arv_foh
Brian K
when you walk into a church and it's darker than satan's asshole then you would understand why
Is it just me or is everybody and their mother a wedding photographer?
- Thread starter RemoWilliams
- Start date
when you walk into a church and it's darker than satan's asshole then you would understand why
LeSedna
Mat or Mateo
well, put your focal on max, and people will be actually happy to have that short-field effect whereas you just put it to increase your light income
(just joking).
Yeah I get it, for that part it's sure it needs you to be able to adapt to any situation whatever comes. But, it's all about technical stuff. You need a good camera, you need to know how to use all of its functions, and then it must not be more than a technical problem. (I guess, of course)
smy1
Member
No offense man, but out of 1500 pictures approx. 1200 will be repetitive crap, out of focus, badly framed, etc. - and even if they were all technically okay ... who wants 1500 pictures of a wedding? I personally think 50-75 really good ones is all you need and the couples usually request 150-200 because quite frankly there isn't that much interesting stuff going on and you can only take so many pics of Uncle Joe getting drunk at the reception ...
Flat Fifth Fury: you sound like a bitter man who is envious of the fact that other people make money with something that you consider "lowest quality". I have shot everything from 20k Euro/day cosmetics shoots to popstar tour documentaries and I find weddings (and event photography) in general requires a lot more skill than going to a location with 4 models who all look perfect, with 2 assistants who do everything for you up to the point where you don't even have to unload the camera (cause the digital operator does it). Of course I wish I had those shoots every week, cause they are the easiest type of photography I can imagine. Much easier than going to 2-3 unknown locations with 100 unknown people, 2 of which look everything but perfect and still need to be made to look great ...
I'd really like to see your website, btw ...
Loren Littlejohn
Lover of all boobage.
xFkx
gain induction
The thing is, I'm not hating on some abstract ideal of a beginner photographer, who is hardworking, dedicated, etc.
I'm hating on real people that I have met during the last 2 or 3 years, who are spoiled, pretentious douchebags who are so full of themselves that it just strikes a nerve with me.
your mileage may vary of course..
_Brutalism_
Member
- May 14, 2008
- 581
- 0
- 16
Ugh. I hate the post modernism attitude.
FUCKING ART?uke:
I just asked for a definition by which the critics in this thread were adhering too, maybe we could agree on a universal one, therefore having some solid ground upon which to base our arguments on. The ambiguity of the word "art" unfortunately is caused by the word's broad definition which encapsulates anything which is creative and holds some merit for beauty. Whilst post-modernism can be 'dangerous', especially with regards to ethics and values, where anything goes; I think that unless you can concretely define the beautiful beyond that which is appealing to the individual due to an aesthetic quality, then yes, we're gonna have to leave the doors pretty much open because not everything which appeals to you may appeal to me.
But if you're willing to enlighten me and explain your dislike, I'm willing to change my opinion if you convince me otherwise.
Fair enough, and I've observed these kind of people too, and my disgust is similar to yours; however your initial comment was very general in my opinion because you made no distinction between those who actually delve into the hobby at a young age and do their best, with the gear they afford, to capture that which they find artistically worth capturing and the group you described in your latest post.
Loren Littlejohn
Lover of all boobage.
Actually, I wasn't really disagreeing with you. I just hate that question because it brings the urinal to mind. If you leave it that open to interpretation, then I could take a shit, smear it around, and call it art. Or I could throw a baseball at my guitar while it is plugged into an amp at different random times over a period of 3 mins and call it a song.
There has to be a line between what is just some tool being an eccentric cunt and someone who actually put some thought in their creation.
There has to be a line between what is just some tool being an eccentric cunt and someone who actually put some thought in their creation.
Flat Fifth Fury
Member
I'm not bitter at all. It's business. Wedding photography is an area where you don't have to be a technical master and yet the market is flush with cash. If you can do the work and handle the business side of it then I wish you well. I can do the work easily but really can't stand the business side of that market so I work in editorial. That suits me better. There are many wedding photographers who are true documentarian-artists and their work is stunning. But to be able to go in an shoot a wedding without messing it up isn't really that hard. Not like say shooting top quality car interiors, timid wildlife or magazine photo stories.
As for the number of usable frames that comes from a wedding shoot it all depends on your style, the length of the shoot and what the client wants. I tend to shoot the heck out of them - that's me. I'm a "whole day" shooter. I start when they start and leave when they go home so my wedding shoots are often in the 10-14 hour range. I will often shoot 2000 to 2500 images in that time and my assistant will shoot another 500-750 or so. After a technical edit it still comes down to around 2000. My style is not one where I do a lot of post production so most of my shots are easily batch processed using a few looks that I have as presets in P-Shop. Given that most of my processing is done that way so the ones that I really want to tweek are done while the other workstation is chewing on the bulk of the images. So total time for all that is maybe 5-6 hours. Much like keeping your audio levels in check, automation is wonderful.
aberration
Black/Doom/Crust/Hardcore
The guy who did my wedding was moonlighting...he's a forensic photographer for a living (how metal is that?).
Super pro attitude, two-person crew constantly shooting, great photos, prints and CD delivered about a week after the wedding, and all for less than a grand.
And no, none of us looked dead in any of the shots.
Need a wedding photographer? Call CSI.
Super pro attitude, two-person crew constantly shooting, great photos, prints and CD delivered about a week after the wedding, and all for less than a grand.
And no, none of us looked dead in any of the shots.
Need a wedding photographer? Call CSI.
_Brutalism_
Member
- May 14, 2008
- 581
- 0
- 16
arv_foh
Brian K
You are right, a lot of them are repetitive, I cut anything I wouldn't put my name on so the couple will never even see it. However, many of them are slightly different, different expressions, slightly different angles that may or may not work better. Last wedding I shot about 1450 images and ended with 1340 going to the customer, with none of those being shots that I wouldn't put my name behind or be embarrassed to say I shot because they are technically bad. I would take the statement above and say that you don't need 50-75 good ones, you need 50-75 amazing shots. Ones that the couple will look at and be like "wow, I'm glad we hired him to shoot our wedding."
To each each his own man; I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the way you work, but for me it would not be satisfactory.
