Wedding Style Paradigm

[rich_evans]

In an earlier posting I was reading today:

 

http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00R7Gd

 

One of the posters mentioned an article with regard to 'devaluation' of the professional:

 

http://www.sonopp.com/Perspectives/Devaluing/Devaluing.htm

 

I'm just curious how many of you feel the same way. My wife and I have been working with Brides and Grooms for many

years and have recognized that the current trend is different. And contrary to the reference article, I don't necessarily

agree that this newer generation of photographers has damaged the credibility of the professional.

 

While I do agree that 'churn & burn' has become rather popular, however the entire paridigm of wedding photography has

changed with the newer generation of clients that have come through our doors. Many - actually MOST - are not at all

interested in the more traditional and formal wedding scenarios and would much prefer a more photojournalistic

approach - a record of the day's events - with family and friends in only a few more traditional posed situations. Of course

we're only too happy to oblige, and I've not found that this approach has diminished our reputation in fact I've gotten more

referrals this year based upon how we treat our clients and what we offer.

 

Does that 'devalue' the pro who's clientele prefer a different approach? I thnk not. I specifically take issue with Patrick

Rice's statement "...celebrity weddings,...never should have become the norm for the everyday Bride and Groom."

 

He's entitled to his opinion, but I believe that he and others who continue to offer the more formal style while at the same

time dismissing the newer genre of wedding photographers and their style are missing the whole point. I have always

offered services based upon what the prospective bride and groom wish - we have never pushed for any specific

style....we show our images and listen to what the client desires. There are those who wish a traditional style, however

there are far more - at least in our northern NJ region - who want the images to reflect a more casual, fun, party

atmosphere. Our greatest compliments come from those who see their photos and say that they were never even aware

that we were there.

 

And his assumption that he can give anyone a camera and they'll walk away with good photos is simply not valid. You

don't just 'point and shoot' - you observe, you wait, you compose, and you get results.

 

He also states "...These clients will not have the heirloom their parents and grandparents had in the form of a high-quality

wedding album from their special day." Guess what? Maybe that's not what they want. Today's younger couples are

generally way more technologically savvy than ever before and have so many options open to them, that I would much

prefer them to work with us and plan what the end result is to be. If they wish only to have a DVD with all the high-res

images and make their own coffe table album than that's OK with me. If they want us to do their album than that's OK

too. And if anything, my pricing structure has risen rather than dropped - I just don't have the time so higher prices tend to

limit the number of available dates. I'm just saying that in my experience, the current trend is not diminishing the value of

the wedding professional, in fact if you're good at it, you just might help bring the genre up a notch. --Rich

[amanda___minnesota]

Amen.

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

Could some of the change be attributed to the shift in attitude toward marriage? How many end up in divorce? How many

grew up and are growing up in "blended" families? Is marriage viewed the same way as a generation or two ago? Are

weddings sometimes a showpiece for Dad and Mom?

 

The wedding day can be a performance of great variety due to many ingredients.

 

My clients still like the group, "formal" pictures. Some still value them as well as value family.

[picturesque]

First of all, the article was written a while ago. I don't see a date on it, but I recall first seeing it several years, if not more, ago--like 2005 (?). It would be interesting to get Mr. Rice's take on things now.

 

Secondly, I agree and disagree with his viewpoint. As someone who is old(er) and started with film years ago, I understand and see some truth to his statement that the profession has been devalued. However, as a pragmatist, my response would be, "Maybe it has and maybe it hasn't, but even if it has, what has that got to do with what you intend to do with your business now?"

 

I had a previous life in graphic design. As soon as the computer took over that profession, you heard the same thing--the profession was devalued. And yes, the profession, in it's form then, was devalued. There used to be professional typesetters proud of their craft before the computer took over everything. There aren't any now.

 

I do think there is less value placed on traditional photographic technique (both technical and artistic) and it is too easy, in a way, for anyone to just take pictures and fix it later in post. However, one can also say it is a valid technique of it's own. It is possible so why not use it to it's fullest. I can't argue with that. So long ago, I decided to mind my own business, keep my mind open, learn all I can, and compete with what I have.

 

As for the detail of packages and the form of the product, that is all beside the point. Products change, and in order to survive, you keep up with it. That has nothing to do with devaluation of the profression.

[matt_needham]

Photographers love and respect Monte Zucker, but run a 25 to 35 year old bride by his site gallery, and see what they think. The most common request I get from brides: "I don't want my wedding photos and album to look like my mother's wedding photos and album."

 

All the old studio guys I know who gripe about all the new digital kids are really complaining about losing business. They want to pretend that folks can't tell what they like in a photo, and it must all be about low price. People are looking for a bargain, but they are also looking for a portfolio that excites them. Most of the loss of business has little to do with cost or digital files or meeting in coffee shops; it has to do with people comparing portfolios, and choosing the one they like better.

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

"Most of the loss of business has little to do with cost or digital files or meeting in coffee shops; it has to do with people

comparing portfolios, and choosing the one they like better."

 

I totally agree with you Matt.

 

You have a web site that wonderfully shows off your art.

 

Just thought I would let you know that Monte Zucker was my friend, mentor and coach and I find a lot of people still want

the "Classical" style of photography. It's just not many are interested in taking the time and effort to learn the classical

style, then break the rules, if so desired. Most put the cart before the horse and soon find out it doesn't lead to a

successful & profitable business.

 

Hope you have a great 2009!

[david_schilling___chicago_]

I've been guilty of posting that article on more than one occassion to the forum but I've poted the article for people to read beyond the first few paragraphs and read the several contributions/repsonses by many topnotch shooters who added content to the discussion. I've offered the article in it's entiretry.

 

I was initiated by my original heros which included Monte, Charles Lewis, Norm Phillips, Art Ketcham and others and attended trainings/workshops with all of them. Over the years I've seen wedding photography make some radical changes and truthfully, I don't believe that there has ever been a more exciting time to be involved with the field. Digital has opened doors that allows for incredable craftsmanship and creativity. I'm blown away by some of the new crop of top shooters...people like Parker Pfister, David Jay, Jeff/Julia Woods among others.

 

However, I am bothered by newbies who get a dSLR who have no training or experience who devalue the profession by thinking that their "work" represents "almost as good as"....and who claim that the established pros in their areas offer unreasonable prices.... when they in truth they are just trying to make a living, pay their mortgage, etc.... I'm also bothered by newbies that have no understanding of the relationship of light to ISO, shutterspeed, and aperture. If you don't understand light ratios and basic lighting techniques and you can't tell the difference between a scrim and/or a gobo, IMO, you have no business calling yourself a professional photographer.

 

I've also witnessed people defending a lack of knowledge/experience with photography by calling it a style. If you don't own a flash and don't know how to use one....that's not a style...... It's a limitation.

[jautey]

Why would anyone be bothered about the lack of skill or knowledge in another photographer. They'll fail or succeed on there own merits, just like the rest of us. As far as the reputation of "Professional Photographer" goes, well, that's a load of you know what. Can't control that anymore than I can control the rising and setting of the sun. All I control is my own abilities and that's all I worry about. Additionally, I tend to shoot however the client wants me to shoot. You want highly formal photos? Sure. You want 'photo journalistic' photos? Sure. You want a combination? Sure. You're the customer. Around here the market isn't rich enough for me to tell clients what they want.

[William Michael]

Well, in simple summary, I think one of the article`s purposes was to vent a bit of spleen, with a whisper of AOMS

(Angry Old Man Syndrome), which is a typical human and emotional response to seeing a ``Craft``, in the author`s

eyes: dying.

 

But also, I do not think he articulated his points with the same skill, care and craftsmanship as he might have taken

to his studio each day.

 

Now just before my contribution to this thread gets either:

 

a) deleted or

 

b) causes many snarly responses,

 

I also think Matt`s comment above, is a typical of the natural human emotional response to the article:

 

``All the old studio guys I know who gripe about all the new digital kids are really complaining about losing business.

They want to pretend that folks can't tell what they like in a photo, and it must all be about low price. ``

 

What I mean is, even though Matt`s comment is well tempered, (and certainly not misunderstood by me), it still sets

up the temptation to address this issue with the ``old`` and the ``new``, the ``good`` and the ``bad`` . . . setting

trenches with the cannon fire from both sides.

 

I do have strong views on this topic and they have been enunciated previously.

 

And also I do think it is quite appropriate to address commentary directly to another colleague, but whilst always

keeping decorum.

 

***

 

I believe the Craft of Photography, both technically and artistically has lost it place in many areas of our Society, just

as the Craft of Writing, the Craft of Speaking, the Craft of Protocol and Etiquette are all dying.

 

In many areas the ``Professional Wedding Photographer`` might not necessarily be as skilled a Photographic

Technician as I: but does that make them any less a skilled Artist? or Less Professional?

 

Well the ``Artist`` we can debate, and that is always fun: the ``Professional`` has a simple measurement value on

it . . . Do they sell, do they make a Profit have they sustained Five Years Growth?

 

I think this topic gets mixed up quite often, as the lines of debate and topic often wander.

 

So to be clear, my view are, 1978 to 2008:

 

. The Craft of Photography has lost its value to many, in all areas of Society, not just Weddings.

 

. There is LESS Value placed on Wedding Photographs as PRINTS or as 20 x 24 Framed Images.

 

. More Wedding Images are now displayed and viewed (by the clients) in Screens: Screens are not a ``standard``.

 

. More clients want to FIDDLE with the image files, send them to friends.

 

. We have Screen based visual pollution, everywhere: from billboards, television, mobile phones, computers . . . and

now this is how we view our Photographs, no longer does the 10 x 8 print set the Photographer and the Photograph,

apart.

 

For another example: (I am amazed at the number of wide screen TVs on display in shops where the aspect ratio is

wrong, and it stays wrong after it is purchased in the customer`s home)

 

. The previous points result in many clients not seeing the technical differences which might have been quite obvious,

even to untrained eyes, when we were only viewing prints, to choose a Wedding Photographer say 10 or 15 years

ago.

 

Also:

 

Now, there is much more information given to the Bride and Groom as to WHAT they NEED.

 

To Explain: my Mum and Dad had a pretty Grand Wedding . . .and a great story . . . we have the Photos to prove it

and all without a Wedding Planner, Gift Registry, Catering Consultant, Videographer, Disc Jockey, Church Lady, . . .

and the Compulsory Reading of Twenty-six Bridal Magazines and Twelve Hundred web sites TELLING my Mother

what she NEEDED, all being expert in every discipline, from Photography to Cake Design.

 

And just on the comment of having the Photos to prove it: yes, do not faint . . . in 1952 there was indeed ``Wedding

Photojournalism`` albeit with a 2 1/4 TLR and B&W roll film.

 

My list goes on, but in the main, those above are the main points.

 

So IMO, the Present Day Bride with more inputs telling her what she needs, all of various qualities, and many with

agendas not in alignment with the Bride`s actual requirements; she ahs less time and more decisions to make within

it; and a vast array of Photographers (on the Web) from which to choose; there is far less time to learn enough to

even begin to value the Craft of Photography, and anyway, many would ask what it the point if the emphasis is on a

storybook of Stills on DVD set to music watched on a wide screen TV with the wrong aspect ratio an the contrast

set wrongly . . .

 

O.K. No Flames please . . . many Wedding Photographs are indeed viewed that way, in 2008, and that is what

many customers want, and such is what they perceive is the LIMIT of their wants.

 

Now that does not mean that the ``PJ`` DVD is automatically, crappy: But what it does mean is, that the many,

many, many viewings on a many different screens throughout the group of Family and Friends disables the viewers

to see anything more than the ``coverage`` . . . and therefore makes decisions and appraisals of the value and worth

of the PHOTOGRAPHY based upon the value of the ``COVERAGE`` only, and NOT the technical (and perhaps

artistic) elements, of each image: which once held in higher esteem and more easily seen, looking at a Wedding

Album, page by page, a few years ago.

 

Wedding Photojournalism (or the ``StoryBook`` as we call it), is not new, it is not better or worse than Studio

Portraiture; nor is it good or bad compared to a more ``Tradition`` Wedding Coverage with Posed Formals set up with

a Portable Backdrop and two Flash Heads (for one example) .

 

Wedding Photojournalism in 2008, has the capacity to be very poor quality, just as it did in 1952, but because of

technology AND the way the client uses and views the images in 2008, more of the poor quality is getting

purchased: but that equally applies to the amount of poor quality images, generally.

 

I postulate that any devaluation in the Craft is because the harsher measuring sticks are not in place, as they used

to be, both for the client and for the Student Photographer by which to measure the output.

 

I also suggest we be careful not to blur the lines about what we are discussing: There are many (and have always

been) who pick up a camera and hang out a shingle ``Wedding Photographer``.

 

It is easier to do that now, than before. My (experienced) guess is the ones who do not know what they are doing,

will last about a year or two, just as it was 30 years ago. Being Professional, is actually quite simple (in theory) it is

catering for the client`s needs and wants.

 

Wedding Clients, (if they are allowed to have their head) are actually quite diverse in their needs and wants.

 

IMO, to ensure one has the RANGE and DEPTH of skills to cater for that diversity, which is out there in Clientland, it

is a very good idea to have a formal grounding in the technical aspects of Photography: and this is on area which has

always been overlooked by many who hang out the shingle . . . in 1970 and in 2008: There are just more now,

because digital cameras are (relatively) cheap, and processing is a breeze because many are ``fiddling`` on a

computer anyway.

 

But, from what I notice, many who hang out the shingle ``Wedding Photographer`` are (still) as equally ill-versed on

the technical aspects of: managing a small business; interpersonal skills; written and oral communication (texting

and emails do not count); people management; time management; prioritization of tasks; et al as what the ``fly-by-

nights`` and ``backyard`` operators were twenty years ago: that has not changed either, it is just cheaper to set up

shop, with a modem.

 

And the creamer is: the absolute lack of acknowledgement of any need for System Redundancy, when they launch

forth to cover a one-off event, like a Wedding.

 

***

 

So is the Wedding Photography Industry devalued? My personal answers . . .

 

I answer: mine isn`t.

 

Are many clients wanting the ``Photojournalistic`` approach: yes many request it, I have a Second Photographer who

is really good at it . . . I am better at other things, and I usually do those, but I also usually assist the ``Storybook``

when it is necessary for us to be in two places at the same time, or if working by myself I do everything required.

 

Are many clients wanting the ``old fashioned`` ``Formal Shots``: yes many of my Clients decide that it is a really

good idea.

 

Do many of my clients marvel at what a 40 x 50 display quality Colour Print looks like, compared to many small

screen image they have seen: you bet.

 

Do many buy a 40 x 50 inch colour, framed print: No

 

Can my Assistant Photographer set a studio rig with Key, Fill and Hair light, for a Mum Dad and two children sitting:

Yes, with his eyes closed and one hand tied behind his back.

 

Does my AP like ``Traditional Wedding Portraiture``, would he have any at his Wedding: No, he does not like it, and

no he thinks he would not have any, not really.

 

But, can he shoot Traditional Wedding Portraiture: Bloody Oath, and really well too, he has great Rapport.

 

Was my AP tertiary trained in a Photography Discipline: Yes, as well as learning on the job.

 

Do I think ``formal`` learning is mandatory for Wedding Photographers: Your choice, but I think it puts you way ahead

of the mob, and I don`t suggest you stop at just learning ``Photography``, either.

 

***

 

Is there a devaluation of the Professional Wedding Photographer:

 

No, not by those who are truly Professional, whatever the style is, they predominately shoot.

 

But, from the Customer`s view, there is a lot of muddy water and it is more difficult for the client to differentiate

quality and expertise on first glance now, than a few years ago. That has something to do with ``churn and burn`` but

not with ``Wedding Photojournalism``, per se.

 

It is when ``Wedding Photojournalism`` as a technique is advertised and then held up as the HALLMARK, rather than

the constituent elements speaking strongly of quality, that my heckles get fired up.

 

***

 

WP should not be an excuse for poor work, is a style, a technique.

 

The Practitioner of WP therefore firstly must take the time and make the effort to understanding and then adhere

(with appropriate bending as required) to the rules of: composition; lighting; exposure; framing, timing,

perspective . . . etc.

 

On the other hand:

 

What I see today is, many Wedding Clients only have a first one or two glances at the Photography, it is just

another, ``thing they HAVE to do`` . . and some realize later, there were many more choices on offer than they

perused.

 

The fact that many of these types of clients might have chosen (and continue to choose) a poor quality product or an

ill equipped practitioner, does not necessarily imply a devaluation of Photography, we could argue it is a Devaluation

of Society insisting we embrace our Personal Responsibilities . . . .

 

. . . but then again it is a marked devaluation in Personal Responsibility by NOT learning the Basics of any Craft or

Discipline, before hanging out the Shingle stating one is ``Professional``.

 

 

WW

 

 

 

WW

 

 

 

 

 

[rich_evans]

Wow - well thought out essay William. If I weren't so tired (just got back from a boisterous community service meeting) I'd add a few comments, but that'll have to wait until tomorrow ;-) --Rich

[rich_evans]

OK - I've re-read your wonderfully insightful response and am pretty much in full agreement with you. Just a point re: "....But, from the Customer`s view, there is a lot of muddy water and it is more difficult for the client to differentiate quality and expertise on first glance now, than a few years ago...."

 

In order to address that issue, we have a complete information packet that we give to all prospective clients and urge them to visit and talk to other photographers/studios. The packet instructs them on what to look for in a photogapher's portfolio, what questions to ask, and how to interact with the studio/photographer. We're not looking to turn away prospects, rather we feel its important that clients are well-prepared and informed before they go 'shopping' around. Most of them come back, and appreciate our honesty and concern for their event to go as seamlessly as possible - we put them at ease so that they don't need to be concerned about our role in their event. --Rich

[roger_smith4]

"If you don't own a flash and don't know how to use one....that's not a style...... It's a limitation."

 

Tell that to Jeff Ascough. See his bio here: http://www.jeffascough.com/

[pujo]

Hi Roger, I think what David means is "people defending a lack of knowledge/experience with photography by

calling it a style". so this is happend when you are clueless with what you are doing then you are not a pro.

People can learn photography in 1 day, but to make the knowledge really submerge in your brain takes much more

time than that. Jeff works are great, he knows what his doing, if he said he did not then, all he need to know is

already in his brain.

 

I am myself not a pro, just interested with all the insight mention above. I know a wedding pro that still use

Nikon F3 + 50mm + 28mm+35mm+105mm, and BW film (no flash). He processed everything himself until the prints out.

And he still doing it right now. in fact he did my wedding :). I love his craft and people seek him for his

craft. not to mention he does not have a website. people still look for his craft.

[lightsmith1]

There is the illusion on the part of brides that are "computer literate" and use a digital camera and maybe even use an online printing service or take their CF cards into Wal-Mart, that creating wall prints and wedding albums will be just as easy. The shoot and burn photographers have day jobs during the week and don't want to be bothered with producing an album or prints and instead deliver an intermediate product that is far from "finished".

 

I have had brides come to me to turn their S&B's images into an album. I did this one time and would never do this again. I spent more time trying to make the poorly exposed images look acceptable and used a lot of gimmicks to hide the fact. The bride loved the album but I wasted a lot of time to make it happen for her.

 

Wedding photography is a craft that requires technical skill, people skills, and art, with the first two the most important. There is nothing artistic about OOF or badly exposed images that are over processed in PS to hide the lack of skill on the part of the photographer.

 

Most brides I meet with have a better idea of what they do not want than what they are specifically looking for in terms of a photographer, the products to be delivered, and the what the entire wedding day photography experience should be. As wedding planners are clueless in this regard it is up to the photographer to help and advise their clients so that at the end of the process they are happy with the results.

[William Michael]

Rich:

 

Thank you for the opportunity to let me sprout forth and let a bit hang out: once I got going I could not shut myself up . . . Thank the Lord it was morning and I was only running on one Espresso . . . if it were after dinner, and I had had a couple of glasses of Red, I think I might have overloaded the server :)

 

***

 

`` In order to address that issue, we have a complete information packet that we give to all prospective clients and urge them to visit and talk to other photographers/studios. . . etc. ``

 

There are (obviously) many ways to approach this, and ``information packs`` have been discussed on this forum before. Personally, I find this point is very interesting, and I take particular note of it, as that would not be now, nor was it my particular approach, when I owned our W&P studios.

 

The three key advantages I see with using well formulated information packs, are:

 

. firstly the potential client is always comparing your competition with the standards YOU set;

 

. secondly the prospect is likely to immediately feel YOU have transparency, honesty and security (in your ability and product) and;

 

. thirdly if the prospect does return, they will be a ``dedicated`` customer, and one who will give unsolicited word of mouth referrals.

 

WW

[david_schilling___chicago_]

Roger Smith, I have no doubt that Jeff Ascough owns a speedlight or two and would know how to use one....if he

chose to use one. I'll also bet that when he began shooting in the late 80s that much of his work utilized flash and

that his ability to work sans flash and master the use of light came with his experience and training over the years.

I'm also hoping that if I'm correct or incorrect in my assumption that Jeff will jump into the discussin and let me know.

 

I also noted in a neighboring thread where a post requested feedback/critique on a wedding slideshow that he had

several images sans flash that were well done.....it takes more knowledge/skill to pull off those shots generally

speaking.

 

My point was, and still is, that many new shooters who are unfamiliar with flash, or with understanding traditional

portraiture will attempt to hide their inexperience and ignorance by claiming that it is some sort of a "style" choice. It

doesn't much matter to me which tools a photographer chooses to use if it's based on informed choice. My belief is

that "style" comes with experience and knowledge rather than as some vague starting point without the benefit of

experience/knowledge.

[rich_evans]

Hi William - I find myself needing an espresso right about now............its been a long day.

 

I don't advertise or have a web site - all of our business has always been through referrals. I've been fortunate

not to have to create a web site - I don't think I'd be comfortable with the increased traffic it might create, and

besides, the wife (who is also my business partner) thinks we should take an extended vacation sometime this

year ;-)

 

I fully expect to lose some customers - our pricing is definitely not for the bargain hunter so we don't tend to get

many bottom feeders, our style may not suit everyone - we're not 'flashy' or 'glitzy', and we don't have a 'store-

front' studio space. So there are some who will turn elsewhere.

 

Like you, I can tend to 'run off at the mouth' a bit much sometimes - I just had to edit (translation: cut-to-the-

chase) a newspaper article that was getting way too long - so I'll just end this for today.

 

Cheers.

 

--Rich

[William Michael]

Rich, I wouldn`t worry too much about not having a website . . . it is only a fad . . . it will pass just like this Wedding Photojournalism Phase, the youngsters are going through . . .

 

:)

 

WW

[William Michael]

Also, in an ever so slightly more serious tone, but nonetheless still another, (hopefully) meaningful thought . . .

 

If we are quoting odds at even money or better, I would like $10 on each of the two bets David Schilling just wagered.

 

WW

[rich_evans]

Hi David - some very good points. I think that the impression that digital capture - and all the automated functions

incuded in the newer flash units - somehow magically has the ability to overcome any lack of experience or

training is validated by the explosion of photo sharing sites, some good, some not. I occasionally leaf through

some of the more popular ones and am amazed at what people think is good.

 

I work full time as a technical/scientific/industrial photographer for a major medical company - most of what I

photograph is small products and industrial machinery, usually in less than ideal setups. I am frequently asked to

provide a camera to the engineering types so they can 'take a picture' of something or other, which I'm happy to

do. I give them a D70 with a 18-70 lens, set it to 'P', ISO 400 and send them on their way. So I may be

somewhat to blame in perpetuating the myth, but the images that come back with them, and the questions

like "Why can't I get my photos (of this stainless steel/device/small part) come out like yours?" are quite

gratifying. And an opportunity to instruct.

 

Of necessity, I do alot of existing light work - warehouses and factory floors are notoriously poorly lit from a

photographic standpoint. I would love to have the ability to work the light the way Jeff does - simply amazing -

maybe my approach is too sterile ;-) --Rich

[kin_lau]

From Jeff's blog on Oct 07 regarding camera bags and what he puts in it. Not much point packing 2 580EX's + CP-E3 if you never use flash.

 

Typically the Pro Roller will hold; 3 x Canon 1DsMK3 camera bodies, 70-200 f4L IS, 16-35 f2.8LII, 85 f1.2LII, 50 f1.2L, 24 f1.4L, 35 f1.4L, 2 x 580EX flashes, CP-E3 battery pack, card holders, batteries, business cards and loads of other bits and pieces.

[davidmoore]

I normally stay far away from such hot topics, but the discussion thus far has been insightful and on-point, so

I'd like to jump in by saying...

 

...what William said.

 

Once again he takes the words from my mouth and adds quite a few I hadn't considered, so I won't elaborate on

points already put forth. I do have an insight to offer in contrast to Mr. Rice's commentary, though.

 

I'm often struck by the honesty and intimacy in the work of many contemporary photographers who might be

considered technically weak by more seasoned or better trained professionals. While I might cringe at the craft

displayed in their work, I am nonetheless often impressed by their ability to capture a significant, humorous, or

touching moment. I think this is exactly what many clients connect with in today's market. And, as William

pointed out, it's a fools errand to believe your gorgeous image will look as you intended on your client's

television or monitor. So, the less skilled photographer that "gets-the-shots" may look far better to potential

clients than we may suspect.

 

I rarely seek the critique or approval of other photographers, simply because other photographers are not my

clients and I have been doing this long enough to know when and how I have succeeded or failed. But I have the

opportunity, a few times a year, to get the reactions of my captive audience of introductory

digital photography students to my work and the work of others. Invariably, they will prefer the intriguing image

over the technically excellent image. A well captured moment with shadowy eye sockets and blocked-up shadows wins

out over better-crafted, but less interesting, image every time. Sad (to photographers) but very often true.

 

Personally, I take every shot intending to have it both ways--a perfect moment, perfectly captured. If I fall a

bit short technically, I make no apologies for the penance I must pay in Photoshop or in the darkroom. This I do

for myself, as well as my clients. A few of them get it--many do not.

 

I do admire the craft, and the craftsmen, that Mr. Rice so passionately defends, and aspire to such excellence

myself. But, if less skillful photographers are attracting clients I would like to have, it behooves me to

understand,

dispassionately, exactly why and how this is happening.

 

It's just good business.

[markonestudios]

William has an uncanny knack for taking the very words out of my mouth ;-)

<p>But seriously, WW I agree wholly with your sentiments.