rt_jones Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 <p><strong><em>While I have pointed out to her that the camera doesn’t make the camera man, she is adamant she wants to make sure they have the, ”right equipment”</em></strong></p> <p>So this bride asks you to help her pick a photographer and then throws your advice in your face and continues to base her decisions on her own misguided criteria?</p> <p>At this point, I'd be done advising this bride. It sounds like she values some silly-assed checklist she clipped out of a bridal magazine more than your input anyway.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rt_jones Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 <p><strong><em>Well, if you want to get picky about equipment, some photographers (perhaps I'm one of them) will scorn anyone trying to work without a decent handheld light meter.</em></strong></p> <p>I have one and every time I pull it out I never know if the battery will still work. I found that it only reaffirms what my camera meter has already figured out (within 1/3 stop in most cases).</p> <p>That being said the incident meter really shines when trying to shoot in high contrast situations where something will screw with the camera's meter. Assuming of course you get a chance to use it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartMoxham Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 <p>The only way to pick a wedding photographer is to look at their portfolio and see if they are a good fit for you. Asking about backup equipment is one thing but what equipment they use will usually be based on personal choice. It really makes little difference what camera they use if you like their portfolio. Personal I would rather pick a photographer who's portfolio I like even if they used a couple of D40 bodies than pick the photographer who has a rather boring portfolio but uses a couple of D3s bodies. The only time I would be concerned is if the photographer only had a single body with no backup.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acute Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 <p>In addition to the incident light measurements, the other big difference is that the camera always looks towards the subject, whereas the light meter turns towards the light source. Huge difference. Add to that the photographer's skill in interpreting the scene and you get a much better assessment than what any DSLR's metering can ever make: especially if there are various elements in the picture that could confuse the camera's sensors. Anyone who relies on the DSLR's metering system will get results that look mostly like snapshots. Average. If I want some dramatic effects I need to go beyond the automated metering. Also, how much can the light change if I am indoors? Once I take a measurement of the main light source I can go manual, I can check my results, I can adjust, I can bracket. Now if I want to throw all of that out the window for the sake of capturing the "moment" why not just take snapshots with a decent point-and-shoot and try to get lucky that way? I guess it all boils down to your approach. I would argue in favor of esthetic quality, even if I had to miss some "cute" moments.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5artstudio Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 <p>The poster who said to concentrate on the lens had a point. Wedding reception photos wthout flash in low light situations will not get the job done without a fast lens and the right settings. Also, to the poster who indicated he charged less than 1k per wedding . . Something to consider would be that not every bride is price hunting. Most would say " how good could he be for that price" and move on to the next photographer.<br> I tripled my price this year for event work. I say to my brides "When the cake's been eaten, the guest gone home and the flowers wilted, our photos will be the illustration of the best bedtime story you can tell your grandchildren. This is just one reason why you are hiring me photograph your wedding." The result is that I am 3 times as busy.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hugh_j. Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 <blockquote> <p>but I guess I could state that anyone with a point and shoot will be able to get great dof,</p> </blockquote> <p>And you miss the point again (seems to happen quite often, doesn't it). A <em>good</em> picture with extended depth of field means that foreground, background, and subject are in coherence and all work together to produce an image that is greater than the sum of its parts. Look at the greatest paintings in history, and tell me if you can find one that has "narrow depth of field." That concept didn't even exist until photography was invented. And now you have amateurs with more money than brains buying things like 85/1.2's, 50/1's, 200/2's and the like, and rather than trying to improve their photography and compositional skills, just crank the lens wide open to "isolate the subject," and oooh and aaah over "bokeh," thinking that their gear just made them great photographers. Pathetic, really.</p> <blockquote> <p>that is not the case in weddings as quite often the background is cluttered and it becomes a distraction of what should be the focal point.</p> </blockquote> <p>Only to the untrained eye. The bottom line is, a skilled photographer with a Rebel and a kit zoom will outshoot a hack with a 1Ds and an 85/1.2L any day of the week. The smart consumer chooses a photographer based on final results. But I guess you pick where you want to eat out by first going to the kitchen to see what brand of knives and pots they use. Knock yourself out.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 <p ><strong ><em >"Just don't get caught by Judge Joe Brown. . . . </em></strong></p> <p ><strong ><em > </em></strong></p> <p >For clarity, Steve Johnston, the reference I made to <em >"Judge</em> <em >Joe Brown"</em> although slightly humorous had a serious note and also referred to my first post - <strong ><em ></em></strong></p> <p ><em > </em></p> <p ><em >"If she wants an "equipment decision", I would be looking at the main lens(es) not the main camera."</em></p> <p > </p> <p >***</p> <p > </p> <p >We had a recent thread where Judge Joe Brown carpeted a Wedding Photographer for poor work and part of Joe's vitriol centred around the (main) Camera which was used - I think it was a 400D or similar.</p> <p > </p> <p >None the less, on that thread I argued that the CAMERA was not relevant, but questioning the Photographer about the LENSES she used, might be relevant.</p> <p > </p> <p >***<br /><br /></p> <p >Again, in this case, I still hold the same opinion. </p> <p > </p> <p >With regard to the CAMERAS, I agree with Neil: </p> <p > </p> <p ><em >"Just for the record, there is no fundamental difference between any of the cameras you listed, at least not one that's worth debating. Any of them can produce great pictures in the right hands. And in the wrong hands, they can all produce rubbish."</em></p> <p > </p> <p >But I add that knowing <strong ><em >what lenses will be used is relevant, if your friend is making a buying decision predicated somewhat on what equipment is to be used. </em></strong></p> <p > </p> <p >Consider these points, as examples:</p> <p > </p> <p >> Lens quality – there are some consumer lenses which might not measure up to scrutiny of IQ should the Client want large prints – especially with respect to CA (Chromatic Aberration) because, as I understand, not all, or severe, CA can be cured in post production.</p> <p > </p> <p >> Lens Speed - if there is a No Flash Rule for example, a F/3.5 to F/5.6 zoom might not allow a sufficient Tv to steady the Subjects inside, during the Ceremony, even at ISO800 or ISO1600.</p> <p > </p> <p >> Broad FL Choice with respect to Lens Speed – although a basic consideration and perhaps it is taken as granted that all Wedding Photographers would choose a range of FL suitable to execute the Craft in all situations: (for a simple example) it is possible that the Photographer using the 450D might have been an avid reader of forums and decided that he wanted to use “Fast Primes” . . . and reading all about the cost efficiency of the “nifty fifty” she snavelled up, the EF50F/1.8 and partnered that with the EF85F/1.8, which is another great quality value for money lens and those two fast lenses with a slower (F3.5 to F/5.6) zoom is the full kit. But perhaps thus far the Photographer has never been in a smaller Church or Venue where a normal or even a wide fast lens was required . . . ? ? ?</p> <p > </p> <p >> Lens Choice Relevant to Back-up - Let’s take as an example the Photographer using the 5DMkII and let’s assume that he has a nice set of lenses: EF24 to 70 F2.8L; EF85F/1.8 and EF135F/2L. Let’s also assume that she has a 500D as the back up camera. So on face value you might assume that the this Photographer is racked, packed and stacked and ready for any contigency and has complete system redundancy . . . WRONG! let’s assume the 5DMkII is dropped and it and the 24 to70 are rendered unserviceable . . . try shooting a Wedding with a 500D and those two telephoto lenses . . . </p> <p > </p> <p >> Lens Choice relevant to Lens mount – (another example), Let’s assume the 500D shooter has the very swish EF-S17 to 55F/2.8 IS and the 85F/1.8 and the 70 to 200F2.8L IS and is using a Film body as back up, and the 500D locks to Error 99 and cannot be unlocked . . . the remaining gear is all at FL = 70mm and longer . . . not a nice place to be (granted that with a penknife and knowing what to do the 17 to 55 can be “converted” to mount on a Film Body) </p> <p > </p> <p >These are some examples, (OK, the last example is a bit “out there”, but they are not all the examples I could list), of why, if you are making an interrogation of gear used, I argue that knowing the lenses which will be available, is more important once it is established that the main camera is “recent” and a DSLR.</p> <p > </p> <p >I trust also that this more detailed response explains better both my former comments and also cements that both were indeed based upon “rational thought”.</p> <p > </p> <p >WW </p> <p > </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejder Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 <p>Painters have the distinct advantage of being able to choose all the elements in their work to make them orderly and harmonious. Photographers pick and choose based on availability unless they are working in a controlled studio environment where they can access anything they want. This is not a wedding photography circumstance.</p> <p>It's easy to say that narrow depth of field is the convention of the incompetent because it can be achieved by based lens and camera selection. However, it would be ignorant to assume that the person who makes proper use of narrow DoF does not consider color, contrast, line and form elements in the background and, ideally, search for the best possible complementary elements. It would also not be logical to say that all photos that have narrow DoF would look better with greater DoF. The rule of simplification in photography does not necessarily apply to paintings, and the fact of all parts of a painting being in focus does not need to be realized to create a good photo. They are different mediums of expression and interpretation with some different standards and limits.</p> <p>Although the greatest paintings may have all things "in focus" (even though a great number of those paintings are actually impressionist-style or a combination of geometric and organic shapes that in no way directly resemble anything living or real) I do not believe that the greatest photo necessarily has to conform to the same rules. Why would it? Why couldn't the harmony of blurred color and line - perhaps with counterbalancing secondary subjects also out of focus - and a sole subject of interest in focus be as compelling as a composition with all elements in focus? It seems to me that focus is just another one of the photographer's tools to draw interest, like light, framing, line, etc. </p> <p>Under the circumstances of a ceremony, do we have the luxury of choosing to be anywhere and everywhere at once and capture the scene from every angle, and do we have the freedom to choose all the light and colors within the context? Or, do we get only as many opportunities and available tools as our positioning and crew number provide and the rules of the chapel permit? We can use what we have, modify it somewhat when permitted, and then do the best we can. Some of us are better able than others to find the best shots based on angle, significance to the situation, complementary subjects, etc. But I do not believe we have all the freedom to customize our scene that a painter does. </p> <p>I am curious about something: before photography came into existence, did we have a conceptualization of depth of field, or were we unaware of such a thing? It would be interesting to know if such knowledge or lack thereof had any impact on artistic expression.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee_richards2 Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 <blockquote> <p>My skill set won't change but the tool I am using will allow me to do better job. I know this. Therefore I choose such a tool. If I didn't feel this way, I could use the D90. And I have shoot weddings using 2x D90's. And the results were just fine. But I would have gotten better results using the D300.</p> </blockquote> <p>Not necessarily. Each of the photographers interviewed is practiced with their cameras. The results the bride saw ALREADY were achieved with those cameras. More to the point. I would rather have you shoot my wedding with the two D90's you have been using for a year than your new D300s for the first time. Right? I want you thinking about the shot and not which button to push, or not knowing how your new camera uniquely responds to the light.</p> <p>I have an old D2Hs that I keep and use for sports occasionally. I like the camera. It is not my best camera. It is old technology. And it feels like an old friend in my hands. I can use it without thinking. It frees me to have fun and make pictures very quickly while concentrating on the action and not the machine. Does my D3 take better pictures? Yup. Does it give me better results in every sports situation? Not yet.</p> <p>I am with Nadine. If I had seen a portfolio with which I was pleased; and if I trusted the photographer to execute our mutual vision for the wedding I couldn't care less what machine she/he uses to make the picture. A very short time ago for some of us, we were thrilled with the 6 MP in the D100 and many wonderful weddings were photographed with that state-of-the-art machine. Many of those wonderful pictures are still in the portfolios of some of us who now use D3s.</p> <p>As for this arrogant, pig-headed, know-it-all...I mean this bride.... I would run from her like I was trying to keep up with a bomb disposal guy. She is an accident looking for a place to happen. She has dissed the phtographers already so obviously she is has not made the right decision. Perhaps she should call the Nikon or Canon factory rep and see who just bought the newest camera. Then she will be right on the money.</p> <p>The other day I was at an event (outdoors) where the photographer they hired to cover the event was shooting with two D700s. One body had a 70-200 AFS F2.8 VR lens on it and the other body had one of those old 28-80 G silver lenses Nikon sold with kits a few years back. One of the other newspaper guys was making fun of this lens. He didn't realize that there were some of us there who knew that lens was amazingly sharp, very fast in focus and gives lovely color. In the right hands (and it was in very right hands) this lens would give results of which any of would be proud. I have one of these lenses. It was given to me and I use it occasionally just for fun. Would I shoot a wedding with it? Probably not. But I could. And I think the bride would be thrilled. But not this bride. Maybe I could make a computer label to cover up the Nikkor with 'Zeiss Silver Edition.' She'd just KNOW her pictures would be better than those of ANY of her friends.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 <p><strong><em>"As for this arrogant, pig-headed, know-it-all...I mean this bride.... I would run from her like I was trying to keep up with a bomb disposal guy. She is an accident looking for a place to happen. She has dissed the phtographers already so obviously she is has not made the right decision. Perhaps she should call the Nikon or Canon factory rep and see who just bought the newest camera. Then she will be right on the money."</em></strong><br> <br> Well, to use your words, Lee <strong><em>“not necessarily.”</em></strong></p> <p >Why is the Bride an “arrogant, pig headed, know-it-all?” </p> <p > </p> <p >What evidence is there that she has she “dissed” all the Photographers?</p> <p > </p> <p >All we have before us is a question, taken on good faith, that a Bride (a third party) wants her Wedding Photos to be OK and so she asked her friend who is “into photography” to account for the “gear” which it seems she knows not a great deal about.</p> <p > </p> <p >It is very likely that, with all the MIS-information available to the Bride on the WWW, she has been reading “Bridal Forums”, some written by very correctly termed “know-it-alls” whose only credential is their by-line and the Bride has picked up on the often mentioned “gear is important” line of argument . . . </p> <p > </p> <p >Something of interest to me is: as Photonet too is a WWW forum and easily accessible to said Bride, IMO it bodes well to assume the Bride is merely seeking assistance of a Friend on a subject about which she has little knowledge and subsequently that Friend sought help here . . . </p> <p > </p> <p >Heavens, the Bride might be my next door neighbour . . . </p> <p > </p> <p >Or, alternatively the Bride could be your (previously) best Commercial Client’s, Niece ? ? ? </p> <p > </p> <p >WW </p> <p > </p> <p > </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 <p><em><strong>"I am curious about something: before photography came into existence, did we have a conceptualization of depth of field, or were we unaware of such a thing? It would be interesting to know if such knowledge or lack thereof had any impact on artistic expression."</strong></em></p> <p>Excellent question!</p> <p>One of the most thought provoking questions of this genre, I have read here at Photonet.</p> <p>I don't know the answer.<br> My guess is "No, there was no conceptualization".</p> <p>I base this answer on my knowledege and study of the Origins of DoF (as a technical pursuit) apropos the History of Photography. </p> <p>It is now a priority for me to further investigate these elements of Art.<br> Thank you.<br /><br />WW</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 <p>Yes, it is an interesting subject William ... a lot more interesting than the never-ending gear arguements ... LOL!</p> <p>My grasp of the subject from my "distant" art school days: </p> <p>The effect of everything from toes to horizon being in focus is basically unnatural. The eye/brain cannot do that. Either you can "mentally focus" on the key board in front of you or the wall behind your computer screen ... but not both. In other words, a 50 @ f/1.4 has more in common with the eye/brain than a 28mm @ f/11.</p> <p>The notion of "depth" is not an unknown even in early art. It is was a key element in the advent of understanding perspective (Greek) and most notably utilized in the late 13th century Italian Renaissance painting. It introduced the 3rd dimension (height, width, <strong>depth</strong>) where things close were bigger than things far away (as opposed to the flat patterns of Romanesque art). Botticelli's "Birth of Venus" c 1485 shows a simple distant scene rendered smaller than the key subject. Look at some classic Japanese paintings/prints to see the lack of 3D perspective.</p> <p>The notion that everything from close up to far away was depicted sharply was due to the artist painting what they saw ... seen one at a time, not all together. They looked at the subject and painted it, then looked at the distant background and painted that. </p> <p>However, the idea that things far away are not as "clear" is also not unknown in Art. One need go no further than the Mona Lisa c 1507 to see what now we call narrower Depth-of-Field used for subject isolation ... although the effect may have been as much the realistic rendering of atmospheric effects that obscure distant objects then a conscience invention of out-of-focus effect the eye/brain actually uses. One never really knows when it comes to the mind Leonardo da Vinci : -) </p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zweeko Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 <p>i shoot weddings with an olympus trip 35. it's over forty years old. and cost me £3.50.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 <p><em >"However, the idea that things far away are not as "clear" is also not unknown in Art. One need go no further than the <strong>Mona Lisa</strong> c 1507 to see what now we call <strong>narrower Depth-of-Field used for subject isolation</strong> ... "</em><br> Thanks . . .<br> Yep, that's exactly what I first thought about . . . and I wondered if that was “conceptualization of DoF" . . . . and then I got befuddled with thinking about the notion of DoF, re the Development of Photography . . . <br> I should have paid more attention in Art Class at High School, but I was naughty back in those days and I spent a lot of time being sent outside, standing in the corridor: naughty in my music classes too, which I also regret. <br> <br> WW</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardchen Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 <p>More expensive (better) camera will give a photographer less limiting factors in creating photos. Good photographer work around his/her tool's limitation and produce good photos one way or another.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardchen Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 <p>I would suggest you let the bride choose two photographers whose portfolios she likes the most. Then you choose one out of the two whose more experience and better equipment.<br> Case closed.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 <p>Deep DOF and shallow DOF can be used well or badly--to support the image or work against it. Again, it depends on the person behind the camera and how that person chooses to make the image. Back to the original question...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_ling Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 <p>I think that part of the bride's concern regarding equipment has to do with the fact that most consumers equate quality with equipment. This is the reality and I would think that if this question is asked then it should be answered directly. Rather than taking umbrage at it, look at it from the bride's (or any other consumer's) point of view, and take the opportunity to educate her and market your skills.<br> I agree with Edward Chen's suggestion to narrow down the choice based first on their portfolios and all else being equal, finalized based on equipment.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pierre_comtois Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 <p>Although the equipment doesn't make a photographer, it is important to at least have a minimum quality camera and lenses. And as a wedding photographer, have back up equipment!<br> A lot of people get hung-up on equipment, like the poster specifying the 5d mark II as a necessity; that's ridiculous! Nobody needs a full frame sensor, it is a matter of choice.<br> But I would recommend looking at full weddings instead of just the best of, and I would also suggest asking friends that got married recently. And were happy!!! Those are the best references. As a wedding photographer, 85% of my bookings come from referrals; when someone sees me at a wedding and realize that I know what I'm doing, they are more likely to ask me and contact me to do their weddings.<br> A camera is nice, but knowing how to use it is better! And don't forget about dealing with people, situations, weather, change of plans, ect.<br> It does take a lot to be a good wedding photographer. And by the way, someone mentioned money... A good, experienced photographer will easily get $4,000.00 to $10,000.00 for a full service wedding. For coverage only, $300.00 per hour is normal. When you are looking for $1,000.00 and less, you are going to get a student or an assistant or someone just not very good!<br> That said, I have seen decent newcomer that still don't know their true value and will shoot for anything.</p> <p>Good luck!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markonestudios Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 I think the question about the conceptualization of depth of field deserves its own post. I agree that it is indeed an excellent question and is in danger of being swallowed up in this thread...:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_noceti Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 <p> <p>Interesting thread. As someone starting out in wedding photography I'd note that while the camera doesn't make the photographer, no good photographer would be without the proper tools. The bride's insistence that they have the proper tools for the job is just another way to weed out bad photographers. I wouldn't try to dissuade her from her criteria but add to it. Truth is, anyone can hop on the forums and find out from the pros have in their kits. What they can't get is the ability to make amazing photographs.</p> <p>While the portfolio helps, I've seen a number of portfolios that look amazing only to find that those happened to be the lucky shots from their shoots. Every photographer gets lucky, and if they compile a portfolio around those lucky shots they can appear to be top notch but that's not what you want for your wedding day. The bride needs to see a series of shots from a single wedding before she can make her decision. Those shots need to show that the photographer can produce quality photos all day long in all the lighting situations they might run into.</p> <p>It sounds to me as though this bride is trying to find a photog on a budget, hence three shooters with sub par cameras. In that instance I would tend to agree with you about not going with the 5D MII shooter as I would not trust anyone shooting with that quality gear at bargain prices. Still, I can't see anyone who wants to be taken seriously shooting with anything less than a xxD series camera. The rebels are for hobbyists and that's where they should stay especially on a wedding day.</p> <p>In the end it's coming off as the bride trying to get top quality for next to nothing. Hope she gets what she deserves, which is not necessarily the same as what she wants. :O)</p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ujwal Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 <p>Mate, the bride should invite the photographers to a game of Rock, Paper and Scissors.<br> Winner should take photos.OR</p> <p> the alternative is to allow the photographer with best photos in abt 100 shots from a single wedding should be allowed to shoot. provided the bloke also has a backup camera( Point and Shoot camera will also do.</p> <p>Also, another thought...the bloke with the oldest camera should win....one who bought a 5DmkII yesterday will not be a better shooter than one who bought a 350D a couple of years ago. Experience also counts. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 <p><em><strong>"the bloke with the oldest camera should win...."</strong></em></p> <p>That's some "down under" logic, Ujwal, I like that thinking; and it is worth pondering.</p> <p>WW</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 <p>BTW, it has been a few days and about 70 comments later . . . so what do you think, Steve Johnston was this all useful to you and/or your friend?</p> <p>WW</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_johnston9 Posted March 23, 2010 Author Share Posted March 23, 2010 <p><br />Yes this has been a great help. I have read this thread daily since I started it and have been amazed at how long the thread has grown. I would like to thanks everyone who have had they say.<br> Ultimately I think the best advice for me, was to get multiple albums from the photographer, as it was remarked it easy for someone to get lucky and just show there “greatest hits”<br> Also I think the bride has to be realistic about what she getting, she not paying top dollar, so to a large extent she going to have to be realistic about things or up the budget. Thanks again.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now