Iphone Wedding Photography

<p><a href="http://www.professionalphotographer.co.uk/Magazine/Photographic-Inspiration/iPhone-Wedding-Photography?mid=50">http://www.professionalphotographer.co.uk/Magazine/Photographic-Inspiration/iPhone-Wedding-Photography?mid=50</a></p>

<p>Contrary to what the photog said, it's still more like a publicity stun than anything. Why do you put a 70-200 lens on an iphone just because you can do it?</p>

<p>I think they are shooting themselves on the foot and perhaps discrediting the profession to prove a point. A lot of iphone owners would think they could skip the paid photographer and get a friend to shoot with a rubbishy iphone.</p>

<p>If you subscribe to the notion that composition is everything, then why not? Someone with an artistic eye can acquire pleasant images without having to worry about knobs and buttons just like the old days of disposable film cameras. </p>

<p>Whatever works for them. I have been using a disconnected Blackberry for a lot of personal shots. It's not on a plan, so when I come home I catch the wi-fi and upload to FB and share with my friends. I can crop, zoom, recompose, amazing for a phone. Can I use my 400mm f3.5? No, but it does what it does.</p>

<p>Cell phones camera's get better every year. Some of my kids just use them as their camera's and are very satisfied with the photos. The cell phone just does about everything these days.</p>

 

<p>The shots look good, what's the problem? It doesn't look like a "publicity stunt," it looks like photographers with creativity and initiative. Why not show some of your photos and we can compare?</p>

<p>I think that most (but not all) professional photographers love being able to operate a piece of equipment -- a DSLR -- that can capture a super-high-quality image that could be used on a Facebook page or a billboard. But needs and tastes change. Maybe people are happy with the tiny low resolution image on their cellphone and the pictures they see on Facebook, but I'm not. It is partially a failure of the professional photographic community to educate our clientele about the enjoyment to be found in high quality images. It is also partially a triumph of technology that a cellphone camera can be sufficiently capable of producing a salable wedding product -- albums, small prints, and digital files.<br>

One question I would have is if a client wants wedding pictures just for Facebook -- say, 400x600 ppi -- and wanted all the picture files, if you gave them 400x600 ppi files would they be happy? After all, it's what they wanted....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>if you gave them 400x600 ppi files would they be happy? After all, it's what they wanted....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This couple would probably be happy with it, some people are happy to be the first of i anything. The question I ask is why the iphone? If the photog truely think that composition and what not are what set him apart, would a capable P&S not up to the job?</p>

<p>This is clearly a publicity stunt to me. When I first started doing this, I got hammered by "seasoned" pros about backup and backup to backup. But this counteract the argument because even if your iphone fails, there's bound to be another iphone among the guests for you to finish the job.</p>

<p>Here's a YouTube posting of some of the stills and videos from the OP authors.<br>

<a href="

<p>Let the race to the bottom begin.....<br>

Just how little can we give our clients and still charge a reasonable amount to put food on the table?</p>

<p>Come think of it, I'm not sure how the photog can claim to be the first. How does he know that someone didn't shot a 30 minute wedding in the jungle of Kenya entirely with an iphone before?</p>

<p>Maybe it's not such a bad thing for the wedding photography industry.</p>

<p>It offers clients more choices, but more importantly, it can give photographers the opportunity to diversify in their shooting style. I'm sure getting great wedding pictures with an iPhone takes as much practice to master as anything else. </p>

<p>Nice photos, but these were shot outdoors, in good light etc, etc. Nothing to worry about, move along...</p>

Immediacy, unobtrusive, new. What P&S can publish to flickr in seconds? The Leica was once a faddish toy,

inappropriate for serious photography.

<blockquote>

<p>The Leica was once a faddish toy, inappropriate for serious photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not just the Leica, but 35mm. Basically, "too low resolution," and not used for professional purposes for quite a while. <br>

<br />Same thing here. It's not a fad, it's a creative photographer. As I asked above, where's the OP's photos that show some sort of significant differentiation for the type of photos in the article?</p>

<p>It looks exactly like a publicity stunt, to give the impression that "we can do it even with an iPhone" (which they didn't), "we deliver our pictures immediately" and "we love everything Apple does" ... sounds like a bunch of gearheads trying to attract techno geek customers.</p>

<p>If it wern't a marketing stunt, why would they even mention the iPhone was used?</p>

<p>Personally I think this desire for immediate results is a bad thing. It puts pressure on photographers to be quicker rather than better and diminishes the artistic effort of the post-processing in the view of the public. Also, if the pictures are viewed at the event it diverts attention from the actual event and makes the photography a kind of a spectacle, while IMO it should be as unnoticed as possible. Finally when the guests have already seen the pics (unedited) at the event, they will be unlikely to see the finished product (assuming that there is one) a few weeks later.</p>

<p>But it's the MTV generation where the next image must be flashed a split second later to avoid the viewer being bored. Any kind of deeper content that takes a half a minute to digest is shunned.</p>

 

<p>As long as they can deliver, then I don't see a problem. </p>

<p>The problem comes along when the kid next door gets an iPhone 4s and starts advertising as a wedding professional. Then when the upset bride sees the photos she paid $100.00 for and sues the kid. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>Look like nice shots to me, sure an iphone is not likely to be most photographers first choice of camera but why does anybody really care so much about what other people do. If the couple are happy with the shots and the photographer is happy with the shots then what is the problem it's the couples wedding afterall.</p>

<p>A few weeks ago I was at an outside fall-fest in the next town. I was there for a different reason, not in any photographic capacity. During the day I made about a dozen pictures on my Blackberry. Later I ran into the local senior art center director, he knows I'm a photographer, he asked if I took any shots. I said I did get a few nice ones on my phone, I didn't bring a good camera. He replied, "Doesn't matter, I'd be really happy to get them so we could use a few". So, I sent him the files and a few were published in a local spot. I didn't see them in print, but he was very happy to have them, and did anyone know I shot them on a phone? Things have seriously changed in our world of photography with all this technology. We either get on the bus, or stand on the curb and smell the exhaust.</p>

<p>Be prepared for questions like which Iphone is the best for wedding to appear here in not too long.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Things have seriously changed in our world of photography with all this technology.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think it is rather the appreciation of things have changed or lowered. Simply because we have so much of them nowadays. We have gone from Godfather to Shaspear in Love, or Pink Floyd to Arcade Fire in terms of quality.</p>

<p>For example, you dressed up to go to the theatre before so every movie was important for you. Nowadays people watch far more movies than many years ago so we aren't quite concerned about qualities anymore.</p>

<p>I'm afraid this spiral into mediocraty will continue in many many fields.</p>

I think the point about the shots being taken outside is noteworthy. Often I see the iPhone shots by the guests the next

day on Facebook. Now I am sure in trained hands you might get a bit better shots, but the indoor reception ones i have

seen are simply not even printable due to the amount of noise and slow shutter speed. Also the shutter drag old be

unacceptable to me

 

I do see value of the same day show. Ni now bring my iPad and have a reel with about 5-10 shots from their engagement

and 5-10 shots from getting ready and ceremony that day. They are ones that are perfect in camera. The couple , their

parents, and their guests usually go gaga for it. At the last wedding I did, I got 3 gigs out of it on the spot because guests

like the photos so much. I put an email sign up sheet next to it and as the show cycles through it says photography by

Fucci's photos and please leave your email address to receive a link to the online gallery with all of the images from

today. Means I get print sales from both the couple AND their guests.

<p>The problem is that many of our customers do not know what a quality image is. They have been brought up in the age of low res, over exposed, device drive images. There will come a day when prints will be obsolete - everything will be electronic - hang a panel on your wall and change out the images as you like. want a wedding album - no problem here is mine on a handheld device. This is where we are going - so when we are there we wont need 21MP cameras - all we will really need is our Iphone... because by that time the res will be high enough to go on any device. It's the brain behind the machine not the machine that makes the image. </p>

<p>'tis no worse in comparison to the table-top *toss-away* cameras at the reception. The salesman or saleslady who can get a wedding couple to throw $70 to $100 at disposable cameras, and another couple of hundred in getting the film processed-printed...all in the hopes of getting a decent image or two.</p>

<p>[...Maybe Nikon or Canon or Olympus or Sony will market a 14 MPixel cell phone down the road?]</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Personally I think this desire for immediate results is a bad thing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not new. The Polaroid was invented somewhere close to half a century ago. People have always liked immediate results.</p>

<p>And I don't see this type of complaining when people talk about photobooths at weddings. Hmmm...</p>

<p> </p>