I know I was a little old school,,

<p>I know I was a little old school in my wedding photo style, shot 1st wedding on 1984, raised on film & waist level finders, of course later shot 100% digital. I attended a relative's wedding as a guest. The photographers shot digital rebels, standard kit lens, & I bet they took 250 images just during the simple ceremony ! I was in the outdoor family photo, instead of the photographer communicating with the people after each shot & keeping them looking toward the camera, she just held the shutter button down & took about 10 rapid frames in a row. While inside, photographer stood on a chair borried from the choir area. When I shot weddings, I had good equipment, Mamiya, Bronica & Hasselblad, my digital cameras were not mark II's but I have "L" series glass, 580ex flashes. I always brought step stool & ladder to stand on. Sure I bracketed my shots, took several shots for blinks, but I made each pose & shot count. Maybe that was from shooting so much film. Is this the current style ?<br>

(I am just asking a question, not asking to be bashed)</p>

<p>Amateurs. :(</p>

<p>And that's how they can deliver 3,000 photos of a wedding on a DVD.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>+1 on Bob's comment...</p>

<p>I shoot Nikon - D700 with a D300 and D7000 for backups... There is communication after every shot during the group photos - even to say - OKay - We're doing 1 or 2 more....</p>

<p>I'm not going to grab a folding chair or even a wooden one that I am not familar with and expect it to hold my 200 + lbs... that's what a step stool is for.</p>

<p>Some view this as the style - which really isn't a style - it's called machine gun - and then put together a composite in PS later...</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>It's pretty shocking behavior. It's not professional, and really isn't acceptable, either. Perhaps this was a freebie or a favor??</p>

Was the client comfortable with the photographer's shooting style? Was the client happy with the photos?

<p>+2 on Bob<br /><br />My personal opinion is that the "Spray & Pray" style of shooting comes from people who are "raised" on digital. I started on film, and am disturbed when I find myself getting lazy & shooting more than I need to. On the other hand, I enjoy the freedom of being able to 'burn' some shots of candid expressions during the ceremony and partying at the reception.<br /><br />But I truly think the habit of having to be careful with our film - because we had a set limit & couldn't just run over - is ingrained enough that we still make our shots count, especially during formal, posed shots. </p>

<p>About the only thing expensive cameras give you for retail photography is bragging rights. A couple of entry level DSLR's are more reliable than one TOL DSLR. The quality of the photos are more than adequate for the output intended (prints, or a photobook). The fact is I know real pro's who use point and shoot cameras; one of them does coffee table books, and another is a news photographer. Sneer if you like but both of these guys are world class photographers and have the published work to prove it. In the end the camera only captures what the photographer sees.</p>

<p>As for competency, you get what you pay for usually. I know wedding photographers who get $10K, and I know ones that get $500. They do not exactly give the same quality of work. However, there are people who can not afford the high end, even if they thought photography was the most important thing about their wedding.</p>

<p>Don't be a camera snob.</p>

 

<p>it isn't just amateur photographers, it is also amateur clients as well. What do you do to try and educate your customers as to what they should be looking for whether they hire you or someone else ?</p>

 

<p>@Tom - I didn't take the post to be that of a camera snob - more of an observation on several levels - Entry level equipment, spray and pray shooting, no communication, no prep = amateur...</p>

<p>A Pro shooting a P/S is a lot different than a MWC / DWC who now decides "I've got a DSLR - I'm a Pro!" In the right hands - you can get great prints with a PS or entry level DSLR - in the wrong hands - you get trash. </p>

<p>Had the photographers done some of the following -<br>

* Communicated between group shots<br>

* Had their own step stool<br>

* Not shot 250 photos during a simple ceremony<br>

I'm guessing the equipment conversation may have been along the lines of "Wow - I saw two amazing photographers using entry level DSLR's and they got incredible images and have a wonderful vision."</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>Who is being a camera snob, spray and pray of grouped formals is so amateur, also, standing on a chair in the church, esp if they didn't wipe it off after the fact. BTDT, was told no stools or ladders and was handed a black towel by the vicar to be used as a mat.<br>

Yes there are studio employed photogs who do the same, and they are amateurs as well. Being a pro includes bringing the required equipment and acting like one, not just being paid for services rendered.</p>

<p>I asked not to be bashed,,<br>

<em>"Don't be a camera snob"</em> ? what you mean ? when I shot professionally, I wanted good equipment. I had a camera fail at a wedding on a Saturday, finished with my backup camera, Sunday I was on the phone with B&H spending $2400 for a new camera for the 2 weddings I had the next Saturday. <br>

<em>"About the only thing expensive cameras give you for retail photography is bragging rights"</em><br>

well, you don't realize this until uncle Joe walks in with a EOS 5D markII & sneers at your 50D<br>

<em>"In the end the camera only captures what the photographer sees" </em><br>

You are correct, I have always said I could shoot a beautiful wedding with a Pentax K1000 (that is a film camera for all you newbies)<br>

If they were happy with photographers ? I did not ask, don't think it was a freebie,,</p>

<p><em>Is this the current style ?</em><br>

Yes, it is. Arriving early for a wedding, I watched the previous wedding's pro photographers (team of 3--multiple photographers are also current) shooting the formals. Spray and pray all the way.</p>

<p>I can see how continuous shooting can have it's place as a totally valid method, but not for the formals. I don't think it even eliminates closed eyes. You have a much better chance of open eyes when you prepare people.</p>

<p>The occupation of photographer has been filled with all sorts of folks since the beginning. There were plenty of chair standing, cheap camera using, pray and spray hacks back in the days of film too. Lot's of hacks who dropped good money on fancy film gear also, but still didn't understand basic concepts like color temperature and aspect ratios. I know because I printed their photos. Hopefully the bride shopped well, and gets what she expects.</p>

<p>David I tend to bring my own step stool, but unless I need to get really tall (I'm only 5'4"), a chair works fairly well. I bring it in with me when I know I need to take a really big group shot, and leave it in the car for emergencies. It's big and heavy though, and most of the time a chair works just fine, and takes less time to set up when a moment just happens. You have to use your good judgement though. Is it the type of thing that it looks stable, is it a really nice chair that you might ruin with your shoes? Generally just be responsible. The thing that consistently blows me away is the lack of attention to posing during formals. I understand that many people these days are looking for the PJ look. Getting moments, etc. But unless you have a really unusual client, they are going to want those formals. There are some really basic rules of posing people that seem to be going on the wayside now. Checking to see that nothing appears to be growing out of their heads. Putting people at flattering angles. Yes it takes a little time, but man it makes a difference in those formal photos that end up on people's mantles. I am a person who started out doing little weddings on Rebels before I could afford a 5D MKii. Went to L glass first, then went to the better body. Is it better than the Rebel. YES. Particularly in low light situations. I ADORE my 5D mkII. </p>

<p>But at the same time, not everyone can afford one of us that has more experience. There are people who have wedding budgets of only $500. What I have done is on my blog put up tips for people who can't afford a photographer. It includes things they should look for and even posing tips for themselves. So hopefully that helps people out there. I think it's a shame that some people get had by people claiming to be professionals. But in the end, we have to remember that most of our clients are not NEARLY as critical of wedding photos as we are. Photos I take and look at and toss and never even show them may be better lit and better focused than anything any of their friends may take with their personal cameras that night. Sometimes people don't want our more artistic impressions of things. My fav is when they wonder about bokeh thinking we just made an error in focusing things. For most of their lives, a good photo is in focus, and that is all they are looking for.</p>

<p>Just because wedding photography is important to you, for obvious reasons, it might not be as important to the couple. As a result of lack of interest or budgetary considerations, they might have gone with a "spray and pray" (I love that - never heard it before) shooter with less than ideal equipment. If the wedding was well lit and there were no "difficult" technical situations, a Rebel is actually okay. My own wedding photographer used a Rebel and the photos weren't bad.</p>

<p>I use better equipment because I am sometimes finding myself in situations where the technical components of a shoot are more demanding. Case in point, a wedding I shot at the Waldorf Astoria a couple of weeks ago was incredibly dark in both the ceremony and reception rooms. The bride came to me (I haven't delivered the photos yet - uploading tonight) and asked if I had any to share yet because of the 1,000+ she got from family and friends with their lower-end DSLRs and Point-and-Shoots, there aren't any usable images because they're all too dark.</p>

<p>People often ask why should they pay a wedding photographer when people have "decent" cameras that Uncle Bob can bring. THIS is why.</p>

<p>I would expect that if the shoot you were at were filled with such potential technical landmines, this <em>seemingly</em> lower-level photographer's going to have a heck of a time delivering a good product.</p>

<p>Greg<br>

Being old school myself, our focus was different. We were after the print. Print quality was the main objective ( with good composition, etc). Most of today's images are only viewed on a computer. Many of the images I see now are snapshot quality, because the mindset is post production. I'll fix it with the software. Old school was mostly pre-production. It's like many of the successful restaurants today. They give you more food, not better food....The quality of the equipment has always been secondary. It is a mindset that makes us believe that more expensive equipment will make us more creative. It's just not true. Art is subjective...we may think something is less than quality, and others think it's the bee's knees. Hell, even the equipment you listed will be debated on which is the best. Anytime something new is placed on the menu..something is gained and something is lost. Professionalism has been lost in more areas than photography...there are no shortcuts to greatness. That was what we learned...</p>

<p>I think the discussion is missing the component of actual photographs. Without those we are just airing our preconceptions.</p>

<p>There was one wedding I was attending as a guest and I saw a photographer taking shots he had two nice cameras with nice lenses and bunch of cables and cords it all looked very impressive it certainly have him the WOW factor. So I approched the guy and wanted to strike a conversation about his gear. I said "Hey nice gear you got there is it a D300 with a grip? He said no it's D3 with 24-70 lens I said wow nice gear and then he replied "If you got a lot of money like me you can nice gear like this" I though to myself what an @## and walked away. I met few more pros at weddings and they were all cool and nice to talk to. So there are some people who think that if they own a D3 and big 'ole lens they are big shots. I didn't see the shots he took but I am sure I wouldn't hire him if I had a function to photograph.</p>

<p>Phil said:<br>

<em>Being old school myself, our focus was different. We were after the print. Print quality was the main objective ( with good composition, etc). Most of today's images are only viewed on a computer. Many of the images I see now are snapshot quality, because the mindset is post production. I'll fix it with the software. Old school was mostly pre-production.,,,,, Professionalism has been lost in more areas than photography...there are no shortcuts to greatness. That was what we learned...</em><br>

WOW Phil, you said it best ! Even I shot all digital, I found myself still picking lint off the groom's tux & specks of trash off the carpet before I took the shot !</p>

<p>Yes Kris, I agree, there is much more to a photographer than expensive cameras. I have owen some nice cameras, but it not make me any better of a photographer, just try harder. I won 2nd place in a very large photo contest, shot the image with a Pentax K1000. Location was in the ghetto, did not want to bring my nice stuff. My son does construction work for a GC, he owns some of the best brands available in power tools. He will burn up a Black & Decker in a few weeks, while his Dewalt & Milwaukee tools will last considerably longer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>WOW Phil, you said it best ! Even I shot all digital, I found myself still picking lint off the groom's tux & specks of trash off the carpet before I took the shot !</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I still do that, even on industrial jobs. It makes me pay more attention to what is in the frame and demonstrates to the client that I am paying attention to even small details. It also makes the odious amounts of time I already spend in front of the computer more productive. </p>

<p>Chairs that fold have a story. I know one videographer, who stood tall on a folding chair about two years ago. He still has trouble with his ankle and limps due to the chair folding up on his leg.</p>

<p>A bride-to-be should always ask for references before hiring her photographer....Digital Rebels are nice, and most of the photos will turn out nice.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>When I bought my EOS 10D back in 2003, I treated it as if it still had film inside. By the time I 'upgraded' to a 5D, I was taking multiple shots as I had by then learned you can do that with digital. But my early 10D shots tended to be shall we say more considered than the multiple pictures of the same things I was taking just a couple of years later. 'Better' gear actually made me a less accomplished photographer - if that can make any sense. I now have a 7D and use it as if it had film in it again, digging out my original 512mb memory card now and again to impose a limit to the number of shots I can capture. My hard drive and shot selection times both benefit. And I use CS5 a lot less now too....<br>

I have enjoyed reading this thread. Thanks to all who have made it develop into such an interesting discussion.</p>

<p>More like a chair snob... :)</p>

<p>Most people where I live cannot afford a expensive pro. Sub $1k, preferably $500. Hence, someone starting in the business here, or maybe even a seasoned pro, will not be able to afford more than Rebels. In good light, my wife's D60 takes great photos that print well at 8x10". I think what distinguishes "spray and "pray" from seasoned pro (which I am not) is attitude and a sense of responsibility, just as in most professions. If you get great results with rebels consistently, and uncle bob with hid 5d does not, even if you have to stand on a chair, why not? Personally, I would not machine gun formals.... But I have taken a few fast consecutive group shots with a Mamiya 7 at a friend's wedding (respectfully from behind where the hired photographer stood) and had fixed the blinkers in post production. Film does not make you immune :)</p>

<p>I have shot some film, but all my professional work has been on digital, but I still shoot very conservatively, because I do all my own post processing work, and I would much rather have 1,000 photos to sort through to deliver 400-500 finals than 3,000+ to go through. The number of shots taken is largely a personal preference, though-I recently assisted a very well known fashion photographer on a street style shoot, and he took probably 100+ photos of each person, it was absolutely dizzying, by the end of the day I think he had used up about 80GB of cards.<br>

As far as gear, the digital Rebel is a capable camera-it has far more resolution, and better low light performance than the old 1D. The kit lens is mostly useless though, and I couldn't imagine using it for a wedding. <br>

As others have said-every couple has a different level of priority for wedding photography. I try to market myself to those who place a high value on photography, and don't worry too much about the amateur shooters.</p>