Wedding Profession: Sorry, this is just so sad....

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Thats something I do agree with Neil there are no one click actions for all occasions. The other problem I see with canned actions is that everyone can also end up with the same look instead of finding their own look.</p>

[tom_aellis1]

<p>Well, everyone seems to be helping me express myself better. I do however think it was a horrible example to use for an "action/plug-in" because is is quite the nasty picture and not just for the Under/Exp. But, Perhaps I need to remember that ALL art is Objective.<br>

You guys have also helped me with my communication that I think so many actions like this are really "Lowering the Bar" as Senor Croc wrote. The burden on the Pro's is great by so is the creativity.<br>

Now, I can tell you that I can almost date the photograph via the look of the action. Today, it's the "look" of very overexposed and over-sat with some glare. I do this in camera with over-exp Fuji 400H / 800z etc....<br>

I dig those guys/gals that go the 12 extra miles to make their work stand out so much more, such as Riccis. IMHO, one of the finest wedding photographers that every graced the planet but he followed Reggie, Doc style. He shoots both Film and Digital. (Leicas), I really like J. Canlas (http://canlasphotography.blogspot.com/2010/07/roscoes-chicken-waffles-oakland-ca.html) and Jose Villa (both FIlm photographers that do their own Processing or RPL and scanning etc)<br>

Thank you for helping me explain myself better.<br>

T</p>

[davidmoore]

<p>I read through the replies in this thread before actually looking at the link to the actions being discussed. Wow. I have to say I was a bit surprised to see that the original image was not tragically inept and the actions being used weren't over-the-top stylistically.<br /> <br /> Are these actions a threat to the profession, or to me personally? Hardly. But this has spurred a healthy discussion and some good points have been made, some of which I'd like to expand upon.<br /> <br /> First, the original image exposure (shown in the linked page) appears to have been influenced by the white fabric of the dress and, as a result, is bit dark and dull. On the other hand, the highlights are intact and the darkest tones aren't lost in the mud, so it's a pretty good image to work with in post-production. I love to nail a shot in-camera as much as the next photographer. But, failing that, as long as I can squeeze scene contrast/range of light into the dynamic range of my camera I know I have all I need for a good final image.<br /> <br /> Second, getting a great shot straight out of camera (SOOC) is certainly the most efficient way to work, and efficiency translates to profitability. Less time is needed in post-production this way, and if you make a living in photography this should be important to you. But there is no moral judgment here. If extensive post-production, with or without action sets, is another photographer's stock-in-trade and appeals to his/her clients--well, nothing succeeds like success. If the productivity and profit are there, I say go for it.<br /> <br /> Third, with thirty-five years behind the lens, I can attest to the fact that color negative film and talented print service professionals made at least two generations of wedding photographers believe they were nailing every exposure in-camera. Many of the same photographers bemoaned the poor performance of early (and current) digital cameras when they lost the key advantages of color negative photography--wide dynamic range and extraordinary overexposure latitude. Digital photography is very much like shooting color transparency film, especially when shooting direct to JPG. Fortunately, with digital, we have the ability to work our RAW images in ways that weren't available with transparencies via programs like LightRoom, PhotoShop.... and with actions like these.<br /> <br /> Finally, neither I nor my clients are concerned about the implications to the profession of an influx of less technically talented competitors. Their concerns are more about cost and value of my services, my photographic style and approach, confidence that I will perform as expected, the ease and simplicity of our relationship, and interpersonal dynamics. None of those concerns are directly influenced by my choice to use, or not use, an action set in post-production. It's just a non-issue.<br>

<br /> As a footnote, I do use one rather subtle action in PhotoShop on an occasional basis, and use no LightRoom presets in my work. I find that actions like the ones shown on the link page often need more than a bit of post-action fiddling to look right, so I don't use them.<br /> <br /> But I have no problem if someone else does.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>people are insulted when you mention that they have little or no talent with photography or specifically wedding photography. Don't know why.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Feeling insulted when told one is told they not talented at what they do isn't really a phenomenon limited to photography.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"Was it really a terrible photo or just a bit underexposed."</em></strong></p>

<p>I think it was a terrible photo: cropping skew across the bust line and decapitating her, is a sacking offense.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>cropping skew across the bust line and decapitating her, is a sacking offense</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I disagree - the cropping and beheading is one of the better things about the photo. The problem with the photo is rather that, skew cropping and beheading aside, it's ultimately just not terribly interesting.</p>

 

[William Michael]

<p>:) - have a great weekend to all on the other side of the pond.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>Will be busy cropping the heads and feet off a wedding party on Sat ;)</p>

 

[tom_aellis1]

<p><strong><em>Will be busy cropping the heads and feet off a wedding party on Sat ;)</em></strong></p>

<p>Too Funny!</p>

[tom_aellis1]

<p>I think I have to take a real good look at myself and ask why I'm so, well, kinda peeved when I see a, IMO, nasty wedding photo used as an example and then "told" it can be turned into a wonderful piece of art that can be sold to your client.<br>

It's almost as If I'm reading it as an advert that "Anyone can be a wedding photographer" and I'm sure that's not the case.<br>

It may be, that I'm at a stage in my life, that I'm studying light, light shaping and it's tools, and fine art SO much that I'm being skewed and judging a bit too much. I really have to take a good look at myself with this.<br>

But let me ask you this, if you can answer, if you are "watching" products from wedding photographers, do you feel they are improving as a whole or getting worse. Never-mind how they've been captured, I'm talking about the actual product. That means getting a bit deep in your answer with such as "Can you date this photo?", "Does it look like post-process plastic", "Is the photographer lacking of talent in the camera and leaning on Software?"<br>

It's something that I'm going to really look into myself with. Not life changing but very interesting to me personally.<br>

Thanks for all feedback in each way.<br>

T</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>. People with unbalanced reliance on actions are not entirely in control of their own work</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />So are people who handed their negatives over to the lab, for years and years. I don't hear any "slamming" or whining about that.</p>

<p>Basically, I hear sour grapes. Everything changes, one has to change with the times. I used to know a lot of typesetters, they went and got new jobs when electronic typesetting hit. Some were out of work for a while. But none complained with the pathetic bitterness one hears around these parts.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm so, well, kinda peeved when I see a, IMO, nasty wedding photo used as an example and then "told" it can be turned into a wonderful piece of art that can be sold to your client</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The image may not be great, but there are other things in the world to worry about. I was just looking at the portfolios on the websites of a couple of wedding photographers, and the image that started this thread is, in my opinion, better than anything that they were showing as their best work. The image doesn't please me, but at least it doesn't make me gag.</p>

<p>I should probably be happy about it, as it means there are hugely differing opinions in the world as to what good taste is, and if we were all the same then there would be little diversity in the world. But can't help feeling depressed and reaching for the mind bleach. Time to start going to other websites, moving on, and looking at good photography again.</p>

 

<blockquote>People with unbalanced reliance on actions are not entirely in control of their own work

<p><br />So are people who handed their negatives over to the lab, for years and years. I don't hear any "slamming" or whining about that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As I understood it, Neil wasn't arguing against post processing, quite the contrary. He was saying that using complex presets like this is a very blunt instrument, and far better to prepare your own, custom adjustments. So I think you're picking the wrong target over resistance to change. The point is rather to use the new tools as effectively and intelligently as possible to get the best results, and to understand what you are doing - so that you remain in control.</p>

 

[tom_aellis1]

<p><strong><em>The point is rather</em></strong><br /><strong><em>to use the new tools as effectively and intelligently as possible to get the</em></strong><br /><strong><em>best results, and to understand what you are doing - so that you remain in</em></strong><br /><strong><em>control.</em></strong></p>

<p>So this, really has a good ring of truth to it, at least to me.<br>

I wonder why I'm so attracted to the documentary style of Wedding Photography, i.e., the Riccis' of the world.I mean I look at any single one of his photographs and it really shouts a story to me. So, I'm asking myself if I'm seeing too much "Run and Gun" out there because the "tools" are made so easy? Is this specific Plug-in or the "wave" of plug-in's that we are seeing shouting "You don't need to be a photographer, just be there, press the button and "We'll" take care of the rest" Because to me at least, that's what I'm reading in a lot of plug-ins these days.<br>

<strong><em>But none</em></strong><strong><em> complained with the pathetic bitterness one hears around these parts.</em></strong><br>

Oh, I can promise you one big thing, this does not keep me up at night nor am I the least bit bitter about it. Not at all.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Starting with the title, it certainly appears otherwise.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"You don't need to be a photographer, just be there, press the button and "We'll" take care of the rest" Because to me at least, that's what I'm reading in a lot of plug-ins these days.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's exactly the way many wedding photographers were before Photoshop. You know, when the lab took care of the rest. Maybe you don't know, you seem quite oblivious to this, but I was in the lab when the wedding photographers came in.</p>

[tom_aellis1]

<p>Jeff, I can't disagree with you because I was not in the biz at that time so I have no basis, but I can't believe that a lab can do that much post. Today you don't even have to worry that you've set the wrong ISO because in RAW you can fix it.<br>

Back in the day, if you didn't know what ISO you had rated, the lab would / could only process on your instructions i.e., what the films box speed was or how you told them to push / pull etc.... but if you didn't know...<br>

What did the labs do for wedding photographers back then that was like post today? I'm serious, I really don't know....</p>

[davidmoore]

<p>I'm not gonna lie to you, Tom--on first reading, your post looked like troll bait to me. But after looking at your extensive and knowledgable posting history I realized you have a good understanding of the craft, and your intentions appeared to be sincere. In a later post in this thread, you said,</p>

<p> "I think I have to take a real good look at myself and ask why I'm so, well, kinda peeved when I see a, IMO, nasty wedding photo used as an example and then "told" it can be turned into a wonderful piece of art that can be sold to your client."</p>

<p>That's a good question, and I regret I don't have an answer for you. But I can provide a comparative viewpoint... my own, of course.</p>

<p>When I looked at the linked page, I saw a couple of moderately useful actions, and a demonstration image that was chosen to (1) illustrate their effects and (2) avoid any potential usage issues (head cut off).</p>

<p>I also saw a useful promotional strategy in posting those actions where the blogger/action author had reaped dozens of FaceBook links, to say nothing of the hits coming over from this thread. Pretty smart, in my opinion.</p>

<p>Things I did not see were (1) any threat whatsoever to my business, craft, or world view, and (2) the eminent demise of photography as we know it.</p>

<p>Here is, perhaps why I'm not appropriately wrapped around the axle over any of this:</p>

<p>--I regard myself as a craftsman, a businessman, a journeyman photographer... but not an artist. I may occasionally attempt--and even create--a bit of art for myself. But my commisioned work is done for the needs and pleasures of others. I may generously inject my own vision in that work, but it is as much about branding as it it is about creative expression. My commercial output is only as good as its perception by my clients--and I'm fine with that.</p>

<p>--I may look to other photographers for ideas and inspiration--and I often do--but I never look to them for validation or critique. This is simply because other photographers don't hire me. I can do better market research in an hour browsing image comments on flickr or conversing with potential clients (e.g., unmarried young women at Starbucks) than in a year of listening to the advice of other photographers. Trust me on this--with an MBA in competitive strategy, I'm pretty well up on market research.</p>

<p>--I realize that my success in this business is influenced far more by my own actions (no pun intended) than by those of others. If thousands of novice photographers begin using mediocre plug-ins tomorrow, their effect on my business will be miniscule compared to my own efforts. In fact, the combined effect on my prospects of everyone who ever uses those two (pretty good) actions will be less than the efforts I might make in a single day of networking, skill building, or portfolio and marketing development.</p>

<p>Bottom line (oh, I hate it when people say "bottom line") is that it just doesn't matter all that much to me. People who feel in control of their own destiny, usually are. Exaggerating the importance of perceived external threats... well, I find that's just not very useful.</p>

[leslee_travis]

<p>Tom- To me it sounds like you are very passionate about photography. It sounds like photography is your life, or a big part of it. It's frustrating to you when someone points and shoots and calls themselves the same thing as you a professional. I am a certified master dog groomer. I have spent years of my life working with the best of the best and it's so hard when I see someone calls themselves a groomer because they picked up their husbands electric razor. I can completely sympathize with you. I hope I'm not over analizing you here, you said you wanted to look at what bothered you so much. Maybe this is it? <br>

Just keep up the good work and let people learn themselves. I have had so many people leave me and go to a cheaper groomer, they always call me crying I am so sorry can you fix fluffy! :) Sorry off topic just trying to make you feel better. </p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>For whatever reason, this really doesn't bother me. What do you think we did with airbrushing? Just another tool.</p>

[savagesax]

I surely don't agree. Our studio's are running just fine, shooting around 100 plus events a year, not all were weddings, so if you go out of that wedding hole everyone is crammed into, you will be amazed how many jobs you can get that could pay much more than a wedding.

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Today you don't even have to worry that you've set the wrong ISO because in RAW you can fix it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not accurate. There's no post-processing technique to change ISO 1600 to ISO 200. Post-processing can't recover a grossly over or under-exposed image, nor can it repair motion blur from a too-slow shutter speed (possibly due to a too-low ISO setting).</p>

<p>You may be thinking of White Balance, Contrast, Saturation, or other editable parameters, but there are plenty of things that Photoshop can't fix: camera shake, bad composition, focusing on the wrong person or object, etc.</p>

<p>It takes a lot of skill and experience to shoot events and to deliver consistent quality from job to job. I don't think a one-size-fits-all plug-in would be all that useful, but applying such a thing doesn't mean that the photographer is a slouch.</p>

 

[neilambrose]

<blockquote>

<p>As I understood it, Neil wasn't arguing against post processing, quite the contrary. He was saying that using complex presets like this is a very blunt instrument, and far better to prepare your own, custom adjustments. So I think you're picking the wrong target over resistance to change....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Simon. Yes, that's exactly the point I was making. I'm old enough to have used the darkroom and the computer for pretty much equal periods. I bought my first copy of Photoshop in 1994. Hence, I'm very aware of what you can (and can't) do with actions, and why it's important to remain in control of your own work, regardless of preferred method.</p>

<p>Jeff, no 'slamming' or 'whinging' here, I'm afraid. I'm a huge advocate of change.</p>

[koray_p]

<p>Another "Today’s Most Active Thread" from Tom. Congs!</p>

<p>No other lost friends due to IP issues, though.</p>

<p>K.</p>

[lou korell]

<p>This thread is another example of how the concept of what wedding photography "is" does not interpret the same for all photographers. If all photographers ever agree that there are certain "standards" that should be applied to all wedding photographs, we will all be taking a huge step backwards with promoting wedding photography as being a viable photographic "art" form. Good photographs may be made by using or breaking rules or any combination thereof. As with all arts and crafts it will still be the buyer who decides what is appealing. As professionals, we will always have our own favorites and preferences when it comes to styles and looks. That's fine, but we still should remember we are trying to make a living. If a preset or action or style or look gives your clients what they like, you will be successful. Every field has its experts, skilled craftsmen, hacks, pontificates, etc. Disagreements on methods are natural and can actually stimulate thought on creativity. <br>

Using any method to create photographs is up to the photographer. Do your own thing. If it works for you, you will be where you want to be without worrying about other people's opinions.<br>

BTW, this isn't a slam of the original post. It just says that everyone views wedding photography in their own way. It is the same thought process that says, use a 50mm lens here instead of a 135 for this kind of portrait. If one uses the 50 and the shot becomes famous, everyone will go out and buy a 50. Since Cartier-Bresson used a 50 mostly, why do we not all limit our shooting to the 50? Wasn't that the "right" way to make pictures?</p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>The only thing that matters is the final image. Why should anyone care if an action was used to get there? There are some potential pitfalls of particular actions being recognizable (though only by photographers themselves) and overused, but that is a different issue. I use some PS actions which are not my own, and though I sometimes wonder what's going on behind the scenes, the truth is I have better things to do than to try to figure them all out.</p>

[photom]

<blockquote>

<h2><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4108081">David Moore</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jul 08, 2010; 10:52 p.m.</h2>

</blockquote>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not gonna lie to you, Tom--on first reading, your post looked like troll bait to me. But after looking at your extensive and knowledgable posting history I realized you have a good understanding of the craft, and your intentions appeared to be sincere. In a later post in this thread, you said,<br>

"I think I have to take a real good look at myself and ask why I'm so, well, kinda peeved when I see a, IMO, nasty wedding photo used as an example and then "told" it can be turned into a wonderful piece of art that can be sold to your client."<br>

That's a good question, and I regret I don't have an answer for you. But I can provide a comparative viewpoint... my own, of course.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that the answer to the question is that what you think does not really matter. What does matter is the person that is willing to spend money on photographs (the client). It is their judgement, relative to all the other photos from other photographers that they have viewed in their lives that matters. If they have seen very few photos, then their judgement may be bad. If they think the photo looks good, from their experience and perspective (with a $ value judgement thrown in as well), that is all that matters. What does not matter to them is how it was produced or what your opinion of the photo is. So, you need to change this idea in your head Tom. However, you still need to have sense of what they will and will not like.</p>

<p>In some regard you are evaluating the profession and how it as changed. Of course, a lot of people do this. The biggest changes are: 1) You can make mistakes and instant feedback will allow you to correct the mistakes if you look at the LCD and know how to change the settings on the camera. With film, people were scared to death to screw it up because you could never go back and fix it; so only very confident and knowledgable people took up this work. 2) A $1,000 DSLR, with a decent eTTL flash, can come within a hair of the output quality of a $15,000 medium format film wedding kit from the old days. So, the previous barriers of entry - basic camera skill and cost are now much, much lower.</p>

<p>What has not changed is the traditional skills required of lighting (and related equip. investment), posing, perspective, creativity, etc. But, some clients barely notice the difference when these attributes are delivered correctly into the photo. Others clients do notice it a lot.</p>

<p>AND, new skills are required to get consistent, quality output. Lots of computer skills (and investment in good PC equipment), software skills, PS editing skills, digital color management, understanding of digital print workflow, etc. Fewer labs exist to just drop off the digital files and have someone fix everything for you and print it out. (Though these do exist for a price). </p>