Re: Monte Zucker

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Michael Scarpitti, Apr 1, 2004.

  1. "Patrick L." <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > He's got an article in the latest issue off ShutterBug mag, and he says he
    > uses a 10D and a 28-135 IS lens for wedding portraits.
    >
    >
    > I knew that he switched from a Hassy to a 10D, but I was suprised by the
    > lens choice for portraiture, and I was sure he would be using a prime 85mm L
    > F/1.4 USM. Or something similar.
    >
    >
    >
    > Patrick


    Whatever Monte Zucker does would indicate exactly the opposite of what
    one ought to do. He's a hack who thinks fuzz is flattering.
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Apr 1, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Michael Scarpitti wrote:

    > "Patrick L." <> wrote in message news:<>...
    >
    >>He's got an article in the latest issue off ShutterBug mag, and he says he
    >>uses a 10D and a 28-135 IS lens for wedding portraits.
    >>
    >>
    >>I knew that he switched from a Hassy to a 10D, but I was suprised by the
    >>lens choice for portraiture, and I was sure he would be using a prime 85mm L
    >>F/1.4 USM. Or something similar.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>Patrick

    >
    >
    > Whatever Monte Zucker does would indicate exactly the opposite of what
    > one ought to do. He's a hack who thinks fuzz is flattering.


    Monte is not a hack unless all wedding and portrait photographers are
    hacks; in his time he was a pioneer of completely new styles and
    marketing concepts, which matter as much to studios as anything
    technical. Monte also taught some rigorous approaches to lighting and
    contrast in the first days of colour negative films, especially
    Vericolor which was most unforgiving. Ian Coates took up his approach
    and passed this to the best British photographers, and it is only
    recently that this generation has begun to retire, and new photographers
    don't understand the principles. Monte probably forgot them long ago, as
    materials became so much better you no longer have to do things with the
    same level of control or awareness. And with digital... well, just alter
    the levels later!

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Apr 1, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Michael Scarpitti

    TP Guest

    David Kilpatrick <> wrote:

    >Monte is not a hack unless all wedding and portrait photographers are
    >hacks;


    We *are* all hacks. ;-)

    >in his time he was a pioneer of completely new styles and
    >marketing concepts, which matter as much to studios as anything
    >technical. Monte also taught some rigorous approaches to lighting and
    >contrast in the first days of colour negative films, especially
    >Vericolor which was most unforgiving. Ian Coates took up his approach
    >and passed this to the best British photographers, and it is only
    >recently that this generation has begun to retire, and new photographers
    >don't understand the principles. Monte probably forgot them long ago, as
    >materials became so much better you no longer have to do things with the
    >same level of control or awareness. And with digital... well, just alter
    >the levels later!


    Monte Zucker's approach to the job changed social photography
    dramatically for the better. Where he was/is king is in the creation
    and marketing of a whole wedding package, rather than a disparate
    collection of prints in an afterthought of an album. I find his
    professional approach inspiring.

    The contrived "informality" of certain current "fashionable" UK social
    shooters is wholly amateurish by comparison. (NO NAMES!)
     
    TP, Apr 1, 2004
    #3
  4. Michael Scarpitti

    Brad Willis Guest

    x-no-archive:yes

    David Kilpatrick <> wrote:

    >
    >Michael Scarpitti wrote:
    >
    >> "Patrick L." <> wrote in message news:<>...
    >>
    >> Whatever Monte Zucker does would indicate exactly the opposite of what
    >> one ought to do. He's a hack who thinks fuzz is flattering.

    >
    >Monte is not a hack unless all wedding and portrait photographers are
    >hacks; in his time he was a pioneer of completely new styles and
    >marketing concepts, which matter as much to studios as anything
    >technical.


    I'd hardly call him a "hack," but he's without a doubt a
    one-trick-pony. His "style" is so easy to duplicate a high school kid
    can do it on the first try. He has one shot, with virtually no
    variation. Period. If you can't do the "Monte style" in your sleep you
    should get a day job. And it's not "his" style at all, if you folks
    knew anything about the business you would know who he "stole" it
    from. Do your research. If you ever get a chance to see a complete
    Monte wedding you would be shocked at the mediocrity of it. If you
    ever get the chance to spend time one-on-one with him you would be
    astonished at how little he knows about the "technique" he teaches and
    how much of his information is just plain factually inaccurate.

    Monte's a marketer, not a photographer. His "stylistic ship" has
    sailed long ago, right up there with the bride-in-the-brandy-glass
    shot. People are confusing "classic" with "dated." While I'm happy to
    do a "Monte style" portrait for anyone who wants one, lots of
    customers use examples of his photos as the style they DON'T want, I
    doubt I'm alone.
     
    Brad Willis, Apr 1, 2004
    #4
  5. Michael Scarpitti

    TP Guest

    (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:

    >Whatever Monte Zucker does would indicate exactly the opposite of what
    >one ought to do. He's a hack who thinks fuzz is flattering.



    And you're the hack who labours under the illusion that
    photographers are defined by the brand of gear they use.
     
    TP, Apr 1, 2004
    #5
  6. Michael Scarpitti

    Bob Hickey Guest

    "Brad Willis" <> wrote in message
    news:406c7d2d.127973265@127.0.0.1...
    > x-no-archive:yes
    >
    > David Kilpatrick <> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >Michael Scarpitti wrote:
    > >
    > >> "Patrick L." <> wrote in message

    news:<>...
    > >>
    > >> Whatever Monte Zucker does would indicate exactly the opposite of what
    > >> one ought to do. He's a hack who thinks fuzz is flattering.

    > >
    > >Monte is not a hack unless all wedding and portrait photographers are
    > >hacks; in his time he was a pioneer of completely new styles and
    > >marketing concepts, which matter as much to studios as anything
    > >technical.

    >
    > I'd hardly call him a "hack," but he's without a doubt a
    > one-trick-pony. His "style" is so easy to duplicate a high school kid
    > can do it on the first try. He has one shot, with virtually no
    > variation. Period. If you can't do the "Monte style" in your sleep you
    > should get a day job. And it's not "his" style at all, if you folks
    > knew anything about the business you would know who he "stole" it
    > from. Do your research. If you ever get a chance to see a complete
    > Monte wedding you would be shocked at the mediocrity of it. If you
    > ever get the chance to spend time one-on-one with him you would be
    > astonished at how little he knows about the "technique" he teaches and
    > how much of his information is just plain factually inaccurate.
    >
    > Monte's a marketer, not a photographer. His "stylistic ship" has
    > sailed long ago, right up there with the bride-in-the-brandy-glass
    > shot. People are confusing "classic" with "dated." While I'm happy to
    > do a "Monte style" portrait for anyone who wants one, lots of
    > customers use examples of his photos as the style they DON'T want, I
    > doubt I'm alone.
    >

    On the one hand, my feeling is, the only thing he "invented" is the
    Wurlitzer effect. On the other hand, anybody who can make that kind of money
    with one shot, knows something I wish I knew. Bob Hickey
     
    Bob Hickey, Apr 2, 2004
    #6
  7. > Whatever Monte Zucker does would indicate exactly the opposite of what
    > one ought to do. He's a hack who thinks fuzz is flattering.


    And you're an idiot.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Apr 2, 2004
    #7
  8. > I'd hardly call him a "hack," but he's without a doubt a
    > one-trick-pony. His "style" is so easy to duplicate a high school kid
    > can do it on the first try. He has one shot, with virtually no
    > variation. Period. If you can't do the "Monte style" in your sleep you
    > should get a day job. And it's not "his" style at all, if you folks
    > knew anything about the business you would know who he "stole" it
    > from. Do your research. If you ever get a chance to see a complete
    > Monte wedding you would be shocked at the mediocrity of it. If you
    > ever get the chance to spend time one-on-one with him you would be
    > astonished at how little he knows about the "technique" he teaches and
    > how much of his information is just plain factually inaccurate.
    >
    > Monte's a marketer, not a photographer. His "stylistic ship" has
    > sailed long ago, right up there with the bride-in-the-brandy-glass
    > shot. People are confusing "classic" with "dated." While I'm happy to
    > do a "Monte style" portrait for anyone who wants one, lots of
    > customers use examples of his photos as the style they DON'T want, I
    > doubt I'm alone.


    Sounds like a Charlie Lewis fan.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Apr 2, 2004
    #8
  9. Michael Scarpitti

    TP Guest

    (Brad Willis) wrote:
    >
    >Monte's a marketer, not a photographer. His "stylistic ship" has
    >sailed long ago, right up there with the bride-in-the-brandy-glass
    >shot. People are confusing "classic" with "dated." While I'm happy to
    >do a "Monte style" portrait for anyone who wants one, lots of
    >customers use examples of his photos as the style they DON'T want, I
    >doubt I'm alone.


    You've missed the point. It is all about his marketing and his
    professionalism. The style is almost incidental; his strength is in
    his professional approach to the marketing and presentation of the
    package.

    Styles come and go. Professionalism endures.

    I hope your success lasts as long as Monte Zucker's.
     
    TP, Apr 2, 2004
    #9
  10. Randall Ainsworth <> wrote in message news:<020420040345517631%>...
    > > Whatever Monte Zucker does would indicate exactly the opposite of what
    > > one ought to do. He's a hack who thinks fuzz is flattering.

    >
    > And you're an idiot.


    Is that so? Look at this guy's work and tell me he's not a world-class hack.

    There's a wedding photographer born every minute.....
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Apr 3, 2004
    #10
  11. TP <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
    >
    > >Whatever Monte Zucker does would indicate exactly the opposite of what
    > >one ought to do. He's a hack who thinks fuzz is flattering.

    >
    >
    > And you're the hack who labours under the illusion that
    > photographers are defined by the brand of gear they use.


    Luckily, I am not defined....at all...especially not as a
    photographer...I am a man....
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Apr 3, 2004
    #11
  12. Michael Scarpitti

    Tom Guest

    "Michael Scarpitti" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > TP <> wrote in message

    news:<>...
    > > (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
    > >
    > > >Whatever Monte Zucker does would indicate exactly the opposite of what
    > > >one ought to do. He's a hack who thinks fuzz is flattering.

    > >
    > >
    > > And you're the hack who labours under the illusion that
    > > photographers are defined by the brand of gear they use.

    >
    > Luckily, I am not defined....at all...especially not as a
    > photographer...



    Yeah, I kinda figured that out.

    Tom
     
    Tom, Apr 3, 2004
    #12
  13. Michael Scarpitti

    Frank Pittel Guest

    In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Michael Scarpitti <> wrote:
    : Randall Ainsworth <> wrote in message news:<020420040345517631%>...
    : > > Whatever Monte Zucker does would indicate exactly the opposite of what
    : > > one ought to do. He's a hack who thinks fuzz is flattering.
    : >
    : > And you're an idiot.

    : Is that so? Look at this guy's work and tell me he's not a world-class hack.

    Yes it's true. You're an idiot.
    --




    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
    -------------------
     
    Frank Pittel, Apr 19, 2004
    #13
  14. Michael Scarpitti

    Frank Pittel Guest

    In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Michael Scarpitti <> wrote:
    : TP <> wrote in message news:<>...
    : > (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
    : >
    : > >Whatever Monte Zucker does would indicate exactly the opposite of what
    : > >one ought to do. He's a hack who thinks fuzz is flattering.
    : >
    : >
    : > And you're the hack who labours under the illusion that
    : > photographers are defined by the brand of gear they use.

    : Luckily, I am not defined....at all...especially not as a
    : photographer...I am a man....

    I doubt anyone has ever considered you a photographer.
    --




    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
    -------------------
     
    Frank Pittel, Apr 19, 2004
    #14
  15. Frank Pittel <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Michael Scarpitti <> wrote:
    > : TP <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > : > (Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
    > : >
    > : > >Whatever Monte Zucker does would indicate exactly the opposite of what
    > : > >one ought to do. He's a hack who thinks fuzz is flattering.
    > : >
    > : >
    > : > And you're the hack who labours under the illusion that
    > : > photographers are defined by the brand of gear they use.
    >
    > : Luckily, I am not defined....at all...especially not as a
    > : photographer...I am a man....
    >
    > I doubt anyone has ever considered you a photographer.


    It took me years for people to stop doing so.....
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Apr 19, 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. Bill Hilton

    Re: Monte Zucker

    Bill Hilton, Apr 1, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    445
    zeitgeist
    Apr 2, 2004
  2. Paul

    Re: Monte Zucker

    Paul, Apr 1, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    416
  3. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    574
    DVD Verdict
    Mar 30, 2006
  4. merlin
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    519
    merlin
    Sep 25, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page