On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 12:58:46 -0600, John
>On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:33:27 GMT, d_ruether@hotmail.com (Neuman - Ruether) wrote:
>>To me, it appears that your girlfriend did not
>>understand the approach of the photographer...
> Of course this might have been a failure on the behalf of the
>photographer.
Yes - see below...
>>On first contact, I point out that the client needs
>>to know and evaluate three things: the photographer's
>>approach to covering the event, the cost, and the
>>photographer him/herself. I explain that approaches
>>range from the traditional director/set-up/light-
>>everything (most intrusive, with least sense of
>>"location/event-particulars" imparted in the images)
>>to "fly-on-the-wall" observe-and-record, but direct-
>>nothing (may miss some "standard" images, but the
>>plethora of good images shot available light give
>>a good sense for what it was like to be there, with
>>the participants caught "in action" rather than
>>"lined up"...).
> "Some" ? Even though they often shoot over 1500 frames, PJ wedding
>photographers usually miss a lot. Also while all of us will probably agree that
>ambient lighting usually looks better , how many churches and reception
>facilities use enough light for that ? Even with Delta 3200 pushed to EI 6400 in
>my RB I rarely see speeds high enough to hand hold the camera without a monopod.
120-film cameras are generally unsuitable for shooting
available-light hand-held event work under the lighting
conditions often found at weddings. An easily-held
35mm camera with a 35mm f2 or f1.4 lens that is sharp
wide-open is needed - and with 800-speed film, one may
still be shooting around 1/8th second (or slower...)
in some locations...
>>If the price is not affordable for
>>the work desired, this should be known early. And,
>>the photographer will be part of the whole event - if
>>the client does not like the photographer, or
>>appreciate the approach (some "studio-type"
>>photographers take over the event [some gracefully,
>>some not...]
> I always love terms like "take over" and "intrusive". Hallmarks of
>card-carrying PJ shooters.
And mentioned by many a client who has seen weddings
of friends/relatives spoiled by this approach...;-)
> Fact is most couples welcome a little guidance and rely on those that have
>attended many weddings to bring some order to what is usually chaos.
Some do, some don't. I'm not saying one approach is better
than another, but different. If I find I'm talking with
clients who prefer the "director" type, I refer them to
good local photographers who shoot this way. This is
preferable to a mis-match... I have shot many a wonderful
wedding that goes at its own pace, though...;-)
>>, and some "recording-type" photographers
>>initiate absolutely nothing, missing some things
>>the client may have wanted), this should be realized
>>early.
> Yeah, like a PJ shooter is going to tell the prospective client.
This is part of the communication necessary to avoid
misunderstandings...
>>>To summarize...
>>>1. a yellow tint to all photos
>>MUCH better than blue or green - I often ask my
>>printer to err on the side of yellow with available-light
>>photos rather than risk green... Some prefer the
>>"old" look, the warmth. Alternatively, if everything
>>is shot flash, skin-tone can be good and consistent,
>>sharpness is assured, but often little shows in the
>>images but heads atop triangles of shirts, in a field
>>of black (the "lightbulb in a dark cave" look...).
> Methinks someone needs to learn how to balance strobe and shutter speed to
>ambient light !
Methinks you have not looked at my web page...;-)
Or bothered to read my 5000 or so posts on photography...
>>>4. all posed shots were initiated by the bride. The photographer did
>>>not seem to care, or to have a plan
>>Either the client had no idea of the photographer's
>>approach, or had expectations that were not justified...
>>I point out that most good "studio-type" photographers
>>haven't a clue about how to shoot "candids",
> Ummmm, yeah. They went to school for photography and never in their life
>shot a candid. Please. This dogma is yet another of the endless tiresome PJ
>shooters condescending attitudes.
Like yours...? ;-)
> Just for your information most studio portraits rely a great deal on
>candid expression and the preparedness of the photographer to capture those
>fleeting instances of expression. Setting the stage doe not make the play.
But it does remove the "ambience"...
Sometimes I joke that in this digital age, a studio
photographer need only offer three ready-made albums,
and photograph the faces of the principals to
"photo-shop" them into the stock books...;-)
I prefer supplying a truly good record of the day,
not just a set of the standard (often cliche) photos
that appear in most albums...
>> and that
>>most excellent "photojournalistic-type" photographers
>>haven't a clue about how to set up and light a formal
>>photograph.
> That's true enough as most wouldn't bother to take the time to read a book
>on how to pose and light.
It is a VERY different skill - both have their place, but
most people cannot do both well, regardless of education...
>>>5. she thought he was a good photographer because someone told her he
>>>was a photojournalist
>>This is meaningless.
> Yes but it is representative of the views of many people who hire PJ'ers.
>Unfortunately after the fact.
Yes, this is true... Which is why I pointed out the
necessity of good communication...
>>>5b. in most candid shots the people are so small you can't tell who
>>>they are (he's a photojournalist all right!)
>>Are you looking at very small proofs...? ;-)
>>>5. no shots of just the bride
>>See above - though this is rather basic...;-)
> Yep. One of those "gotta have" shots. He screwed up.
I agree, if true...
>>>6. didn't get many pictures; more pictures will cost more money (bride
>>>wants the film but he will only sell prints)
>>This should be understood before hiring - it is up
>>to the photographer to set policy on negatives (but
>>this SHOULD be covered in advance!).
> And in writing. A contract is a mutually binding agreement that
>unfortunately most seem not to understand.
This can be true. Again, good communication is important....
>> I shoot around
>>500+ images during a wedding, and provide 4x6 proofs
>>of everything (alternatives are available), and often
>>add an unexpected second set for free - and sell
>>negatives at any time, for a flat fee (but this may
>>be very different for "studio-type" photographers,
>>who depend more on later print sales...).
> It's so funny how the number of proofs has gone up with the advent of PJ.
>I remember when we shot an entire wedding on 6X15/120's
This is the difference between the approaches: in one,
carefully set-up and directed photography intrudes
on the event, but guarantees (probably) good results
with a minimum of film (but misses the spontaneous bits
and the sense of place and time); in the other, masses
of images are shot to get the 30-60 or whatever (with
alternative selections), without disturbing conversations,
pulling the couple away from their own event, stopping
dinner, antagonizing the other "photographers" who want
to shoot your set-ups, etc. I wander around, shoot what
I want, stop/disturb/interrupt-nothing - and I get my
pictures (and these are a better record of the event
than the staged photos, I think...;-) A friend is a
great "director-type", and produces nice images for
framing - but he does take over the event, even
if he is pleasant about it, and does not do as well
with the "candids"...
>>>7. "this is her worst nightmare come true!" (I said next time call
>>>me and I'll do a crap job for half the money. I was kidding of
>>>course)
>>One hopes so...;-) Good wedding photography in any
>>style requires skill and experience (ALL else is
>>optional! ;-) BTW, this may not be true of your friend,
>>but all wedding photographers eventually hit the client
>>who would find fault with a gift of a diamond-studded
>>gold brick - and NOTHING would have been satisfactory...;-)
> Also many clients seem to think that everything is the fault of the
>photographer despite the fact that s/he has no input in the planning of the
>wedding. I remember many weddings which were booked in a very dark reception
>facility which we referred to as "the dungeon". And then there are the gazebo
>weddings where it is virtually impossible to get a good vantage point. Not to
>forget the clergy that has had a belly full of amateurs and no longer allows any
>strobe during the service.
Yes - but I assume these will be the conditions I'm going
to be working with...;-) I use gear and film to make this
possible...
>>>I've been asked to see if I can repair some of these and I will look
>>>into it. It looks to me that existing light was used and fluorescent
>>>lighting was a problem. Also a large aperture that blurred key people
>>>from group shots. I can probably fix the color shift and maybe crop
>>>here and there, but the blurry stuff will be a problem.
>>See above... For a reasonable price, an available-light
>>photographer's hundreds of proofs cannot be perfectly
>>printed (though my printer comes close!), but the prints
>>ordered from the proofs should be fairly well corrected
>>for things that actually are flaws, and not inherent
>>characteristics of the style. Expecting studio-lighting
>>and posing in "PJ-stlye" photos is not reasonable...
> Then the photographer should use the appropriate filtration in the
>conditions s/he is shooting. In this case a FL-D though I doubt that the
>lighting was flourescents which is a light green .
>Regards
> John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster
> Formulas, Facts and Info on the Photographic Process
> http://www.darkroompro.com
Try filtering for mixes of tungsten, daylight, and
mebbe florescent thrown in, while working quickly...;-)
Better to overexpose 2/3rds stop and let the printer handle
it. Oh, BTW, FL-D filters rarely correct florescents
very well - try a cc30M...;-)