Iphone Wedding Photography

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>The problem is that many of our customers do not know what a quality image is.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>For a wedding photo, "quality" should be what the image evokes, what it helps people remember about the event. That has nothing to do with equipment.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p> This also demonstrates something that many of us have argued about for decades... That the power of the images comes from behind the camera, and that the type/ model/ level of camera, (assuming the camera is capable of capturing that image) is utterly irrelevant. </p>

<p>IMPO, the posted images were acceptable, not great (esp the lack of decisive dof), but better than many I've seen posted by pros. So if they can beat 'pros' w/ their iphone, it's not them who need to rethink their profession, but their competition.</p>

[green_photog]

<blockquote>

<p>This also demonstrates something that many of us have argued about for decades</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't question that skill is more important than gear. Does it mean all pros should just shoot with Iphone now? If not, than I dont' see the point to this exercise. The photog is obviously a good one and has a good team but if he can get this result with an iphone, he can get far better result with proper gear.</p>

<p>I'm sure Danica Patrick can drive a Civic faster than I can a Ferrari. Does it mean all race drivers should race on a Civic from now on because it's skill that counts? </p>

[marcsaint]

<p>If the type, quality, or level of camera doesn't matter then why don't we all just start shooting weddings with $5 disposables? Or $69 5 MP p&s cameras from CVS? It does matter because pro photographers need to have consistent control over specific variables (exposure, focus, shutter speed, etc) in order to effectively express feelings and emotions through their photographs. If a photographer wants to limit them self to an iPhone camera's capabilities for the sake of expediency and being a cool tech geek, then that's fine. But nothing beats the image of a bride and groom through a 70-200 f/2.8 shot wide open with beautiful background bokeh. Or a glorious church interior shot with a superwide.</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Does it mean all pros should just shoot with Iphone now? </p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Did anyone say that? Show us where. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>IMPO, the posted images were acceptable, not great (esp the lack of decisive dof), but better than many I've seen posted by pros. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. Why doesn't the OP show us how their photos, which must have been taken with the best gear on earth, look, so we can compare them.</p>

<p>And race car analogies are just plain wrong. Unless you think that shooting the fastest is what makes for the best photographer.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>My son has two HTC phones, a Sprint EVO that's without service anymore he uses for music and camera, and a brand new AT&T Inspire, which is basically the same thing but a little better. They have awesome cameras in them with many control settings and effects. They are very, very capable. Then he uses a free app called Adobe Photoshop Express, very cool. He also uses a Samsung 14mp(?) P&S that's killer. He doesn't shoot for money, but he has some fantastic stuff from his phones and p&s. I don't see where any of this equipment causes a dumbing down or lack of ability to get some really good shots. Is it a D3 with 300 2.8, no, of course not, but it certainly can work in many situations if we choose to employ it.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>The equipment does matter but only in so much that it does not limit your photography. If a photographer can turn out his/her style of photography using a cell phone, holga, kodak box camera etc, and they are happy with the results and the customer is familar with the photographer style of work then what exactly is the problem.</p>

<p>Why don't we all start shooting with iphones? Personaly the answer is simple most would not be comfortable shooting with an iphone in the first place. For most an iphone could well limit their photography in such a way that they could not achieve the results they normaly achieve. That does not mean though that someone else could not get the results they want from one.</p>

[green_photog]

<p>Photographers are a funny bunch. When I first started out I was told wedding is a once in a lifetime thing, no reshoot and you need backup to your backup in case of emergency so only the best of the best should do it. Now it's if you can shoot with Iphone, disposable cameras and be happy with it, that's fine too. </p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Now it's if you can shoot with Iphone, disposable cameras and be happy with it, that's fine too."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Times have changed, consumer habits change, technology evolves, how people feel about marriage is different from what it once was, and lives have become more transient, transitional, where nothing lasts forever.</p>

<p>Doing well in the photography business isn't a birthright just because you once paid your dues. It's a continually evolving process to remain relevant in a competitive marketplace in which only the most creative and resourceful will remain. </p>

 

[zack_zoll]

<blockquote>

<a name="00ZVPN"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6522143">Green Photog</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Oct 23, 2011; 10:57 a.m.

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

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

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

I'm afraid this spiral into mediocraty will continue in many many fields.

</blockquote>

<p>Or we went from The Omega Man to Gran Torino, or The Captain and Tenielle to the Decemberists. I'm sorry, but if you think that everything older is automatically better, then you're not looking very hard at all. And this is from a guy with an Alfred Hitchcock collection and a Fisher tube amplifier.</p>

<blockquote>

Photography, as a business, is about providing the best possible product. Photography, as an art form, is about providing something unique that others may not have seen. If the clients liked these photos, and are the sort that are glad to be 'the first' to have a currently unique product, then I fail to see what the problem is.

</blockquote>

<p>While I don't disagree that appreciation is lowered, I very much disagree that it has anything to do with the clients themselves. The lower cost of photographic (and video, and audio) equipment means that your average client hasn't seen/heard really good stuff, so they're more willing to accept the quality that they have seen. It's YOUR job to show them better work that makes them want it, and not THEIR job to understand the difference without seeing it.</p>

<blockquote>

There are only two reasons - and I can't stress this enough - that 'the older stuff' seems better. The first reason is that fourty years ago, the cost of equipment was such that only those that were very rich or very devoted could afford to buy it. The other is that after forty years, we've forgotten all the junk. Browse through Netflix at all the awful b-rate movies from 1970: blackspoitation flix, kung-fu movies, awful horror schlockfests, and a million Breakfast at Tiffany's wannabees. Some of them are good. Most are terrible.

</blockquote>

<p>And don't even get me started on The Searchers, The Monkees, Lulu, or any other 60s and 70s one-hit-wonder bands that were put together literally just to make money. If you don't think that Shakespeare in Love or Arcade Fire is good after you take an honest, hard look at the past, or that shooting a wedding with an iPhone is a unique idea, then I frankly don't think you understand the way that entertainment, art, and business work - either together or separately.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Well Green many would argue that the iphone is the best of it's kind :) A wedding is still a once in life event and you still need backup equipment. People want different things today though, so while there will certainly be plenty of couples that want a photographer using traditional equipment and methods there are always some couples looking for something different. At the moment the iphone is seen as a cool product that has a rather decent camera and in capable hands can produce very nice images.</p>

[marcsaint]

<p>So is it the job of the pro photographer to provide the client with what they want ("I only need images on my cellphone to show my friends at work so go ahead and shoot our wedding with your iPhone") or is it to show them something wonderful that makes them want it ("I must have that 20"x24" print -- how much do you want?"). With today's current low standards, the former is much easier but it just serves to help the industry on its way down the death spiral. The latter is harder because you have to create something wonderful, something to get the client's juices flowing, to get them to lust after your product.<br>

I have to say, this has been one of the best discussions I've seen yet on this forum. And nobody has compared anybody to Hitler......yet.....:-)</p>

[osztertag]

<p>By no means an endorsement as I am definately not a fan of all things Apple, but more food for this discussion: methods of attaching your SLR lenses to your iPhone:<br>

<a href="http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/iphone-slr-mount/">http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/iphone-slr-mount/</a><br>

Have a good weekend all</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Photographers are a funny bunch.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Photographers have photos. Where are yours? You keep saying how important all this is, but you seem to be unable to show us anything significantly "better" than what is in the article.</p>

[sethdubois]

<p>This sort of reminds me of some of the debates I've heard about the Lytro. F/2 Aperature, no shutter, post capture focusing!? There's NO WAY DSLRs are going to keep up with that!</p>

<p>I could care less with what people are using, I'm completely happy with my meager setup and if someone enjoys using their iPhone in that aspect then more power to them. Whatever facilitates you taking more shots and enjoying the process is what you should stick with.</p>

<p>If somebody is feeling threatened about iPhone photography they should focus more so on why they aren't feeling competent about their own work...</p>

[Spearhead]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>If somebody is feeling threatened about iPhone photography they should focus more so on why they aren't feeling competent about their own work...</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a></p>

<p>Exactly.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Jeff, where did the OP say he was "threatened" by iPhone photography, or didn't feel competent?</p>

<p>You keep droning on and on about him showing work that is better ...</p>

<p><strong>ask me that question</strong>, and I'll gladly show you stuff that is "of the moment, " has good composition, AND could NEVER be shot with an iPhone no matter who's hand's it is in.</p>

<p>If clients want to treat their wedding photography that way, that is their decision ... and all the best to them. I have no problem at all, since they are not in any way my target audience. If ALL wedding work goes this way, I'll simply do something else, even though I could probably do okay with an iPhone. Sorry, but "Okay" isn't in my working vocabulary no matter what the client's inclination may be.</p>

<p>Since I actually care about both what the images convey as well as what it is about, I use<strong> all</strong> the tools available to me to capture a certain mood, feel or place attention where I want it, not where the tool says it is.</p>

<p>While I agree that <em>some</em> wedding work is more focused on what it is about rather than what it was shot with, not ALL wedding photography is that type. Many of us shoot family images that are VERY important to the families being shot ... like my a recent wedding where the family wanted a shot of 30 people for 24X30 prints, or my last wedding with 20 people in the wedding party that had to be shot in near dark conditions.</p>

<p>Instant need gratification for social sites is cool, it's a place to show and tell ... so, I can publish some key shots for the client by the time they are getting up the next AM. What's so hard about that? Frankly, I LOVE when guest post their crappy cell-phone shots on Facebook, and then I follow up with some well crafted, selective focus, light balanced shots ... it's great advertising. Cell phones have been one of my best marketing tool yet ... LOL!</p>

[Brad_]

I don't shoot weddings, though once in a while someone will inquire because they've seen my work

and like my "style." If in the future I ever do shoot one, it would probably be with my iPhone...

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Jeff, where did the OP say he was "threatened" by iPhone photography, or didn't feel competent?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was quoting someone else, FWIW.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You keep droning on and on about him showing work that is better ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The ones that complain the most don't seem to photograph, from what one can tell here.</p>

[fuccisphotos]

"..Maybe Nikon or Canon or Olympus or Sony will market a 14 MPixel cell phone down the road?]"

Man I wish they would. Back in and around 2004ish Sony Ericsson took some of their good Sony p&s cameras and

basically slapped a phone on the back of it. The models in the us paled in comparison to the ones available in Korea

then which had much better cameras attached. I would love it if my phone could act as a good point and shoot rather

than a really poor one (I have a droid with 5mp camera and flash but the flash is horrid!) would I use that to shoot a

wedding, no. ;) but to just have on me regularly, that would be great. Like a canon g10 with a phone, yay!

[green_photog]

<blockquote>

<p>The other is that after forty years, we've forgotten all the junk.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a very good explanation why the past always seemed to be better than the present, thanks Zack. The other thing is that the average quality of things have gone up so that the gap better average and good shrunk to a point that people are not willing to pay for quality.</p>

<p>Capable hands can produce amazing pictures from a $500 P&S nowadays. But you still see people here debating the merits of a $2000 prime over a $1000 zoom lens.</p>

<p>It's easy to say that we are in business because of skills and not equipment. But I know, among other things, my pictures look better than uncle Joe's P&S is the expensive equipment I use.</p>

<p>If in ten year, a $500 P&S can produce images that my 1Ds2+70-200 would today, I honestly don't know if I would still be in business or not.</p>

<p> </p>

[Brad_]

>>> It's easy to say that we are in business because of skills and not equipment. But I know, among

other things, my pictures look better than uncle Joe's P&S is the expensive equipment I use.

 

Compelling photographs that evoke feelings, or that stirs narrative in the mind of a viewer are much more

driven by a photographer's skill creating the image, rather than "expensive" equipment simply being put

into play...

[fotografz]

<p>Brad, I agree, evoking feelings and constructing a moving narrative with imagery is a talent, not a result of using some expensive piece of gear.</p>

<p>However, it is faulty logic to assume that using better gear precludes talent being the primary driver as seems to be implied by some statements on this thread. In fact, certain choices of gear can be an integral part of evoking a feeling or conveying a particular emotional reaction. Subject isolation, and all those other myriad pictorial options that makes for powerful imagery that helps tell a story or evoke an emotion. </p>

<p>To take it further, I'd say restricting oneself to something like an iPhone, while a seemingly cool idea, can limit the range of pictorial AND practical options depending on the photographer's intent, as well as the realities most wedding shoots present. It's a one trick pony with a fixed perspective and little to no control of those pictorial options. While such restrictions can be a nifty discipline for the photographer, they are simply self-centered restrictions IF you have any grasp of how a wedding actually plays out in terms of a <em>complete narrative.</em> </p>

<p>The lack of direct, long term experience in shooting weddings is evident in this bias toward content being the <em>only</em> important aspect of doing this type of work ... meaning understanding the practical aspects of wedding photography faced by those who put bread on their family's table from such work as opposed to some creative experiment. Just because someone may like your style or approach ... doesn't mean they grasp the true ramifications IF they did have you as the sole iPhone photographer at their wedding. What people say, and what they actually expect in the end is very often two very different matters.</p>

<p>To demonstrate what I mean ... most clients want their ceremony documented, and it IS indeed part of that narrative we so cherish. So, as often happens, you are told that you cannot use flash and must stay at the rear of the church ... what's the iPhone photographer to do now?</p>

<p>I could cite dozens of such instances where an ill equipped photographer will not be able to evoke those emotions or complete that narrative, not due to lack of talent, but due to lack of the appropriate tools. </p>

<p> </p>

[fuccisphotos]

<p>Also, just to note in the article, they did still bring along a good dslr as back up. They didn't ONLY bring the iPhone. </p>

[Brad_]

>>> However, it is faulty logic to assume that using better gear precludes talent being the primary driver

as seems to be implied by some statements on this thread.

 

Marc, no such assumption was made. I was merely stating the primary driver of compelling photographs.

That's all.

 

With respect to the rest of your reply, I'm not sure of it's purpose or direction. As I said previously, I don't

shoot weddings. I do think most people are aware that certain equipment may be required to support and help realize

one's personal vision/style, or type of photography, whatever that may be.