Angry, defensive, bitter.

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>there have been many of a time I wanted to be Direct but chose not to ,But once I was and flames and smoke flew , So I just ignore them now :</p>

[lindsay_dobson]

<p><strong>"How does one find the balance between being blut, polite, contructive, whilst trying to improve the value of the environment? I certainly don't know."</strong></p>

<p>By merely exercising a little judgement and common sense.</p>

<p>I have seen posts from some newcomers who clearly aren't prepared to do a little research and who expect direct, detailed tutoring via the forum. I'm inclined not to respond, but I can think of several cases where an OP has become disenchanted with the advice given because it doesn't align with their agenda - at this point I feel any educated adviser is well entitled to react bluntly. On such occasions there is nothing 'spiteful' about the reaction of the respondents, they're just fed up with being argued with, especially if an OP has little or no knowledge of the industry. </p>

[savagesax]

Richard, post an example or 2.

 

I can tell you this, wedding photography is perhaps the hardest form of photography and lots of people that post here may be beginners, have issues about gear,where to stand whatever the situation holds.Even the very advanced wedding photographers have questions and issue about lots of things such as contracts, camera gear to stuff like how to do an action in Photoshop. Anyway, something must have angered you and I, along with many others would love to know.

 

After all we all can learn from your comments as well as other people that post.

 

So try to be somewhat expressive so some of us, both pro's and non pro's can reply to your comments, which may be very good observations.

[savagesax]

I've been in the business since 1989 or so, if anything perhaps a year or 2 earlier but I count this as my learning curve. There are others on this site that have been shooting weddings much longer then me.

 

Anyway, give us a good solid example or examples. Us long time shooters have nerves of steel so you surely won't bother our spirit and put us in a remote sadness forever, requiring therapy for the rest of our lives! Yes I'm kidding.

 

I'm pretty much joking here, but the old timers have pretty much been in every type of weding situation, good and bad, rain and snow, so I for one would like to see an exact example of your issues or complaints. I look forward to hearing from you.

[fuccisphotos]

<p>Robert, while I am not a cat person, that shot definitely made me smile. =)</p>

[fuccisphotos]

Bob, since Richard is being polite about this, I'll say that what he wrote with this post struck little bit of a chord with me as

well. Robert I believe has a fairly thick skin so I don't think he will mind me calling this one post out as an example of why

I think a post like richard's is a good one for us all to participate in.

'"Robert Cossar , Nov 05, 2011; 03:48 a.m. I shake my head. Posts like this make me wish i hadn't renewed in

October......"

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

I read that and went, oh, OUCH! BURN! With a capital B!

But after reading Robert's post here I see his view a bit too, and frankly felt it a little after the op in the same post that

infuriated Robert seemed to challenge my suggestion and Nadine's that he very much needs a back up flash before he

does a wedding. I wanted to snap back at the op, but realized what good would that do. Instead I just cooled my jets and

came back later to the thread and figured I'd make one more comment back, just so any future readers searching past

threads would see a logical response back with an explanation rather than just a snippy remark back.

Saying to a comment something like, if you are asking this question you have no business doing this job, is not likely

helpful unless it is tied to an explanation of that comment because as I've learned from Dale Carnegie and experience, it

will majorly put the person on the defensive. Sometimes comments like that can result in the "well I'll show you" response

and I don't think we want to encourage that type of behavior, especially in connection to anyone's wedding. But in the

end, it may just be the nature of the Internet forum beast. If you don't have an actual person standing right in front of you,

it is a lot easier to say things a bit more bluntly than we might ever say to their face. So I try to remember that on the

other side of the screen is a real person reading our posts back, who probably isn't all too different from myself at one

point or another. And to those on the forum who have given me constructive criticism, with kid gloves or none, I thank

you from the bottom of my heart for taking that time. It has made me a much better photographer and business woman. I

continue to regularly learn through this forum and I will continue to come back for more. You guys rock my socks!

[bobcossar]

<p>Thanks for your posts Vail....You rock OUR socks too!!</p>

[ronald_smith6]

<p>This has been a good read. I am satisfied that the regular contributors are experience wedding shooters and we all learn from what they post, and those who are beginning their journey should heed all that is written.</p>

<p>Any so-called "bitterness" seems to stem from the fact that those excited enthusiasts who feel all they need to shoot weddings is a camera, one flash and a wide-to-short tele zoom are not classed as professionals while they often feel they should be included in such a camp. We all need to earn our stripes and DSLR ownership does not give anyone a license to be a so-called wedding pro. I constantly run into this; many of my younger acquaintances are getting married or are planning on doing so, they feel quite content with asking a "freind" to do the honours although they know I have the experience (150 weddings +) but prefer to put the pressure on someone who barely knows how to operate their equipment let alone any flash intricacies.</p>

<p>I find it hilarious that these fresh wedding images are soon uploaded to FaceBook for all to see....</p>

<p>The world seems to think that camera ownership means you can do any kind of photography, you can always fix it with PP and make it look perfect. "If I had your gear, I could get the same photos you get." Or, "if I was there I could have got the same light and my pictures would be just as good." I have heard all the rhetoric by newbie photogs who feel they don't have to work or learn how to do this craft.</p>

<p>I have made the corporate decision to gracefully decline to shoot weddings, I will never be appreciated the way I used to be back in he days of film. I am not missing much, typical modern wedding "pros" charge $200 for their efforts and give the B/G a CD of all the JPEG's; the time and cost involved for me is at least double that, so why bother?</p>

<p> </p>

[DickArnold]

In 1997 long before I joined PN I formed a wedding business when I stepped in at the last minute to cover a wedding when the hired photographer copped out. Not having the benefit of PN I made some significant mistakes that could have been avoided had I had the benefit of this forum in growing that business. I survived those mistakes to become moderately successful doing weddings, events, newspaper work etc. It's been some time since doing a wedding but I take a strong interest in this forum. I try in my posts to explain myself and qualify my experience. What I do not like in PN are dismissive one liners like Vail cited above. We all had to learn somewhere and had I had this forum earlier I would have saved money and avoided some of my more blatant screw ups. What i see even somewhat in this thread is a disdain for the unwashed which is, in my opinion, counter to what PN is about.

 

 

Having been one who was thrust into the wedding business by events and a more open field of competition then than now, I wish I had had someone to tell me what to put into my first wedding contract and to not do business on a handshake rather than tell me I don't belong in the business or some other terse rejoinder. I eventually made money and had a significant referral base when I stopped due to my advancing age and the hard work I made for myself.

I learned in the aviation business after picking pieces of my colleagues in aircraft accidents that "there but for the grace of God go I. " Please have a little empathy for those of us who came and will come into the business as members of the unwashed.

[boinkphoto]

<p>My experience is the Internet, like alcohol, often allows people to feel free to say things that they wouldn't say in other circumstances. While this can on occasion be constructive in person (though often not), it is rarely constructive over the anonymity of the web.</p>

<p>Think about it - does the receiver of such unfettered essentially anonymous commentary go, "Oh, wait, maybe they're right - I am a stupid dolt," or do they go, "What a jerk - I'm not going to ignore them" (or worse, "I'm going to burn them back!")?</p>

<p>In the mean time the world just became a little bit of a worse place.</p>

<p>That's not to say there isn't place to call a "spade a spade", but it doesn't have to be done without a modicum of empathy to the recipient.</p>

<p>I'm dubious of those who tout how they say it like it is and are proud of it. I'm not so sure the same would be true should it be face to face (nor necessarily should it be true). Some of it seems lazy (yes, it's work to properly candy coat), some of seems cowardly (hiding behind anonymity), and some of it seems just plain mean (there is a certain glee that sometimes comes through). It's the later that concerns me the most, as it seems to cater to the worst in us - after all sadly there is a sort of guilty pleasure in trashing your neighbor, but again it does not make the world a better place.</p>

<p>In any case, it's not clear that I would have said the above without the semi-anonymity of the Internet, so I probably should not talk.</p>

[brunogallant]

<p>I would not call this anonymous or even semi-anonymous when you post to a well indexed forum as photo.net is, with your real name. I was able to find Robert's physical address and phone number (home or business I don't know, and I won't push that far) with a few clicks of a mouse in public search engines.<br>

As a policy, I am always writing on the internet as I would speak to the person.<br>

Another thing to point out is that sometimes the person is not a native to the english language, as I am, and may misunderstand or write something that is midly offensive without knowing it. (my first language is French)<br>

To return to this thread subject, I think you need to start on the goals you are trying to achieve, and in what context you will be shooting. For example, you need to capture the kiss, to be in the proper place to catch it. It will probably be in a church. What kind of light is possible in that church? Can I find out before hand? Can I use flashes in that church?<br>

I think to capture a wedding you need to understand the beats of it, kiss, rings, dance, eyes of the father of the bride, in accordance with the B&G's wishes, and be at the right place at the right time with the right equipment to capture it.<br>

In other words, knowing the workflow (getting information from B&G as much as possible) and context (scouting the locations), and thinking of the things that can go wrong (backups for everything if you can, even a second car...), you will be able to choose the equipment you need. For most people getting married, what is in the shot is what counts, not which lens or camera you are using.<br>

my 2¢.</p>

[fuccisphotos]

<p>Bruno, you might want to post your response about the thread in that post about gear or else that original poster might not read your well thought out response. </p>

[francie_baltazar]

<p>when I started on PN several years ago the wedding forum was where professionals got together to give other professionals feedback and advise. At that time the forum was very active with lots of great pros - many of those people have left and moved onto forums where you pay an annual fee. I am one of those - I stop by occassionally and yes I am sharp - frank and to the point - I don't consider myself bitter. I do however, have major issues with individuals with ZERO experience saying they are going to shoot the most important day of a persons life and want to know what equipment they should use. I have a serious problem with photographers going along with this and giving them information. </p>

<p>I have spoken with more than a dozen brides in the past 3 years asking me if I can help them FIX their wedding photos - and non of them I could help... you cannot teach someone who has never shot a wedding how to shoot a wedding in a forum like this and to think that you can give them some sage wisdom that will make them okay is unprofessional in my opinion.</p>

<p>I believe we as professionals should encourage these people not to do the wedding. And if they are interested in wedding photography to intern and find a mentor - then second shoot then go for it. And yes I am very frank with these individuals because I care more about the brides and grooms out there than I do an inexperienced photographer. In the last year I have seen some real disater images out there - if you google "my wedding photos are terrible"</p>

<p>one photographer actually had a contest to see who would submit the worst photos here is a link <a href="http://www.jenniferbowen.net/terrible-wedding-photos-contest-winner">http://www.jenniferbowen.net/terrible-wedding-photos-contest-winner</a> </p>

<p>I laugh and cringe at this kind of thing and I do not want to encourage anyone to just go shoot a wedding because they have a bunch of equipment. </p>

<p>So call it what you like - I love to encourage others and I love being in this profession and I love brides and grooms and they all deserve to have beautiful images of their wedding</p>

[green_photog]

<blockquote>

<p>one photographer actually had a contest to see who would submit the worst photos here is a link<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.jenniferbowen.net/terrible-wedding-photos-contest-winner" target="_blank">http://www.jenniferbowen.net/terrible-wedding-photos-contest-winner</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I find it hard to believe that the bride actually saw an album before making her decision. How can the final product and the sample differ so much? My gut tells me that the album wasn't the work of the photog in question.</p>

<p>The last picture where the groom's head casts an extremely dark shadow on the bride's face. I mean it could happen but I find it hard to believe that the shadow could be this dark and big.</p>

[patrickdoddsphotography]

<p>What Bruno said. Wherever you are posting on the internet, it is important to remember that there are real people on the receiving end and, wherever possible, I think there is benefit in tying what you say to your real-world identity and thereby keep it civil and honest.</p>

[Akaky]

<p>Actually, I like all of the advice given here on the weddings and social events forum. It always reminds me that I never, ever want to shoot a wedding for as long as I live and I can tell you all that this forum has provided with no end of excuses of getting out of this sort of thing. I mostly shoot street stuff and convincing people, especially family and friends, that I am not an inexpensive alternative to a professional is something of a problem for me; for family and friends, the fact that I have more cameras than fingers is proof that I must be a "real" photographer. In reading some of the posts here, I'd say that a good many wedding photographers have every right to be angry, defensive, and bitter.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>After all of these posts it's pretty clear what the issue is ... <strong>not so much a newbie being told the facts, but the manner in which it is done.</strong></p>

<p>I believe that a good deal of the issue stems from not just one factor, but many factors ...</p>

<p>the economic downturn which has increased the glut of those who want to shoot weddings for badly needed money, coupled with an increased number of clients that are price shopping. That math is pretty simple and has been discussed to death.</p>

<p>Added to that is the shift in consumer attitudes regarding photography, where an increasing amount of wedding work is destined for social sites and cell phone/iPad sharing as a primary outlet. </p>

<p>Plus, this specific site is huge, has a number of good contributors, <strong><em>and it is free</em></strong>. It doesn't segment the inexperienced from the experienced like a paid site such as the DWF does ... so there are a lot of very repetitive newbie questions here, mostly because anyone that's new is going to ask the same basic questions over and over and over ... and we must remember that the newbie doesn't know they are being so repetitive,<em> they are a newbie. </em></p>

<p>This is how the Photo.net wedding forum is set up ... either learn to live with it or opt out ... but doing a beat-down on every newbie that posts is a waste of time.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I also agree that it is somewhat unprofessional to coddle and encourage some newbie posters that are clearly unqualified to shoot something as important as a wedding. Most of us are client centric in our approach to this work and wince at the prospect. However, clients ARE getting what they pay for, and often have a naive view of wedding photography ... thinking ANY photographer can match the tear sheet of a Vera Wang magazine ad, or the like, if she just shows it to her photographer ... and some less experienced shooters actually think they can match it. </p>

<p>The industry has done a poor job of educating clients, and the frequently utilized wedding sites haven't helped in this regard very much. </p>

<p> </p>

[picturesque]

<p>Good analysis Marc. There is another factor that I consider, and that is the specific newbie him or herself. While difficult to assess level of capability over the internet, I try to get some idea, since some newbies can shoot a wedding successfully without prior wedding specific experience, others can't, and it isn't always related to photographic knowledge.</p>

<p>It also depends on the specific expectations of the wedding couple. Sometimes, they really don't expect much, and wedding photography isn't much of a priority.</p>

<p>Stories such as the one in Francie's link are horrible of course, and factors such as the one in the 'Gear Setup' thread (photographer does not know the couple and is getting paid) are of concern. However, we cannot save every newbie from him or herself. We cannot save every couple from impending (we think) doom. We are not there and cannot know the total situation.</p>

<p>This is why I sometimes just answer the question, hoping it may actually help.</p>

[francie_baltazar]

<p>I think it would be very helpful if at the top of the forum - there were catagogies - "Before you Shoot your first wedding" What is considered "essential equipment for a wedding" "how to learn to shoot a wedding" etc. This way many of the questions which repeat themselves over and over again could be answered. <br>

Marc I think you message was really good and to the point. I believe also that it is time to ask forum members what they want from this forum. I see a dozen or so people on here and that's it - there use to be many more.... which was very enlighting to get information from other wedding photogs. great thread - I think greatly needed.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Francie, it is at the top under "Learning". You just click and there are numerous articles of information there. Plus they could search "first wedding" and the other 10,000 will come up. Regardless, newbies are going to join the forum, get on, and ask questions that have been asked many times. I'm not going to get into the emotions of their questions or all the parameters involved in their plight. I read the question, offer an answer if I choose that closely covers their concern and move on. As far as coddling and promoting unqualified shooters and on and on, that's a lot of nonsense that I for one am not going to concern myself with. They want to shoot a wedding and they have a question and if I choose I will answer. As for the paid sites that so many photogs ran to, oh well that's their choice isn't it, I pay membership here. I think Josh's answer above is exactly what it is. I'm just being frank, if people call this "angry, defensive, bitter" than so be it, it's not intended that way.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Can't disagree with you much Dave.</p>

<p>However, there may be differing perspectives from those who are full time wedding photographers and those that are not. From your p.net bio, I see that you are not, and aren't concerned with payment or making a living shooting weddings all that much ... unless that has changed for you.</p>

<p>I admire the relentless perseverance of some long time contributors, (that make their living at this), here on the p.net wedding forum ... including our intrepid moderator Nadine. But it is true that those numbers are dwindling as pointed out in a few posts on this thread. </p>

<p>I've stuck around here to help when and where I can, and simply chalk up the noticeable shift to more and more inexperienced inquiries to the shift in the industry itself (which I commented on above). But, I'd be the first to admit that I come here less and less compared to the past. It requires a great deal of work to answer questions here ... and without the array of highly experienced wedding photographers, there is less to be gained back in reward for those efforts. </p>

<p>At the same time, I do not think just dismissing a point-of-view as being "nonsense," takes into account that some folks ARE concerned about the state of their industry, and what effect it may have on the chosen profession that puts food on the table for their families. If the state of our industry can't be discussed, then it further truncates value for others. </p>

<p>I also don't think characterizing those who moved to more beneficial wedding sites for the more experienced shooter as "running" to them is very productive. "Let 'em", doesn't recognize the loss of a valuable asset for everyone here. </p>

<p>This site lives on it's ability to answer less experienced questions specific to weddings with experienced answers, and Nadine can't answer all of them forever. </p>

<p>I don't know the answer, and p.net is clear on their policy, so it is what it is.</p>

<p>The thing that has to be asked is it destined to end up being the Blind leading the Blind ... or marginally more experienced folks being the only resource? In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. </p>

<p> </p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>I have to conjur up my thoughts on this Marc, I'll give you some debate later, but I do see your position.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Marc, I'm just going to follow up on the second point, the "nonsense"remark:<br /> I kind of think you're reading too much into my response. I'm not really "dismissing" your specific POV as nonsense. I'm saying that, in principal, for me to have to consider whether I give an answer or not on using a particular technique, or other logistical consideration because it might be construed as coddling or "unprofessional" (I'll get to that) on an open forum is what I consider nonsense. As to the unprofessional, while I get your drift on that, what designates the response as "unprofessional"? If because I/we choose to have helpful dialogue with an unexperienced shooter, now that's to be considered unprofessional on it's own occurance, I can't fully buy that.<br /> Yes, I completely agree that we need to use discretion and avoid encouraging clear cut potential impending wedding doom, but what I may consider workable, you or someone else might think doom. So again it's a personal choice to respond to newbie or not.<br /> Let's Consider:<br /> Ex. A: The poster comes on and says they need to shoot their sister's wedding because of budgetary concerns, that's OK to give advise and would be professional. (I might consider a helpful response here, it's a non-professional issue)</p>

<p>Ex. B: If they come on and say they've been asked to shoot a wedding by a coworker for money but they are clueless, but want to shoot the job for the money, experience and portfolio blah-blah. That could be construed as unprofessional to encourage this and to in effect create incompetent competition for all full-time shooters trying to feed their family. (I might consider a response discouraging this altogether, but what if I offer help, have I crossed the unprofessional line and who's to say?)<br>

<br /> Ex. C: If they have some experience and have shot a few weddings but now they have a beach wedding but feel uncertain. (I have shot many beach weddings and can offer sound advise, and probably will. Now have I encouraged a possible beach doom, was I unprofessional to offer advise, or should I have discouraged them?)</p>

<p>I think you see better my remark, it wasn't directed at negating your opinion, it was intended at expressing how I feel about being judged upon deciding to respond or not to a question.</p>

<p> </p>

[fotografz]

<p>Thanks for the clarifications Dave. Also to clarify, I didn't first introduce the notion that it can be somewhat "unprofessional" to offer "sage" wisdom and make it okay for a complete novice to shoot a wedding ... Francie did. I was merely agreeing to some degree, and expanding on her original idea. In fact, I took your "nonsense" statement as referring to her post.</p>

<p>I think the question as to whether it is a good idea to encourage those obviously not ready for prime time isn't a judgement of individuals here, including you or I ... it is a question with broader ramifications regarding the industry at large and the role of web sites such as this play in that industry. </p>

<p>While it has become culturally acceptable to do almost anything ... learn anything, buy anything, express anything ... on the internet, the question here is ... can an internet forum actually teach wedding photography to someone that knows little to nothing about photography, let alone wedding photography. Or even <strong>IF</strong> they do have some photographic skills (as many newbies do), can they <em>become</em> a wedding photographer by asking questions here? The impression that many seem get is that it can ... which is where I, and I guess others, fall off the choo-choo.</p>

<p>I have spent years teaching assistants first hand, taking them to second shooter status, and still am surprised how they struggle with their first solo weddings, and the time I have to spend fixing mistakes in post. This has little to do with talent and everything to do with handling a hectic scenario that few other fields of photography inflict on the photographer. </p>

<p>As far as I can tell the OP Richard Harris <strong>isn't</strong> a wedding photographer, and while his comments about interactive politeness are always a good point to remember, he doesn't have a frame of reference that others here do regarding their chosen profession ... and just how difficult it is to do this work on a sustained basis ... let alone do it <strong>well</strong> on a consistent basis.</p>

<p>As to Richard Harris' question "Is this a Professionals Only forum ... " obviously it is <strong>not</strong>. Anyone can come here whether they ever shot a wedding in their life. Or they shoot one once in a while without all the ramifications of running a business and all that entails. There are no qualifications required to ask questions here, or to answer questions ... no website review to assure you actually are a wedding photographer. Nothing. That is the way Photo.Net has set up this forum on a world-wide basis ... <em><strong>which to be perfectly clear, I am not questioning.</strong></em></p>

<p>To my mind, the question is how to sustain a reasonable body of accomplished professionals that actually CAN answer the questions AND offer something to other accomplished wedding photographers. I come to this forum both to answer questions, and to also learn from my peers. Without the latter, it gets old really fast. To offer just one example of a peer that I also learned from that's been missing as of late is <strong>Neil Ambrose.</strong> I could provide a laundry list of names, but one is enough to make the point.</p>

<p>I'm a long timer here ... my observation is that the ratio of repetitive and perhaps even remedial questions is less mitigated than in past by posts that the more accomplished wedding photographer can be inspired by or learn from. Lots of start-up gear questions, and less and less on the art of wedding photography. </p>

<p>So the question back at members here, and by extension to P.Net ... why should a photographer such as myself to name one, continue to come here? </p>

<p> </p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Yes Marc, you've discussed all very valid considerations, several which I can relate to pretty well. Expressing your perspective of how you appreciate photogs like Neil is compelling, yet how to encourage people to stay is not so easy. Well if nothing else, we've done a lot of clarifying, lol.</p>