Part time photographers these days.

"The best lessons I had, starting out nearly 60 years ago, was how to secure the help of someone familiar with the family and wedding party to gather people for the formal groups, then establish priorities. Start with the older guests, so they don't have to stand around. Then work from the large groups to the smallest. Finish with the bride and groom, which take the most time anyway"

 

Exactly. I always made it clear to whomever was in charge, sometimes the bride sometimes the wedding planner, when agreeing to do the wedding that they needed to provide someone to be responsible for gathering up everyone needed for the formals. It seemed the only way to ensure all the right people/groups got photographed since I wouldn't know who the people were. I also usually did the B/G last, though sometimes we had to do the B/G first.

In the Fall I see lots of weekend photogs at the park. They all look happy with their jobs. I guess you gotta be sociable or a good faker.

 

The subject matter is not of interest to me. I would not like to do it. I like to shoot what I like to shoot. Maternity gigs or engagement shoots is not my thing.

hjoseph7 that’s nonsense. I’ve done many weddings and they are no more technically difficult than anything else, less so very often. Anyone has to learn the technical side but that comes with practice. I have an approach to photographing a wedding, a different one for a football game, another for portraits and yet another for surgeries. I rarely actively think much about it I simply get to work. The real problems start when you spend too much time thinking and not enough actually doing.

 

Rick H.

So can you tell me what Photographic category is the most challenging ? Name the category please, we would all like to know !

Edited December 24, 2020 by hjoseph7

I'm not Rick, but it depends on what you need to do. Looking at someone La Chapelle who does elaborate sets and concepts and lighting are challenging. High-end auto photography can be incredibly technical. I had an assistant describe to me all they did for a Toyota shoot. Shooting only at first and last light. Actually welding lighting rigs onto the vehicles with elaborate set-ups to control reflections. Working all day to set up the evening shot, and then working late into the night to set up the morning shots. That's technically challenging. I'm sure there's others. Weddings? Not so much. It sounds like you were offended by the straight forward response from Mr. Helmke, but he wasn't wrong IMO.

I'm not Rick, but it depends on what you need to do. Looking at someone La Chapelle who does elaborate sets and concepts and lighting are challenging. High-end auto photography can be incredibly technical. I had an assistant describe to me all they did for a Toyota shoot. Shooting only at first and last light. Actually welding lighting rigs onto the vehicles with elaborate set-ups to control reflections. Working all day to set up the evening shot, and then working late into the night to set up the morning shots. That's technically challenging. I'm sure there's others. Weddings? Not so much. It sounds like you were offended by the straight forward response from Mr. Helmke, but he wasn't wrong IMO.

 

No I'm not offended at all the fact of the matter is, I have/had another career that pays twice as much as some of what you regular guys are making. What I'm complaining about is that after participating in PHOTO.NET for 25 years I have yet to get a lead on a Job, or have I ever been recommended for any photographic endeavor, or do I know anybody that has been ? Why is that ? The reason is that most of the so-called photographer on this site are more interested in promoting themselves and acting-out like "Grand Poobahs" than they are in helping their fellow photographers. Especially those that are coming up.

 

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.(Mathew 23:13)

 

So why put down Wedding photographers ? They have the same passion the same love for photography as you do ?

Wow, not putting down wedding photographers at all. I love good wedding photography, huge appreciation. Maybe the discussion has more to do with what you think of as technical and what other's think of it. It's understandable, none of us can be technically beyond it, everyone is learning. But you do have to learn that side of getting good exposures as part of the nuts and bolts of the wedding and event photo craft. I've not done many, but have gotten through the ones I did do fairly well because I had enough back ground and photo education to have some way to think through the problems quickly enough to get the pictures. There's other things involved in a wedding as well. Knowing the ceremony and the time table in a planned wedding or even in a simple casual wedding, can really help you anticipate the good places to be and what you might want to use for each. I found that really helped me not to stress on what was going to happen next and focus on taking pictures. Sometimes you have to get pictures that you know are facing the wrong way, harsh light where you have to rely on a strobe to get the subject and those could get rough and you learn to identify and avoid those situations whenever possible though sometimes you can use it to advantage. So outdoor in harsh light can present challenges, but you just figure it out.

 

As far as promoting each other, It's interesting that you mention it, but photo.net has never been the type of I guess networking in the way you may think. I've seen a few requests for people maybe on the wedding forum, but very few. Have you put it out on Photo.net that you're looking for work or referrals? I don't think most of us are full-time professionals though some are. I've dabbled over the years, but no can't say I'm a pro, though I do love the term Pooh bah. Haven't seen that usage in a long time. Looking at the length of this, I guess it is looking poobahish:)

"As far as promoting each other, It's interesting that you mention it, but photo.net has never been the type of I guess networking in the way you may think. I've seen a few requests for people maybe on the wedding forum, but very few. Have you put it out on Photo.net that you're looking for work or referrals? "

The thing is, when I first signed up back in 1998 I thought it was ! After being shot down so many times in the Photo Critique Section to the point of giving up photography all together, I decided that maybe I should look else where ? What kept me going, was that I managed to graduate with a Photography degree "Summa Cumm Laude" back in 2008, so the hurtful anonymous comments did not bother me as much. ..

 

Photo.net is a lot nicer now and people are not tearing each other apart like they use to, thank god. To me it's a good place to post your pictures, express your opinions about certain photographic subjects, help those who are just starting out with technical advice, get good advice from experienced people and just have fun talking about photography. Even in real life I try to avoid needless conflicts, envy, jealousy and outrageous competition. However sometimes its inevitable...

This is IHMO a weird thread. In the sense that it's not really a thread. Different contributors (as always) contribute different perspectives/opinions but this thread has weaved some strange ways from the OP's post.

 

Just saying.

hjoseph7 that’s nonsense. I’ve done many weddings and they are no more technically difficult than anything else, less so very often. Anyone has to learn the technical side but that comes with practice. I have an approach to photographing a wedding, a different one for a football game, another for portraits and yet another for surgeries. I rarely actively think much about it I simply get to work. The real problems start when you spend too much time thinking and not enough actually doing.

 

Rick H.

OK but would you consider it a lesser technical challenge than other types of photography ? I have about 30 paid professional weddings on my belt. So I would not consider myself and expert (I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night) , I work for a Contractor based in Massachusetts, that divvys out the work according to your location. I also try to book things on my own.

 

Wedding photography might be mechanical, but after a few/many weddings or so, the photographer needs to input their own creativity into the mix and make a unique name for themselves. I have gone through many wedding photographers portfolios and some of them are simply amazing. I can't say that I have reached that stage yet, but maybe someday I will...

Edited December 24, 2020 by hjoseph7

Why not simply do the kind/s of photography you want to do? Too much worrying about comparing the difficulty of what I do to what you do generally means insecurity. I just challenge myself to keep learning and evolving. I reserve degree of difficulty for judges at the Olympics. Photography, for me, is not a competition.

What I'm complaining about is that after participating in PHOTO.NET for 25 years I have yet to get a lead on a Job, or have I ever been recommended for any photographic endeavor, or do I know anybody that has been ?

 

The thing is, when I first signed up back in 1998 I thought it was [a networking sort of site?] !

 

Harry, you and I have completely different outlooks on what this site was originally intended to be. As I recall, Philip Greenspun, the founder, had stated that it was intended to be a repository of photographic information (or knowledge?). Threads were edited down to remove extraneous text, with the apparent purpose of making it easier for future users to find more concise information in a search. And at a later date he mentioned that he had NOT intended to build an xxx thousand dollar "chat server." Unfortunately, in my view, this is largely what it turned into.

 

But I guess, given human nature, this almost had to happen in order for photo.net to survive. People want to have a say in things, even if they don't have much experience, so they do. And this tends to dilute the information content, etc., but I'm not gonna go there.

 

But back to job referrals, etc., I ask, mostly rhetorically, why would anyone recommend someone, anyone, on this website that they do not personally know, for any sort of job? I had nearly 30 years of full-time experience in photography when I joined this site (bout 20 years ago). The number of people I would recommend is near zero. (Actually there is one, a guy I once met in Rochester (yep, it's you C H), provided the work was in his wheelhouse, so to speak).

 

Now, the fact that I would NOT recommend someone should not be seen as an insult; it's more a case that I don't KNOW that person - I don't know their capabilities, their demeanor, their reliability, etc.

 

Anyway, bottom line, if you're nursing a grudge against photo.net for a lack of referrals, I think it would be a misplaced view. Just my opinion.

Wedding photography is one of the most technically challenging Genre's in photography. Not only do you have to put everything you learned about photography (shutter-speed, aperture, ISO, Guide Number, ETTL , flash-to-subject distance etc. ) together in an instant, you have constantly keep revising those numbers throughout the wedding.

 

Again I don't share your view. Of course one can make it as technically challenging as they want, but it can also be simplified.

 

Would it change your view to know that I was shooting weddings for a local wedding guy, a "budget specialist," while I was still in high school? On borrowed equipment, even (I couldn't afford any pro grade equipment). I'd pick up the film at his house; he'd give me a shot list with any special instructions along with a camera and flash. It'd typically be a Mamyia C2 or C3, or an older Rolleiflex (this was 1960s) and one of those big Stroboflash units (battery pack on a shoulder strap). Five rolls of Kodak CPS plus one roll as a spare (but don't use it if I don't have to). Plus a roll of b&w if they needed a shot for the newspaper. (These are all 2 1/4" square cameras, so 12 shots per roll.) You can't use the entire first roll though; you gotta pull it out early so as to not run out of film during the aisle shot sequence, etc.

 

Here's how you make it simple, per his method. You work with three basic distances: 5 or 6 feet for a half body shot, about 8 feet for a 3/4 length, and about 10 to 12 feet for a full-length. Surprise! These distances are each one f-stop apart with respect to the flash. The Stroboflash IV was wonderful for this; it had a rotary power switch on top of the battery pack - full power, then 3/4, half, and one quarter. So you just leave the camera f-stop in the same place, maybe f/8 or f/11, and set the flash power for the distance. A half-body shot is at 1/4 power, a 3/4 body shot is at 1/2 power, and a full-length shot is at full power. (Obviously for the group shots you gotta open up another f-stop, depending; for closeup shots close down an f-stop.) With a fixed-power flash unit you change the camera f-stop in full stop increments - a cheat sheet stuck on the flash helps if you are subject to brain fade.

 

Now, how long did my training take? Well, originally he planned on me to be with him for 5 or 6 weddings, then evaluate. The reality was, on the third wedding he got into a bind with another shooter, or whatever. So he says I'm on my own for the wedding, group shots, etc. He'll show up at the reception as soon as he can wrap up his other wedding. After that wedding (no problem) I was on my own and started getting paid. Granted, photography was as something of an obsession with me (I started young) and I had quite a lot of overall experience, but still - after the first two weddings I was pretty comfortable with it.

 

After about 6 or 8 weddings, at something like $20 or $25 each, I was able to afford a used Rolleiflex. (They had largely gone out of style by then, so were a great bargain compared to other pro level gear.)

 

I largely "retired" from weddings with less than 100 under my belt when I took on a full-time traveling job, so not that much overall experience. But I don't see them as necessarily difficult from a technical standpoint. But... you can certainly make them so if you want to try elaborate balancing of light, etc. I think the key thing is to work out a general shooting strategy that you can mostly stick with. If you get into trouble with your experimentation you can always revert back to the standard setup.

Sorry, haven’t gotten back to this until now. To answer a few questions, for me the most technically challenging was surgery or simply medical photography. Often done with a micro Nikkor and in surgical garb I had to light very closeup shots in a sterile environment. A bit of a pain. Sports is also challenging but it’s mostly a matter of timing, the rest is straightforward. Weddings, to me, are not a challenge technically and while I’ve done a couple hundred probably it’s not what I do best. I know a couple people who do a lot of studio work and they tend to be excellent wedding shooters. I’ve been told once or twice that I cover a wedding like it was a murder scene.

 

Rick H.

... I wonder if they didn't pursue photography as a paid for service how many of them would still do photography and how much would their approach or their equipment change by .....

 

One possible answer for some of them is that they become gear-chasers. It is all about the next camera, the latest model, another lens, etc. It does not take long to realize you've got to recoup some of that money before someone else in the house looks at the credit card bills. So you produce the illusion that you are making or attempting to make money. But now you need better gear. And that's a good thing? Right?

 

In short, this is a fast-paced instant-gratification world, and no one wants to pay their dues or learn their craft.

 

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

 

W

no one wants to pay their dues or learn their craft

Except for those who do.

 

My parents left me hundreds, perhaps thousands, of pics from their day (most of which I treasure, by the way). To do so, they didn't learn a craft either. They took snapshots, sent them to be developed, and presto.

 

No different than what most people do today.

 

Some back then, and some today, do learn the craft and don't want instant gratification, despite the prevailing narratives internalized and shared often by older men on websites.

 

It is fascinating just how cynical so many photographers are about other people who use cameras in all sorts of ways.