"Wedding Photographer Certificates $10!"

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jul 6, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Jul 6, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 14:27:31 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
    : I don't usually comment on other photog's style or skill, but if you
    : are going to use shots to highlight what a camera is capable
    : of...then...well...
    :
    : http://neilvn.com/tangents/2011/06/13/review-fuji-x100-photographing-a-wedding/

    To Hell with what camera he used. Is this really what wedding photography has
    come to, these days? :^|

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jul 10, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Jeff R. Guest

    "George Kerby" <> wrote in message
    news:CA3F9B34.7269F%...
    >>

    > http://neilvn.com/tangents/2011/06/13/review-fuji-x100-photographing-a-wedding>
    > /
    >>
    >> To Hell with what camera he used. Is this really what wedding photography
    >> has
    >> come to, these days? :^|
    >>
    >> Bob

    >
    > 'Fraid so. Anything goes...


    FFS...
    ...how many time does the chap have to say that he was an "Uncle Bob"
    photographer - a backup - *not* the formal, classical type.

    Apart from an apparent inability to hold the camera level (which is strange,
    since the x100 has a "spirit" level in the VF), exactly what is wrong with
    these perfectly pleasant, casual snaps?

    Be specific.

    Mention:
    * exposure
    * contrast
    * colour balance
    * focus
    * composition
    * subject matter (appropriateness)
    or whatever-the-heck-criteria you choose to judge these snaps.
    (BTW - the costumes which the participants choose to wear are surely their
    own business, and nothing to do with the photographer.)

    Remember - there was a multi-DSLR-toting "classical", "professional"
    photographer at the same event, recording all the dull, monotone,
    lined-up-like-a-firing-squad portraits that youse blokes seem to long for.

    ....or is it just that some folks are intimidated by a camera that seems to
    make it so easy?

    You know - nothing's worthwhile unless it's complicated and difficult -
    right?

    --
    Jeff R.
    (put up or shut up)
     
    Jeff R., Jul 11, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:41:30 +1000, "Jeff R." <> wrote:
    :
    : "George Kerby" <> wrote in message
    : news:CA3F9B34.7269F%...
    : >>
    : > http://neilvn.com/tangents/2011/06/13/review-fuji-x100-photographing-a-wedding>
    : > /
    : >>
    : >> To Hell with what camera he used. Is this really what wedding photography
    : >> has
    : >> come to, these days? :^|
    : >>
    : >> Bob
    : >
    : > 'Fraid so. Anything goes...
    :
    : FFS...
    : ..how many time does the chap have to say that he was an "Uncle Bob"
    : photographer - a backup - *not* the formal, classical type.
    :
    : Apart from an apparent inability to hold the camera level (which is strange,
    : since the x100 has a "spirit" level in the VF), exactly what is wrong with
    : these perfectly pleasant, casual snaps?
    :
    : Be specific.

    I don't like them. I think they're tacky.

    : Mention:
    : * exposure
    : * contrast
    : * colour balance
    : * focus
    : * composition
    : * subject matter (appropriateness)
    : or whatever-the-heck-criteria you choose to judge these snaps.
    : (BTW - the costumes which the participants choose to wear are surely their
    : own business, and nothing to do with the photographer.)

    Who are you to tell me what I have to "mention"? I just don't much care for
    the pictures. In many of them the subject matter and composition are absurdly
    contrived. IMO.

    : Remember - there was a multi-DSLR-toting "classical", "professional"
    : photographer at the same event, recording all the dull, monotone,
    : lined-up-like-a-firing-squad portraits that youse blokes seem to long for.

    Oh, right. And he got to set up his own pictures while the "classical"
    photographer and the assembled guests (at least one of whom was paying for all
    this) cooled their heels? Be serious.

    : ...or is it just that some folks are intimidated by a camera that seems to
    : make it so easy?

    What? Are you daft?

    : You know - nothing's worthwhile unless it's complicated and difficult -
    : right?

    What did I say that could possibly justify that supposition? I already said I
    don't care what camera(s) he used.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jul 11, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:01:25 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:41:30 +1000, "Jeff R." <> wrote:
    >:
    >: "George Kerby" <> wrote in message
    >: news:CA3F9B34.7269F%...
    >: >>
    >: > http://neilvn.com/tangents/2011/06/13/review-fuji-x100-photographing-a-wedding>
    >: > /
    >: >>
    >: >> To Hell with what camera he used. Is this really what wedding photography
    >: >> has
    >: >> come to, these days? :^|
    >: >>
    >: >> Bob
    >: >
    >: > 'Fraid so. Anything goes...
    >:
    >: FFS...
    >: ..how many time does the chap have to say that he was an "Uncle Bob"
    >: photographer - a backup - *not* the formal, classical type.
    >:
    >: Apart from an apparent inability to hold the camera level (which is strange,
    >: since the x100 has a "spirit" level in the VF), exactly what is wrong with
    >: these perfectly pleasant, casual snaps?
    >:
    >: Be specific.
    >
    >I don't like them. I think they're tacky.
    >
    >: Mention:
    >: * exposure
    >: * contrast
    >: * colour balance
    >: * focus
    >: * composition
    >: * subject matter (appropriateness)
    >: or whatever-the-heck-criteria you choose to judge these snaps.
    >: (BTW - the costumes which the participants choose to wear are surely their
    >: own business, and nothing to do with the photographer.)
    >
    >Who are you to tell me what I have to "mention"? I just don't much care for
    >the pictures. In many of them the subject matter and composition are absurdly
    >contrived. IMO.


    Generally, the bride or the bride's mother pick the wedding
    photographer based on his gallery of shots from previous weddings.
    They pick him, or her, for style...not camera.

    If the photographer's gallery includes a lot of tilted shots, and the
    person paying for the photographer likes that look, that's who they
    choose. The photographer would be foolish to deviate from his gallery
    style because it would disappoint the bride or the bride's mother.
    Same with black and whites.

    Good photographers, or - I should say - good businessmen who take
    photographs, ask the bride and bride's mother what shots they want
    included. If that cliche shot of the bride and groom's hand on the
    cake-cutting knife is asked for, it damn well better be in the
    package.

    In the page linked to, I - like some other poster - noticed that the
    groom had on a horribly ill-fitting suit. It's not the photographer's
    job, though, to provide sartorial advice.

    No one pays attention to the groom anyway, though.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 11, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    Jeff R. Guest

    "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:41:30 +1000, "Jeff R." <> wrote:
    > :
    > : "George Kerby" <> wrote in message
    > : news:CA3F9B34.7269F%...
    > : >>
    > : >
    > http://neilvn.com/tangents/2011/06/13/review-fuji-x100-photographing-a-wedding>
    > : > /
    > : Be specific.
    >
    > I don't like them. I think they're tacky.


    OK. Fine.
    "Tacky."
    You'd prefer "classical" I presume.
    Sort of like the other bloke - the "primary" photographer - almost certainly
    took scads of.

    >
    > : Mention:
    > : * exposure
    > : * contrast
    > : * colour balance
    > : * focus
    > : * composition
    > : * subject matter (appropriateness)
    > : or whatever-the-heck-criteria you choose to judge these snaps.
    > : (BTW - the costumes which the participants choose to wear are surely
    > their
    > : own business, and nothing to do with the photographer.)
    >
    > Who are you to tell me what I have to "mention"? I just don't much care
    > for
    > the pictures. In many of them the subject matter and composition are
    > absurdly
    > contrived. IMO.


    Who am I?
    My name is Jeff. Hi.
    (did you miss my sig?)

    I did append "whatever-the-heck" to the criteria - so obviously (?) my list
    was intended to be a guide, not compulsory.

    "...subject matter and composition are absurdly contrived. IMO."
    OK. That's useful - partly.
    Which ones?
    Bear in mind it was a wedding.
    People get dressed up at weddings, and do things that are otherwise strange.
    (I agree, BTW, that any of the jumping-in-the-air-all-together shots are
    pretty silly.)

    > : Remember - there was a multi-DSLR-toting "classical", "professional"
    > : photographer at the same event, recording all the dull, monotone,
    > : lined-up-like-a-firing-squad portraits that youse blokes seem to long
    > for.
    >
    > Oh, right. And he got to set up his own pictures while the "classical"
    > photographer and the assembled guests (at least one of whom was paying for
    > all
    > this) cooled their heels? Be serious.


    Um, yes. Why not?
    Who says they had to clash?
    I don't see any indication that the two of them were bolted together.
    Why can't the casual photographer be somewhere else, taking his own shots,
    while the "classical" is ordering people about?


    >
    > : ...or is it just that some folks are intimidated by a camera that seems
    > to
    > : make it so easy?
    >
    > What? Are you daft?


    Well - otherwise - why are you (and others) so furiously antipathetic
    towards what are - after all - just a bunch of pleasant, unintimidating
    wedding snaps?
    Why do feel the need to criticise the photos with unsupported blanket
    condemnation(s)?
    At least my criticism offered the "non-level-horizon" argument.
    What constructive purpose did your (and other) slagging provide?

    Sure looked like nervous intimidation to me.

    >
    > : You know - nothing's worthwhile unless it's complicated and difficult -
    > : right?
    >
    > What did I say that could possibly justify that supposition? I already
    > said I
    > don't care what camera(s) he used.


    As I noted immediately above - I'm looking for your motive here. I see
    none - just a blanket, unsupported condemnation of a set of photos that the
    customer quite possibly liked a great deal (we don't know, after all).
    If you cannot support your criticisms on the basis of the output (the
    photos), then I'm driven to naturally assuming other motives.
    What else do we know about the circumstances? The camera!
    That was indeed the whole purpose of the OP - to highlight the
    function(s)/abilities of that particular camera.
    There.
    That's the line followed - i.e. how I could "possibly suppport that
    supposition."

    Maybe you just _like_ to make mealy-mouthed, unsupported, uncharitable and
    unreasonable blanket condemnations of others' work? I don't know you. I'm
    simply asking (or trying to):
    ....what was wrong with those photos?
    (given the published circumstances of their existence).

    If you answer is simply: "I don't like them", then OK. Fair enough.
    ....but not very useful nor convincing.

    I bet the client liked them.

    --
    Jeff R.
    (and who pays?)
     
    Jeff R., Jul 11, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    Jeff R. Guest

    "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Generally, the bride or the bride's mother pick the wedding
    > photographer based on his gallery of shots from previous weddings.
    > They pick him, or her, for style...not camera.


    Yes but the point of the OP (as far as I could discern) was to demonstrate
    that the camera in question should not be automatically eliminated from
    one's arsenal if taking wedding photos. That it could actually perform that
    function well.
    ....and the audience was photographers/ camera enthusiasts/ measurabators/
    whatever - not the bride's mother.
    I don't know if the post was made in rec.weddings.appreciation. I read it
    in a camera NG.


    > If the photographer's gallery includes a lot of tilted shots, and the
    > person paying for the photographer likes that look, that's who they
    > choose. The photographer would be foolish to deviate from his gallery
    > style because it would disappoint the bride or the bride's mother.
    > Same with black and whites.


    (I've already mentioned my aversion to the tilted shots...)

    Is there a problem with providing a variety? In this case it seems to have
    been free of additional charge or obligation, since the contracted
    photographer no doubt did his job as agreed - presumably without deviation
    from the script.

    The second chap provided what I would suggest (at least) are many happy,
    pleasant and quite usable snaps of what should indeed be a happy occasion.
    I could easily envisage some of them making their way into a formal wedding
    album. (PS can correct for tilt, after all)

    Do we think the client would have shrieked with hostility at the *extra*
    (presumably not "extra-cost") candid-style snaps as shown?
    Would any of the other participants have welcomed some of those shots?

    Does it take anything away from the client's contract to do *more* - at no
    additional cost?
    (anyway - this straying from the point - which was: "did the camera
    suffice?")

    >
    > Good photographers, or - I should say - good businessmen who take
    > photographs, ask the bride and bride's mother what shots they want
    > included. If that cliche shot of the bride and groom's hand on the
    > cake-cutting knife is asked for, it damn well better be in the
    > package.


    As it almost-certainly was.
    The other bloke didn't take anything away from the staged shots (AFAIK - I
    wasn't there.)

    > In the page linked to, I - like some other poster - noticed that the
    > groom had on a horribly ill-fitting suit. It's not the photographer's
    > job, though, to provide sartorial advice.


    Yes - and the straw hats the bridesmaids were flirting with - and the coin
    stuck to the sole of the bride's shoe...
    ....all very tacky in MNSHO too - but hardly anything to do with the
    photographer.
    If they (the bridal party) did it, then presumably they approved of it - and
    would like to see it (whatever the "it" was) recorded for posterity.

    >
    > No one pays attention to the groom anyway, though.


    Heh.
    maybe so.

    > --
    > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida


    --
    Jeff R.
    Sydney, Australia
     
    Jeff R., Jul 11, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <>, Robert Coe
    <> wrote:

    > To Hell with what camera he used. Is this really what wedding photography has
    > come to, these days? :^|


    We used to have three studios in town, mine included. Now there are
    none. There are plenty of amateurs with digital cameras passing
    themselves off as professionals. And one studio doing the same. But the
    quality of work is poor. They cover up their lack of understanding of
    light and posing by doing these crooked horizon available light things.
    But in the end, it's just bad technique.

    People have become so accustomed to the mediocrity of YouTube and the
    like that they accept crap. I'm glad I got out of the business when I
    did.
     
    Mr. Strat, Jul 11, 2011
    #8
  9. "Mr. Strat" <> wrote in message news:
    110720110634049654%:
    > In article <>, Robert Coe
    > <> wrote:


    > > To Hell with what camera he used. Is this really what wedding photography has
    > > come to, these days? :^|


    > We used to have three studios in town, mine included. Now there are
    > none. There are plenty of amateurs with digital cameras passing
    > themselves off as professionals. And one studio doing the same. But the
    > quality of work is poor. They cover up their lack of understanding of
    > light and posing by doing these crooked horizon available light things.
    > But in the end, it's just bad technique.
    >
    > People have become so accustomed to the mediocrity of YouTube and the
    > like that they accept crap. I'm glad I got out of the business when I
    > did.


    The above assumes that there is only ONE approach to wedding
    photography, which there is not. When a couple interviewed
    me, I also interviewed them to find out where on the continuum
    of work from "posed and lighted - and very disruptive of the
    event itself" to "completely undirected fly-on-the-wall
    photographic observation of the event" that they preferred.
    Those who leaned toward the former (which was "not my thing")
    I referred to other photographers; those who leaned toward my
    approach I accepted, and we all had great fun at the weddings
    and I could deliver MANY hundreds of good images caught "in
    the moment" without interrupting anything. This worked well
    for several decades until health issues stopped me. I still
    dislike wedding photos that essentially rip the participants
    out of their reality as people in order to make them look like
    something they are not, although I recognize that is exactly
    what some clients want (fantasy vs. reality...;-).
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Jul 11, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/11/2011 10:44 AM, David Ruether wrote:
    >
    >
    > "Mr. Strat" <> wrote in message news:
    > 110720110634049654%:
    >> In article <>, Robert Coe
    >> <> wrote:

    >
    >> > To Hell with what camera he used. Is this really what wedding

    >> photography has
    >> > come to, these days? :^|

    >
    >> We used to have three studios in town, mine included. Now there are
    >> none. There are plenty of amateurs with digital cameras passing
    >> themselves off as professionals. And one studio doing the same. But the
    >> quality of work is poor. They cover up their lack of understanding of
    >> light and posing by doing these crooked horizon available light things.
    >> But in the end, it's just bad technique.
    >>
    >> People have become so accustomed to the mediocrity of YouTube and the
    >> like that they accept crap. I'm glad I got out of the business when I
    >> did.

    >
    > The above assumes that there is only ONE approach to wedding
    > photography, which there is not. When a couple interviewed
    > me, I also interviewed them to find out where on the continuum
    > of work from "posed and lighted - and very disruptive of the
    > event itself" to "completely undirected fly-on-the-wall
    > photographic observation of the event" that they preferred.
    > Those who leaned toward the former (which was "not my thing")
    > I referred to other photographers; those who leaned toward my
    > approach I accepted, and we all had great fun at the weddings
    > and I could deliver MANY hundreds of good images caught "in
    > the moment" without interrupting anything. This worked well
    > for several decades until health issues stopped me. I still
    > dislike wedding photos that essentially rip the participants
    > out of their reality as people in order to make them look like
    > something they are not, although I recognize that is exactly
    > what some clients want (fantasy vs. reality...;-).
    > --DR
    >

    In too many weddings the bride is in a state of fantasy. She, or her
    parents are hosting a party they cannot afford. get so tied up with
    posed photos, to "preserve memories" of the event that they don not
    enjoy the party. there is fighting over seating, if they forget that
    Uncle Joe and Aunt Mable aren't on speaking terms. etc.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jul 12, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <ivf294$4g7$>, David Ruether
    <> wrote:

    > "Mr. Strat" <> wrote in message news:
    > 110720110634049654%:
    > > In article <>, Robert Coe
    > > <> wrote:

    >
    > > > To Hell with what camera he used. Is this really what wedding photography
    > > > has
    > > > come to, these days? :^|

    >
    > > We used to have three studios in town, mine included. Now there are
    > > none. There are plenty of amateurs with digital cameras passing
    > > themselves off as professionals. And one studio doing the same. But the
    > > quality of work is poor. They cover up their lack of understanding of
    > > light and posing by doing these crooked horizon available light things.
    > > But in the end, it's just bad technique.
    > >
    > > People have become so accustomed to the mediocrity of YouTube and the
    > > like that they accept crap. I'm glad I got out of the business when I
    > > did.

    >
    > The above assumes that there is only ONE approach to wedding
    > photography, which there is not. When a couple interviewed
    > me, I also interviewed them to find out where on the continuum
    > of work from "posed and lighted - and very disruptive of the
    > event itself" to "completely undirected fly-on-the-wall
    > photographic observation of the event" that they preferred.
    > Those who leaned toward the former (which was "not my thing")
    > I referred to other photographers; those who leaned toward my
    > approach I accepted, and we all had great fun at the weddings
    > and I could deliver MANY hundreds of good images caught "in
    > the moment" without interrupting anything. This worked well
    > for several decades until health issues stopped me. I still
    > dislike wedding photos that essentially rip the participants
    > out of their reality as people in order to make them look like
    > something they are not, although I recognize that is exactly
    > what some clients want (fantasy vs. reality...;-).


    Crap sells...
     
    Mr. Strat, Jul 12, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <ivf294$4g7$>, David Ruether
    <> wrote:

    > "Mr. Strat" <> wrote in message news:
    > 110720110634049654%:
    > > In article <>, Robert Coe
    > > <> wrote:

    >
    > > > To Hell with what camera he used. Is this really what wedding photography
    > > > has
    > > > come to, these days? :^|

    >
    > > We used to have three studios in town, mine included. Now there are
    > > none. There are plenty of amateurs with digital cameras passing
    > > themselves off as professionals. And one studio doing the same. But the
    > > quality of work is poor. They cover up their lack of understanding of
    > > light and posing by doing these crooked horizon available light things.
    > > But in the end, it's just bad technique.
    > >
    > > People have become so accustomed to the mediocrity of YouTube and the
    > > like that they accept crap. I'm glad I got out of the business when I
    > > did.

    >
    > The above assumes that there is only ONE approach to wedding
    > photography, which there is not. When a couple interviewed
    > me, I also interviewed them to find out where on the continuum
    > of work from "posed and lighted - and very disruptive of the
    > event itself" to "completely undirected fly-on-the-wall
    > photographic observation of the event" that they preferred.
    > Those who leaned toward the former (which was "not my thing")
    > I referred to other photographers; those who leaned toward my
    > approach I accepted, and we all had great fun at the weddings
    > and I could deliver MANY hundreds of good images caught "in
    > the moment" without interrupting anything. This worked well
    > for several decades until health issues stopped me. I still
    > dislike wedding photos that essentially rip the participants
    > out of their reality as people in order to make them look like
    > something they are not, although I recognize that is exactly
    > what some clients want (fantasy vs. reality...;-).


    I didn't say that there was only one way. But there is a difference
    between professionalism and amateurism.
     
    Mr. Strat, Jul 12, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/11/2011 9:14 PM, Mr. Strat wrote:
    <snip>
    >
    > I didn't say that there was only one way. But there is a difference
    > between professionalism and amateurism.


    Especially in tennis.
    An amateur jumps over the net.
    A professionals manager jumps over the gross.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jul 12, 2011
    #13
  14. RichA

    Jeff R. Guest

    "Mr. Strat" <> wrote in message
    news:110720111814591456%...
    >
    > I didn't say that there was only one way. But there is a difference
    > between professionalism and amateurism.


    Yes.
    The professional does it only for the money.
    The amateur usually has nobler motives, and frequently has superior skills.

    --
    Jeff R.
     
    Jeff R., Jul 12, 2011
    #14
  15. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:54:14 +1000, "Jeff R." <> wrote:
    :
    : "Mr. Strat" <> wrote in message
    : news:110720111814591456%...
    : >
    : > I didn't say that there was only one way. But there is a difference
    : > between professionalism and amateurism.
    :
    : Yes.
    : The professional does it only for the money.

    OK, Jeff, I guess I finally see where you were coming from - questioning my
    motives, etc. earlier in the thread. You apparently have something against
    professional photographers and have somehow gotten the idea that I am one.

    Actually, I'm at most a semi-professional. Photography is part of my day job,
    but a small part. It's not the reason they pay me to stay.

    : The amateur usually has nobler motives, and frequently has superior skills.

    Well, I shoot landscapes and architecture for work and for my own enjoyment. I
    shoot events for work and to please my friends and relatives, who assume (as
    most people do) that any photographer is an event photographer. I'm a
    moderately decent landscape photographer and a mediocre event photographer.
    But I bring the same motive to all my photography: the desire to do the best I
    can and not embarrass myself or the people who asked me to do the work.

    And that's it.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jul 12, 2011
    #15
  16. RichA

    Jeff R. Guest

    "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:54:14 +1000, "Jeff R." <> wrote:
    > :
    > : "Mr. Strat" <> wrote in message
    > : news:110720111814591456%...
    > : >
    > : > I didn't say that there was only one way. But there is a difference
    > : > between professionalism and amateurism.
    > :
    > : Yes.
    > : The professional does it only for the money.
    >
    > OK, Jeff, I guess I finally see where you were coming from - questioning
    > my
    > motives, etc. earlier in the thread. You apparently have something against
    > professional photographers and have somehow gotten the idea that I am one.


    No on both counts.
    Sorry I misled you - I can see how you could take my comments as such.

    I have nothing against professional photographers - got 'em in the family,
    after all.
    What irks me is the suggestion (!) that a professional is better - more
    skilled - just_by_simple_virtue_of_being_a_professional.
    Silly bloody idea.

    I could make analogies to other professions, but I'm sure you've heard them.

    >
    > Actually, I'm at most a semi-professional. Photography is part of my day
    > job,
    > but a small part. It's not the reason they pay me to stay.
    >
    > : The amateur usually has nobler motives, and frequently has superior
    > skills.
    >
    > Well, I shoot landscapes and architecture for work and for my own
    > enjoyment. I
    > shoot events for work and to please my friends and relatives, who assume
    > (as
    > most people do) that any photographer is an event photographer. I'm a
    > moderately decent landscape photographer and a mediocre event
    > photographer.
    > But I bring the same motive to all my photography: the desire to do the
    > best I
    > can and not embarrass myself or the people who asked me to do the work.
    >
    > And that's it.
    >
    > Bob


    ....and nicely put, too.
    I seem to share your circumstances and your opinions in this regard. I
    shoot events and portraits at work, but I am certainly not a "professional".

    ....and I'm still moderately impressed with the wedding snaps taken with the
    little Fuji - horizons and tackiness notwithstanding.

    --
    Jeff R.
     
    Jeff R., Jul 12, 2011
    #16
  17. RichA

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <4e1ba945$0$2442$>, Jeff R.
    <> wrote:

    > "Mr. Strat" <> wrote in message
    > news:110720111814591456%...
    > >
    > > I didn't say that there was only one way. But there is a difference
    > > between professionalism and amateurism.

    >
    > Yes.
    > The professional does it only for the money.
    > The amateur usually has nobler motives, and frequently has superior skills.


    I've rarely found this to be the case.
     
    Mr. Strat, Jul 12, 2011
    #17
  18. "PeterN" <> wrote in message news:
    4e1b8a82$0$12457$-secrets.com:

    > In too many weddings the bride is in a state of fantasy. She, or her
    > parents are hosting a party they cannot afford. get so tied up with
    > posed photos, to "preserve memories" of the event that they don not
    > enjoy the party. there is fighting over seating, if they forget that
    > Uncle Joe and Aunt Mable aren't on speaking terms. etc.
    > --
    > Peter


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Maybe it was my "realistic" approach, and my willingness
    to describe what I would do (and provide), and wouldn't do
    (and would not provide) that saved me from such unreality
    (and nonsense). In a long career shooting weddings (among
    other things), I ran across only one minor "incident".
    Unbeknownst to me, the two mothers didn't get along well
    (the mother of the bride didn't like the mother of the groom),
    and after completing a video of the wedding (I shot wedding
    videos also...), the mother of the bride demanded that I
    remove some footage of the mother-in-law. :-( I "chopped"
    it out...
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Jul 12, 2011
    #18
  19. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/12/2011 9:29 AM, Mr. Strat wrote:
    > In article<4e1ba945$0$2442$>, Jeff R.
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> "Mr. Strat"<> wrote in message
    >> news:110720111814591456%...
    >>>
    >>> I didn't say that there was only one way. But there is a difference
    >>> between professionalism and amateurism.

    >>
    >> Yes.
    >> The professional does it only for the money.
    >> The amateur usually has nobler motives, and frequently has superior skills.

    >
    > I've rarely found this to be the case.


    Maybe he wasn't talking about photography ;-)

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jul 12, 2011
    #19
  20. RichA

    Jeff R. Guest

    "PeterN" <> wrote in message
    news:4e1c5bd1$0$12485$-secrets.com...
    > On 7/12/2011 9:29 AM, Mr. Strat wrote:
    >> In article<4e1ba945$0$2442$>, Jeff R.
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Mr. Strat"<> wrote in message
    >>> news:110720111814591456%...
    >>>>
    >>>> I didn't say that there was only one way. But there is a difference
    >>>> between professionalism and amateurism.
    >>>
    >>> Yes.
    >>> The professional does it only for the money.
    >>> The amateur usually has nobler motives, and frequently has superior
    >>> skills.

    >>
    >> I've rarely found this to be the case.

    >
    > Maybe he wasn't talking about photography ;-)


    Actually I was - 'though I acknowledge the obvious alternative reference.

    --
    Jeff R.
     
    Jeff R., Jul 13, 2011
    #20
    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.

Share This Page