
    > work a couple months back so my free time has been limited. But I did
    > get a chance to take some pics of the snow a couple weeks back. Damn I
    > love this digital!


    Yes, and I think that's the whole point of the original poster (the
    wedding photographer). He wasn't posting to brag about his
    abilities--just his wonder and amazement at a technology that enables us
    to do spur-of-the-moment photography with minimal muss and fuss.
     
    nosredna, Jan 17, 2004
    #11
  12. Fritz Wuehler

    Guest

    , Jan 17, 2004
    #12
  13. > Randall Ainsworth <> wrote:
    >
    > >Some of my digital pictorials can be found at
    > >http://users.techline.com/randya

    >
    > Outstanding!


    I don't know about that. But I know that my weddings were much than
    the original poster's.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jan 17, 2004
    #13
  14. Fritz Wuehler

    netnews Guest

    --


    "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote in message
    news:170120040844421747%...
    > > Randall Ainsworth <> wrote:
    > >
    > > >Some of my digital pictorials can be found at
    > > >http://users.techline.com/randya

    > >
    > > Outstanding!

    >
    > I don't know about that. But I know that my weddings were much than
    > the original poster's.

    And that what really counts Randall right?
    If it makes you feel better.
    David Holliday
    HollidayPhoto
    www.HollidayPhoto.com
     
    netnews, Jan 17, 2004
    #14
  15. > > I don't know about that. But I know that my weddings were much than
    > > the original poster's.

    > And that what really counts Randall right?
    > If it makes you feel better.


    What counts is that I did professional quality work day in and day out
    for years (and still do every time I pick up a camera). Others use the
    term professional just because someone puts a few bucks in their
    pocket.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jan 18, 2004
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. gr

    Re: Digital Wedding

    gr, Jul 28, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    369
  2. Randall Ainsworth

    Re: Digital Wedding

    Randall Ainsworth, Jul 28, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    639
    Chris Hoopes
    Aug 13, 2003
  3. Marvin Margoshes

    Re: Digital Wedding

    Marvin Margoshes, Jul 29, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    328
    Randall Ainsworth
    Jul 29, 2003
  4. Paul Cordes

    Re: Digital wedding nightmare.

    Paul Cordes, Jul 30, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    528
    Lionel
    Aug 12, 2003
  5. weddingo
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,087
    Paul Heslop
    Jun 8, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page