sprouty

<p>I remember this shot, this is excellent.</p>

<p>Betty, your image is great, for exactly the reason you noted.</p>

<p><em>"I'm simply pointing out that before someone is too harsh..."</em></p>

<p>My apologies, I misinterpreted your point. </p>

<p>And I concur that this forum is a remarkable place full of people that willingly share advice, advice that would take years of experience learn otherwise.</p>

<p><em>"To be fair, there are a few on that thread who shot a wedding for free and just wanted to put up their favorite shot. Or, some that don't intend to do this for a living but shot a couple of friend's weddings."</em></p>

<p>Mary I could understand your point if someone posted a single image from a few they shot at a wedding, after all it's fairly easy for anybody to get one or two keepers. But I'm not sure it's fair to diminish the effort of someone who had the responsibility of shooting the entire wedding, free or not. The responsibility is the same as if they had gotten paid.</p>

<p>The image I posted was just such an example: I shot the bachelor party, pre-wedding friends and family party, the wedding, and the reception. There was no one backing me up and I took it all very seriously.</p>

<p>Here is a slide show, of a few of the images I took. Keep in mind this is certainly not all, as I just wanted to give the bride a glimpse of what to expect.<br /> http://www.flickr.com/photos/37135917@N00/sets/72157607973253253/show/</p>

<p>Yeah, was wondering the same thing?</p>

<p>This goes on all the time, sometimes with wonderful results...<br>

http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/</p>

<p>Joshua, the truth of the matter is a difficult thing to assess. </p>

<p>Without addressing the thread in question or speaking about anyone who posts on this forum, I can say the Internet is rife with examples of people who claim to be professional wedding photographers whose work is simply sub-par by my standards. <br>

I have also attended weddings where I watched all manner of atrocities being committed:</p>

<ul>

<li>pop-up, on-camera flash for the whole event</li>

<li>choosing a location where a lovely view of the ocean was behind the couples being photographed, but also where a striped overhead awning was causing a terrible shadow (it looked like everyone was wearing a seat-belt)</li>

<li>Shooting all the formals directly into the setting sun of a lake with the guests in deep shadow with no flash-fill (later I saw the proofs - every image was exposed perfectly for the setting sun with absolutely no effort to pull some good detail out of the shadows)</li>

</ul>

<p>Having said all that I can also say that I've never heard a bride complain about their images. Not even once. Including the three people mentioned above, and I really wonder what to make of that.<br>

Is it proper to then infer that most people simply don't care about quality photography? I'm almost inclined to think it might be.<br>

So my question back to you is why <em>wouldn't</em> some people think they could do better, or heck, at least as well? </p>

<p> </p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3050/2935365005_97cf7df679.jpg" alt="Wedding Dennis and Marie-October 04, 2008-077" width="500" height="333" /><br>

The tale end of a very long day.</p>

<p>D700, 35mm/f2.0, manual exposure (1/40 @ f4.0), bounced flash (-1.3 comp?), 4th wedding.</p>

<p>Lots more info here (and you can see he uses a wide range of cameras):</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/lomokev/sets/</p>

<p>Eric beat me to it. Two excellent lenses from Sigma would be the 30mm 1.4 and the 50mm 1.4. By almost all accounts the early issues with focus have been resolved and Sigma did an good job of working with people who had issues.<br>

I used the 30 on a D200 and absolutely loved the lens. It performed flawlessly for the entire time I had it (unfortunately stolen a few months ago). <br>

As for the 50, the Sigma is highly regarded in almost every review I've read. Time to stop beating up a company that's trying to make a good product.</p>

<p>Laura, Robert is being facetious with most of his post, and that may or may not be obvious to you depending on your experience level.</p>

<p><em>"How exactly will anyone be able to tell you what the acronyms mean if they can't explain what the acronyms mean?"</em>

<p>

<p>All he was saying was "you don't need to type it all out (unless you want to), a link will be fine."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/support/faq_lens.htm">http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/support/faq_lens.htm</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.ndreview.com/nikon-glossary/nikon-lens-term-glossary/">http://www.ndreview.com/nikon-glossary/nikon-lens-term-glossary/</a></p>

<p> </p>

</p>

</p>

<p>Joseph, these images vary far too much to be able to give you a simple answer. As an example:<br>

Low contrast, neutral color pallet, no vignetting, normal lens.<br>

<a href="http://www.analogintelligence.co.uk/pages/showimage.php?image=50">http://www.analogintelligence.co.uk/pages/showimage.php?image=50</a><br>

High contrast, saturated color, vignetting, wide angle lens<br>

<a href="http://www.analogintelligence.co.uk/pages/showimage.php?image=45">http://www.analogintelligence.co.uk/pages/showimage.php?image=45</a></p>

<p>Pick a few you really like and it will be a lot easier to provide answers.</p>

<p>Excellent thread to bump.</p>

<p>Cool Jeff, yeah the El Rio was on the list from a mention that you made a while back. I'll see if Friday works.</p>

<p>As for map, I actually created it while my wife was logged into her Google account so it shows up as Susy. </p>

<p>Ghirardelli Square is really only on there for my friend's wife, not much time will be spent there, if we go at all. Alcatraz is a definite.</p>

<p>I'll shoot you an email for some restaurants and pizza (we just grabbed the closest places to the hotel). Thanks.</p>

 

<p>Hmm, not sure if the map link will work, the new funky html conversion thing and my limited skills don't make a winning combo.</p>

<p>BTW, yes the list does have quite a few bars on it...</p>

<p><br /> Wow, thanks for the tips Jim. I'll be adding your suggestions to the pretty decent list I have now (thanks to all of you). Just in case anyone might be curious:<br /> <br /> http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?client=firefox-a&hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=114263468386198217264.000460b42531c6074b8bc&ll=37.773157,-122.272682&spn=0.207603,0.44632&z=12<br /> <br /> Also, I did order the photo secrets book, I happened to find it at a local store used for $4, and it should be here any day.<br /> And I ran across this site: http://www.sfgate.com/neighborhoods/</p>

<p><em>"For every 10 shots that Ken Rockwell takes, 11 are keepers."</em><br>

 

<p>Excellent parody.</p>

</p>

<p>Tom said exactly that in his second post: <em>"...and the style was totally a 21st century cliche' that was worn out several years ago."</em><br />

<p>But you have to remember that photographers aren't the primary audience.<br>

<br />As for enduring, I'm not so sure: it's probably a fact* that the general public is far more likely to know the name Norman Rockwell than Avedon, Karsh, Beaton, Lord Snowdon, etc.</p>

<p>* somewhere on the Internet</p>

</p>

<p><em>"For us to criticize the style that the photographer was using is a bit disingenuous..."</em><br>

 

<p>Actually quite true, the one thing you can't accuse Kander of, whether you like his work or not, is that it doesn't reflect the current photographic aesthetic.</p>

</p>

<p>Sorry for the high-jack Tom, I do realize you and a few others were having a serious discussion. </p>

<p><em>"I'll give some thought to your advice. But for the record...that ain't gonna be anytime soon."</em><br>

I'm sure Kander will be relieved.<br>

<em>"...a <strong>deferred</strong> reference..."</em></p>

<p>Nice try (it's fun to quote things of Wikipedia, isn't it?), but linguistically incorrect. I used a portion of a phrase as a reference to imply the whole phrase, so it would be more closely related to synecdoche.</p>

<p>And for the record, I also know the difference between aposiopesis and episiotomy, have an undergraduate degree in Engineering, and once drove <em>by</em> Fordham University.<br>

 

 

</p>

<p>Actually I <em>referred</em> to glass houses, but no matter.</p>

<p>My point was simply that your comment applies equally well to quite a few shots in your portfolio. So if you're going to slag Kander, you might want to step up your own game.</p>

<p><em>"Hey Sp, no shadows in 153521...and your web portfolio can be found where...?"</em></p>

<p>Same place as everybody else...listed on the community member page:</p>

<p> </p>

<h2>"Photographer Biography</h2>

<p>Due to extreme laziness I maintain only one on-line image location. Please <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/37135917@N00/sets/72157607081098342/show/" target="_blank">click here</a> for a general idea of what I point my camera at..."</p>

<p><em>"Looks like Uncle Bob's 'fancy background work' and his 10D.</em></p>

<p>http://www.harttphoto.com/153521/</p>

<p>The phrase "glass houses" comes to mind.</p>