Re: tough to be a wedding photographer

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Robert Coe, Jul 13, 2010.

  1. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:40:42 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:
    : On 10-07-12 14:10 , C J Campbell wrote:
    :
    : > As Robert Cole pointed out, he is
    : > using a flash with a diffuser pointed straight up -- hardly helping him
    : > at all.
    :
    : Not so true. While not energy efficient it does give a light that's
    : high and above the lens axis and slightly diffuse. This not only gives
    : flattering light but is sure to avoid redeye (most likely with the
    : larger apertures used indoor).

    True enough, if the ceiling is able to reflect a usable amount of the light.
    But church ceilings don't often fit that requirement. And not just because
    they're so high. They're often irregular in shape, causing a lot of the light
    to be scattered.

    My own nemisis is the City Hall ceiling in the city for which I work. I shoot
    events there two or more times a year, and bounce flash is pretty much out of
    the question. The celiling is two stories high, and the wslls are effectively
    red. :^|

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jul 13, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Robert Coe

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <>, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    > That's not the point. With the flash pointing up, the diffuser radiates
    > upward (lost) but also all around. That light heading toward the couple
    > is what lights them.
    >
    > Again: not energy efficient, but WELL OFF LENS AXIS as well as lighting
    > slightly downwards.
    >
    > Which is the point.


    Sounds like you know as much about professional photography as the boob
    in the video.
     
    Mr. Strat, Jul 14, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:34:25 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:
    : On 10-07-13 22:48 , Mr. Strat wrote:
    : > In article<>, Alan Browne
    : > <> wrote:
    : >
    : >> That's not the point. With the flash pointing up, the diffuser radiates
    : >> upward (lost) but also all around. That light heading toward the couple
    : >> is what lights them.
    : >>
    : >> Again: not energy efficient, but WELL OFF LENS AXIS as well as lighting
    : >> slightly downwards.
    : >>
    : >> Which is the point.
    : >
    : > Sounds like you know as much about professional photography as the boob
    : > in the video.
    :
    : I know a lot more about lighting that you can ever hope to know.

    That's a pretty dangerous thing to say on this newsgroup, isn't it? I sure
    wouldn't say it to a newsgroup regular, because I know damn well that not
    everybody here is a relative newbie like I am. Maybe you've just got more
    balls than I have; I usually don't care to risk having an experienced
    professional call my bluff. ;^)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jul 15, 2010
    #3
  4. Robert Coe

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:15:25 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:34:25 -0400, Alan Browne
    ><> wrote:
    >: On 10-07-13 22:48 , Mr. Strat wrote:
    >: > In article<>, Alan Browne
    >: > <> wrote:
    >: >
    >: >> That's not the point. With the flash pointing up, the diffuser radiates
    >: >> upward (lost) but also all around. That light heading toward the couple
    >: >> is what lights them.
    >: >>
    >: >> Again: not energy efficient, but WELL OFF LENS AXIS as well as lighting
    >: >> slightly downwards.
    >: >>
    >: >> Which is the point.
    >: >
    >: > Sounds like you know as much about professional photography as the boob
    >: > in the video.
    >:
    >: I know a lot more about lighting that you can ever hope to know.
    >
    >That's a pretty dangerous thing to say on this newsgroup, isn't it? I sure
    >wouldn't say it to a newsgroup regular, because I know damn well that not
    >everybody here is a relative newbie like I am. Maybe you've just got more
    >balls than I have; I usually don't care to risk having an experienced
    >professional call my bluff. ;^)


    I dunno about "Mr Strat"'s level of expertise is, but we've seen
    Alan's work in the SI and some other examples. I'd say he knows what
    lights to use and how to place them. If Alan has any limitations in
    this area its that he seems more interested in the lighting than the
    interest of the subject matter.




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 15, 2010
    #4
  5. Robert Coe

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <>, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    > > Sounds like you know as much about professional photography as the boob
    > > in the video.

    >
    > I know a lot more about lighting that you can ever hope to know.


    Yeah...I've only been doing photography since 1966...owned & operated a
    portrait studio for 16+ years...earned degrees and awards from
    professional associations...published articles in professional
    publications...
     
    Mr. Strat, Jul 15, 2010
    #5
  6. Robert Coe

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <>, Robert Coe
    <> wrote:

    > That's a pretty dangerous thing to say on this newsgroup, isn't it? I sure
    > wouldn't say it to a newsgroup regular, because I know damn well that not
    > everybody here is a relative newbie like I am. Maybe you've just got more
    > balls than I have; I usually don't care to risk having an experienced
    > professional call my bluff. ;^)


    I used to do photography for a living for many years.
     
    Mr. Strat, Jul 15, 2010
    #6
  7. Robert Coe

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <>, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    > For all the faults of the wedding photog in the video, the placement of
    > his light, while _energy inefficient_, was on the other hand the most
    > flattering light he could provide absent a high and larger diffuser in
    > that situation while taking care to avoid red eye.


    My question is - what was the dork doing inside the church while the
    ceremony was going on to begin with. That's a professional no-no.

    > For all the derision poured on that photog he's probably better than 17
    > out of 20 of the photogs around these NG's... maybe 19 out of 20.


    Probably true there. These days, everybody with a digital camera is a
    pro.
     
    Mr. Strat, Jul 15, 2010
    #7
  8. Robert Coe

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:55:05 -0700, "Mr. Strat"
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>, Alan Browne
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> For all the faults of the wedding photog in the video, the placement of
    >> his light, while _energy inefficient_, was on the other hand the most
    >> flattering light he could provide absent a high and larger diffuser in
    >> that situation while taking care to avoid red eye.

    >
    >My question is - what was the dork doing inside the church while the
    >ceremony was going on to begin with. That's a professional no-no.


    Is it? When my daughter was married we hired a well-established
    professional photographer with a great deal of experience with wedding
    photography. When she laid out the plan (we asked her for one) it
    included shots inside the church, at the altar, and of my daughter
    and now-husband walking back down the aisle.

    We told her that we did not want photographs taken in the church
    during the ceremony. The in-church photos were posed after the
    ceremony when we went back into the church.

    That was at our request, though. Someone in the family - bride,
    groom, parents, someone - should go over in advance the rules for the
    shoot. The more the photographer knows what the family expects, the
    better experience it will be.

    It would have been my preference for none of the guests to shoot flash
    photos during the ceremony, but that's not really something you can
    control. They bring in the point-and-shoots and snap away.

    The photographer, by the way, was a bit surprised that we wanted a
    "game plan" for the shoot. She followed the instructions to the
    letter and the results were excellent. We didn't have a videographer.

    I have been to weddings where the photographer did shoot during the
    ceremony, but from the choir loft or the wings. Not a bad compromise,
    but I just don't like the idea of the distraction of a photographer
    during the ceremony.




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 15, 2010
    #8
  9. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 23:17:31 -0400, tony cooper <>
    wrote:
    : On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:55:05 -0700, "Mr. Strat"
    : <> wrote:
    :
    : >In article <>, Alan Browne
    : ><> wrote:
    : >
    : >> For all the faults of the wedding photog in the video, the placement of
    : >> his light, while _energy inefficient_, was on the other hand the most
    : >> flattering light he could provide absent a high and larger diffuser in
    : >> that situation while taking care to avoid red eye.
    : >
    : >My question is - what was the dork doing inside the church while the
    : >ceremony was going on to begin with. That's a professional no-no.
    :
    : Is it? When my daughter was married we hired a well-established
    : professional photographer with a great deal of experience with wedding
    : photography. When she laid out the plan (we asked her for one) it
    : included shots inside the church, at the altar, and of my daughter
    : and now-husband walking back down the aisle.
    :
    : We told her that we did not want photographs taken in the church
    : during the ceremony. The in-church photos were posed after the
    : ceremony when we went back into the church.
    :
    : That was at our request, though. Someone in the family - bride,
    : groom, parents, someone - should go over in advance the rules for the
    : shoot. The more the photographer knows what the family expects, the
    : better experience it will be.
    :
    : It would have been my preference for none of the guests to shoot flash
    : photos during the ceremony, but that's not really something you can
    : control. They bring in the point-and-shoots and snap away.
    :
    : The photographer, by the way, was a bit surprised that we wanted a
    : "game plan" for the shoot. She followed the instructions to the
    : letter and the results were excellent. We didn't have a videographer.
    :
    : I have been to weddings where the photographer did shoot during the
    : ceremony, but from the choir loft or the wings. Not a bad compromise,
    : but I just don't like the idea of the distraction of a photographer
    : during the ceremony.

    I guess I see your point, Tony, but surely there's a vast middle ground
    between not shooting in the church and falling into the baptismal pool.

    My daughter got married in the chapel of the prep school where she and her
    husband met. Neither is particularly religious, so they brought in a Unitarian
    minister from a church in the area. I don't recall that the issue of shooting
    during the ceremony ever came up. What I do remember is that one of my nephews
    got the best pictures taken in the chapel. Frankly, the professional we hired
    turned out not to be very good. (In fact, I'll hurl the ultimate insult: he
    wasn't as good an event photographer as I am now.)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jul 16, 2010
    #9
  10. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:09:48 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:
    : On 10-07-14 21:55 , Mr. Strat wrote:
    : > In article<>, Alan Browne
    : > <> wrote:
    : >
    : >> For all the faults of the wedding photog in the video, the placement of
    : >> his light, while _energy inefficient_, was on the other hand the most
    : >> flattering light he could provide absent a high and larger diffuser in
    : >> that situation while taking care to avoid red eye.
    : >
    : > My question is - what was the dork doing inside the church while the
    : > ceremony was going on to begin with. That's a professional no-no.
    :
    : Hardly. Many weddings have photogs in the church, running all over,
    : using available light and flash as they see fit. Some clergy might not
    : allow it, but I've not been to a wedding where there hasn't been a pro
    : photog (or 2) all over the church.
    :
    : In predominantly Catholic Quebec, where less that 50% of couples bother
    : getting married (and the last Catholic wedding I was at, the bride was
    : visibly pregnant), I suppose the clergy is going to tolerate anything to
    : get more kids to the altar.

    In predominately Catholic Massachusetts the clergy have far more pressing
    issues to deal with than whether flash gets used during a wedding. That said,
    at my granddaughter's First Communion, the Executive Nun (who was clearly in
    charge, the priest assuming the role of an amiable member of the supporting
    cast) laid down the rules at the outset: There would be no further pictures
    taken once everyone was seated, but the kids would remain on the stage for As
    Long As It Takes afterwards. Nobody made a fuss, and it worked out fine.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jul 16, 2010
    #10
  11. Robert Coe

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <>, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    > Right. So you don't recognize the common technique of the high stofen.


    Whatever that means...

    > I suspect you have 1 year of experience repeated time and again over 40
    > years.


    The guy in the video was an obvious amateur who had no clue what he was
    doing.
     
    Mr. Strat, Jul 16, 2010
    #11
  12. Robert Coe

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <>, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    > Hardly. Many weddings have photogs in the church, running all over,
    > using available light and flash as they see fit. Some clergy might not
    > allow it, but I've not been to a wedding where there hasn't been a pro
    > photog (or 2) all over the church.


    It's likely a regional thing, but in these parts (Pacific Northwest),
    it's not done by professionals.
     
    Mr. Strat, Jul 16, 2010
    #12
    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. weddingo
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,105
    Paul Heslop
    Jun 8, 2007
  2. tony cooper

    Re: tough to be a wedding photographer

    tony cooper, Jul 12, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    389
    Robert Coe
    Jul 28, 2010
  3. DanP

    Re: tough to be a wedding photographer

    DanP, Jul 12, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    347
    John Turco
    Aug 16, 2010
  4. Nervous Nick

    Re: tough to be a wedding photographer

    Nervous Nick, Jul 13, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    240
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Jul 14, 2010
  5. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    Re: tough to be a wedding photographer

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jul 14, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    279
Loading...

Share This Page