I know I was a little old school,,

[fotografz]

<p>Sorry, I am truly lost as to what the question is or what is trying to be conveyed in this thread.</p>

<p>Is it the point that craftsmanship is being lost? Poor professionalism is on the rise? Who determines that? Is that really any different from years past?</p>

<p>Those that strive to higher standards are always going to question those that THEY think do not.</p>

<p>No one questions that most any good photographer can use less capable gear ... but ask most any good photographer which they would prefer ... antidotal exceptions aside, most would rather have the best they can afford. If it were all equal, no one would buy the more expensive option.</p>

<p>Logic seems to take a holiday in threads like these ... LOL!</p>

[mariosforsos]

<p>I'f afraid it goes deeper than people simply not having the money for a $3,000 photographer - it's people TRULY believing that with digital ANYONE can shoot and then fix EVERYTHING in photoshop! and I'm not even talking about weddings - I've had professionals from all walks of life bring that argument to the table with me! It is, partly, our fault as well, for teaching them just what PS is capable of...</p>

<p>As for gear, it's true you do not NEED the best camera to get great shots, but when you're being paid to document a once-in-a-lifetime event, then the client DESERVES the best you can give them and I'm sorry, but a Rebel with an 18-55 is simply NOT it! No matter how you dress it. That person shows they're lacking respect for their client when they show up with cameras like this and this has nothing to do with the $500 or $5000 price tag - it's about attitude and approach.</p>

<p>I now have pro-level equipment, but back in the days, when someone asked me to cover a "difficult" shoot, I never even thought of going there with the measly equipment I had back then. I rented, borrowed whatever I could to ensure the client got what they wanted, not what I could give them!</p>

<p>THAT is the difference between crappy amateurs and professionals. It's not the gear, it's not whether you get up on stools or chairs or even if you spray and pray or shoot 4 images throughout the whole procession. It's how you approach your relationship with the client and your own responsibility. If someone asked me to shoot, for example, underwater diving and I had no access to a custom case for my gear, I would NOT wrap a plastic bag around it and simply dive because, regardless of gear, it would simply NOT produce the images the client would need. I would turn that job down. Anything else would be unprofessional.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>Regarding "spray and pray", we had a pleasant conversation with a guest at a wedding we shot last night. He came up to us at the end of the evening to say that he had been impressed that for each picture we took, we took just one frame (well, just occasionally we might take two or three!), rather than machine-gunning like other wedding photographers he'd seen. He said it reminded him of Beken of Cowes, who would give a single image to the client, but make sure it was perfect. And that it was really a sign that we knew what we were doing because we had the confidence in our abilities to be sure we were getting it right.</p>

<p>We're using digital, but if you've got the exposure, the focus, the composition and the moment right, you only need to press the shutter once. If you don't have those right to start with, the chances of them all being right a second or two later aren't high. Firing frame after frame after frame can just be a symptom of insecurity. Sometimes it can be necessary (for example, when working at camera shake shutter speeds and in whirly dancing), but not all the time.</p>

<p>Another good moment yesterday: the minister gave a very personal, entertaining and moving sermon, he was lovely. In the middle of it he started praising how discreet and quick we were being as photographers, and went on to tell a story to the congregation about an intrusive photographer he'd had at a ceremony in the past. It's the first time we've ever been referred to by the minister in the sermon, and thank goodness it was in a nice way! So all round it was a good day for us. And the pictures look beautiful.</p>

[green_photog]

<p>Not sure why all the chair/stool bashing here. I use good equipment, bring several L lenses and 2 pro bodies to every job in two bags. That in itself is already a chore and yes, bring your own stool is nice but is it really gonna make or break a job? <br>

That's why I always wear loafers to jobs so that I can quickly remove my shoes when I needed to step on chairs. </p>

<p> </p>

[gregory_c]

<p>, Simon said:<br>

<em>We're using digital, but if you've got the exposure, the focus, the composition and the moment right, you only need to press the shutter once. If you don't have those right to start with, the chances of them all being right a second or two later aren't high.,,,He said it reminded him of Beken of Cowes, who would give a single image to the client, but make sure it was perfect.</em><br>

WOW that is so correct !<br>

Green said:<br>

<em>Not sure why all the chair/stool bashing here</em><br>

Easy, that is just being prepared. I know you have to quickly stand in a chair to get that perfect shot, but in planned group shots you need your own stool or ladder. Might as well use a tripod from the church.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Personaly I don't think clients should be hiring photographers based on what gear they use. They should choose their photographer based on the photographs and portfolios they have seen. If an experienced photographer chooses to shoot with a light weight body and lenses and has an excelent portfolio then what exactly is the problem if that camera turns out to be a digital Rebel. That photographer may love the images they can produce using that camera. It could be the perfect camera for them.</p>

<p>I doubt anyone would object to someone shooting with a Leica M3, 50 mm f2 Summicron and TriX. They would accept that the equipment and film choice allows them to shoot a certain way and produce a certain style of photos. Now if the same photographer went to digital with a Nikon D5100, 35mm 1.8 and post processed with silver FX pro would that be suddenly wrong? What if they produce even better photos with that combo?</p>

<p>There is a big difference between a photographer choosing equipment because it suits their needs and photographic style, even if it may be lightweight and someone that wakes up oneday and decides to shoot weddings just because they own a camera.</p>

[gregory_c]

<p>Stuart said:<br /><em>then what exactly is the problem if that camera turns out to be a digital Rebel. </em><br />Not so much a problem. But if you spend $40,000 for a remodeling project for your house woundn't you feel better if the contractor if he pulled up in a nice big truck & construction trailer, Dewalt saws, Senco or Paslode nailers ? Opposed to a compact car, off-brand tools, with 2x4's stacked on the top ?<br /><em>Light weight ? </em>rebel is not much lighter than a 60D or a 7D I used to shoot Hasselblad with a Metz flash before changing to Canon digital cameras,<br /><em>""There is a big difference between a photographer choosing equipment because it suits their needs""</em><br />Yes, some are too cheap to buy pro or pro-sumer grade equipment & nice glass.<br>

The main focus of this thread was shooting style, 1000's of images taken & hoping for some good ones, and not being prepared; like not having a ladder or step stool. Not so much the equipment used.</p>

[jere_landis3]

<p>It is the photographer that creates the photo, not the equipment. I understand the idea of perception created by heavy duty equipment. The perception being, if he has a large camera with a grip he is a professional by all means. I'm sure there are tons of photogs out there with expensive gear and don't know how to use it. Spray and pray is not the way to do any photography, especially not weddings. There's nothing wrong with using an entry level DSLR to shoot weddings. I know there are beautiful wedding photos taken regularly with Rebels and some of them put others taken with a 1DS, D700, D3, or 5DII to shame. Remember it is the photographer who creates and the camera is just a tool.<br>

I notice most posts here hardly fail to mention what they've used in the past and use today. This is also meant to impress. After all if this guy used a Hasselblad and now uses a D3, D700, or 1DSIII or 5DII he has to be better than the Rebel guy , right, NOT!</p>