Point of comparison - here's a picture with no prep/composition taken by an amateur on a bridge superzoom and even shot on jpeg+auto! However it appeals to me far more. Yes it's a bit oversaturated, but I find it more appealing due to the contrast in the lighting and the simplicity of it. And no white background!
There is nothing in this photo that makes it any better than a snap shot. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but its a good demonstration of how a pro and an amature with a bridge camera differ immensely.
Well that and the events in the Middle East, but yeah, mainly mediocrity.
If we had better politicians and a public prepared to hold them to account for being something other than popular then we would have less of a problem in the middle east.
geetee1972 - MemberI think this is one of the most pointless arguments I've seen and MrSmith nailed it when he said that he's glad he doesn't have to sell his work to an (undiscerning) public.
The greatest tragedy of the modern age is the cult of mediocrity; you see it in so many areas........
.........Photography is no different; the general public are happy with shitty photographs from an amateur holding an iPhone if they are free, available now and can be posted to their Facebook page because they don't really care about the aesthetics, they only care about the share.
geetee1972 - hope you don't mind but I edited a bit out of your quote to keep it to what I thought were the relevant bits....
Using the services of a 'professional' photographer, doesn't guarantee you will escape from mediocrity though, as you seem to be suggesting......I don't think you are a professional photographer (I'm not sure) but some of the portrait stuff you post on here is more than likely better than a great deal of "professional's" work....
Excuse the example of wedding photographers (the pro's on here seem to be a bit sniffy about them), but I would say that they are the professional photographers that Joe Public is most likely to need the service of, or come into contact with.
My brother had a professional photographer at his wedding & hates his wedding photos. They aren't very good, the bloke acted a bit odd on the day, was over-pushy & kept getting in people's faces. He just didn't seem very good at his profession.
Similarly, a good friend of mine feels the same about the pics that he got from a 'professional' at his wedding.
I hadn't had my D80 long when I was invited to his wedding, so was keen to take it along & get some shots. He didn't want wedding gifts, so I decided that I'd do him & his Wife a photobook as a thank you for inviting us.
They both say that they prefer looking at the photobook I did them, rather than the photo's from the 'pro' that cost them £800 or so, because I managed to capture the day better than he did....
Oh, he also tried to do a runner without giving them the photos they'd paid for but that's another story....
It's the same in any profession - I've been to people's houses where they've had a 'professional' in to redecorate a room & looked at the wobbly edges, roller marks in the paint & thinly applied gloss only to wonder if it was worth the services of a pro.....as you say, mediocrity everywhere....
Maybe those wedding photographers were weekend chancers with other jobs? So professional in name only not in execution.
There are great wedding photographers out there, the best ones are not cheap and are booked out months in advance (the likes of Geoff Ascoff for example)
Somebody posted a bell curve a few pages back, I would suggest it's actually a pyramid with the talent at the top and the visually unaware/dslr owner at the bottom.
But what this all boils down to is the OP doesn't see the value in what he is being forced to buy, mainly because the pricing model is not to his liking and the product is either overpriced for its intrinsic value or lacks quality.
Some customers are obviously happy to be blackmailed in this way.
I'll accept criticism in form of comparison to event photographs taken of you doing a running/cycling event.
They didn't really capture any atmosphere.
E.g. here is the winner of the Cambs 1/2 Mara. Captured with the whole pack on his heels, giving a clear sense it's a race and he's in the lead. It tells a story.
[url=
https://flic.kr/p/kShu3H ]Aarro" rel="nofollow" >n">
Scott, winner, Cambridge Half Marathon March 9th 2014[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/brf/ ]Ben Freeman[/url], on Flickr
Individual runners are harder as they get spread out, but you see someone chasing him, and can see the crowds / bit of nice scenery - again the photo tells a story.
[url= https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7373/13039811025_fc30a1835d.jp g" target="_blank">https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7373/13039811025_fc30a1835d.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/kShrw2 ]Cambridge Half Marathon March 9th 2014-079[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/brf/ ]Ben Freeman[/url], on Flickr
"But what this all boils down to is the OP doesn't see the value in what he is being forced to buy, mainly because the pricing model is not to his liking and the product is either overpriced for its intrinsic value or lacks quality.
Some customers are obviously happy to be blackmailed in this way."
...and I don't really think it does much for the photographer, either. He gets half hearted customers many of whom will not pay a cent so he works unpaid, often at peak times.
.....as you say, mediocrity everywhere....
Oi! Some of us spend our lives striving to achieve mediocrity!
I have to say I'm finding this fascinating. Obvs the pic of my father is tied to my emotional connection with him, yet the look, the expression the spontaneity and the colours are genuinely much more aesthetically pleasing and attractive to me [within the confines of the concept of a "portrait"] than those of the other image.
Yes my shot has a deeper DOF [it's only an HS10, limitations abound] and other technical shortcomings too - yet I find it a much more compelling, natural and "well lit" image than the other and this is [b]aside [/b]from the fact I know the subject - the same applies to images of people I don't know too, but I didn't have one to hand.
Hmmm. We're all so very different 🙂
"I have to say I'm finding this fascinating. Obvs the pic of my father is tied to my emotional connection with him, yet the look, the expression the spontaneity and the colours are genuinely much more aesthetically pleasing and attractive to me [within the confines of the concept of a "portrait"] than those of the other image."
FWIW I preferred your pic to the indoor one. (Although I really liked that).
Yours looks a genuine unposed situation with a bit of life to it and your Dad has an interesting face. Plus any fule knows that any outdoor photo trumps any indoor photo.
So I don't think it's just your connection.
geetee1972 - hope you don't mind but I edited a bit out of your quote to keep it to what I thought were the relevant bits...
I don't mind one bit and I agree with your post entirely and reservedly.
Digital cameras have made photography accessible. They haven't necessarily made it better.
To be a good wedding photographer is, I think, one of the hardest jobs you can have. You have to be technically very capable (because you cannot control the environment/light anything like as well as you can in a studio), you have to be able to improvise, you have to be able to solve problems very quickly and you need to be great with people and able to build rapport and read a situation all in the moment.
Really, a good wedding photographer should be paid more than a good studio photographer but I doubt that happens because most people don't value the quality that it would produce.
Bit of a digression but agree re Wedding Photography. We spent a lot of time finding an excellent pair to do ours and it was well worth it.
...and yes, we didn't use the gift voucher payment model and don't regret not doing so!
This has become such a meaty, juicy discussion. 😀
First off, geetee1972; word. Definitely the best thing posted on this thread.
2nd:
"My brother had a professional photographer at his wedding & hates his wedding photos... from the 'pro' that cost them £800 or so, because I managed to capture the day better than he did...."
£800? Let's put that into a bit of perspective. So you've got an entire day at the wedding itself. Then however many hours spent uploading, selecting and editing images. That's easily at least another day, maybe two. Then there's the photographer's overheads; travel etc expenses, insurance, consideration of cost of equipment, etc. £800 is absolute peanuts. Also take into consideration that most weddings are at weekends, so the photographer isn't doing that kind of work 5 days a week, and needs to make their money where they can.
Some friends showed me their wedding album ('why don't you do weddings, you're really good!'). Can't remember the cost of their photographer, but it was several thousand pounds (I don't want to know what the actual wedding cost). The photos were stunning, truly great quality. They were happy to have paid so much. I really don't understand why people think you can get the best results, by paying peanuts.
"yet I find it a much more compelling, natural and "well lit" image than the other and this is aside from the fact I know the subject"
It's a snap of your dad. Moreover, it's a fairly mediocre snap. Sorry. You're perfectly entitled to prefer it over the family picture, but on a technical level, that picture is many orders of magnitude a 'better' photo than your snap. Plus you're not looking at things from a particularly objective position, which the rest of us are.
"Obvs the pic of my father is tied to my emotional connection with him"
Of course. It's a lovely picture of your dad. Something to be cherished and enjoyed by you and your family. But objectively, for me personally, with no connection with any of the subjects, the family portrait is a much better photograph.
Really, a good wedding photographer should be paid more than a good studio photographer but I doubt that happens because most people don't value the quality that it would produce.
No. I'm a studio photographer, unless your wedding pics are going in Hello or Harpers they have no value beyond whatever the family and friends attribute to them.
The images I produce in the studio help people sell stuff to make money, that's why I'm paid more than a wedding photographer, that and the fact an amateur will struggle to get close to what I produce.
As for high st studio/portrait photographers the difference is the running costs, mastering the medium (photography) should,be second nature if you call yourself professional, the overheads of a studio are far higher than a wedding photographer. Though the reality is they probably do weddings as well to make ends meet.
Maybe it's a lot to do with your influences and how you view a portrait, too.
[img]
UPLOAD.WIKIMEDIA.ORG This, for example I think of as a great portrait, and so I would probably be influenced by it when deciding what I think is a great portrait photograph.
Of the two footflaps posted I really like the first. I and agree that it tells a story and is compelling, yet I also like the colours more than the second; maybe it's over exposure on the face, maybe I'd darken it a little/increase the blacks/saturation?
It's probably a good comparison with music. Some people prefer punk bootleg recorded on a dictaphone to a 5.1 92bit classical concert, despite the fact you can barely hear the music in the first.
Maybe we hear differently, maybe we see differently?
66.MEDIA.TUMBLR.COM "This, for example I think of as a great portrait, and so I would probably be influenced by it when deciding what I think is a great portrait photograph."
What about this one?
[img]
INHALEMAG.COM clodhopper - Member£800? Let's put that into a bit of perspective. So you've got an entire day at the wedding itself. Then however many hours spent uploading, selecting and editing images. That's easily at least another day, maybe two. Then there's the photographer's overheads; travel etc expenses, insurance, consideration of cost of equipment, etc. £800 is absolute peanuts.
First of all, why have you chopped what I said up & stuck two separate scenario's together....? My brother paid substantially more than £800, but you seem to have lumped that into a different scenario I was explaining about a friend's wedding......?? Either way the outcome from the professional was unsatisfactory to the customer (which was/is my point that 'professional' doesn't guarantee 'not mediocre')....
It was £800 around a decade ago.....and it wasn't the entire day. It was the ceremony & shots afterwards up to the point that everyone went to the reception - so all in all about 3-4hrs absolute max shooting time.
How long to upload, edit and select images??!! A day or two!! WHAT!? As I said previously, surely someone who does this for a living should have the camera & settings dialled in such that the amount of editing is kept to a bare minimum & is done in a batch manner as much as possible based on conditions on the day. I doubt he went through every image & gave it the full 'processing' treatment. The customer shouldn't have to pay for the professional's inefficient methods....
Anyway - regardless - you seem to be missing the point that this bloke was supposedly a professional photographer yet even with all this 'time' he spent on the shoot, all the post-processing, the cost of equipment, the overheads, the insurance blah blah.......he managed to do a less satisfactory job than I managed to do with my new to me D80 & a kit lens.....with no formal training, no overheads, very little post processing & £35 worth of Photobox Photobook.....
The point I was making was that 'professional' doesn't mean the output won't be mediocre, which is I thought geetee was alluding to.....(and he has since replied to).....
Conversely to the examples I listed above the wedding photographer that we used listened to what we wanted, took us through all of the options and explained how he would operate on the day (so we knew what to expect/who his assistant would be etc.), took us through the options for albums etc. so we had a clear idea of what we would pay. On the day he was friendly and polite, put everyone at ease & made sure that he took up as little of our time as possible. he had a clear idea of what he was hoping to achieve with his photo's and he did this well.
Don't get me wrong, I have seen better wedding photos but they are very good & for the money we paid I am very happy with them. They are a great reminder of the event & he managed to capture the formal stuff/the informal stuff/the details just as we wanted. He cost a bit more than £800, but less than my brother paid & the output was substantially better....
So in a very long winded way, I am no way belittling the work of professionals or bemoaning the cost involved in getting professional photos done. But, I am saying that just because you employ a 'professional' it doesn't mean you are assured of a good result....
Interesting example, clodhopper - a picture of a family member that communicates with those outside the family ...
Has she got a carrier bag on her head.....?
In your opinion DrJ, what does it communicate?
I like it quite a lot myself. The way she's looking through the camera, the differing dark tones and the enigmatic expression. I'd like it more if there wasn't some colour noise in the shadows though.
Oh, and the comparison between the whiteness of her skin and the white of the plastic bag too 😀
No. I'm a studio photographer, unless your wedding pics are going in Hello or Harpers they have no value beyond whatever the family and friends attribute to them.
Well that was exactly my point. The family concerned doesn't 'value' the work, for whatever reason. My argument wasn't about value, it was about demands of the job. A studio is a controlled environment, a wedding is not. If you had to produce images of a wedding to the same level as a studio, it would be a whole order of magnitude more difficult.
But of course you mostly don't need to, hence it rarely happens.
The images I produce in the studio help people sell stuff to make money, that's why I'm paid more than a wedding photographer, that and the fact an amateur will struggle to get close to what I produce.
Absolutely and given that I've had some experience recently of working, under guidance of a pro, with sophisticated studio lighting, I really (really) understand just how difficult it is. I always suspected I knew how hard it is, but now I really do understand.
That said I rarely look at a John Lewis catalogue and feel moved to do anything whereas when I look at the work of some of my favourite portrait and documentary photographers, I sometimes find myself moved so much I have tears in my eyes.
What about this one?
I love that picture - it was on the short list of the Taylor Wessing wasn't it?
And yes she has a bag on her head; it's after Van Eyck
geetee1972 - MemberThat said I rarely look at a John Lewis catalogue and feel moved to do anything
[img]
I don't believe you. Just look at the composition, the balance, the lighting.....! Breathtaking!
Makes me want to put some Queen on & do the [s]hoovering[/s] Dysoning....!!
😀 😉
No. I'm a studio photographer, unless your wedding pics are going in Hello or Harpers they have no value beyond whatever the family and friends attribute to them.
The images I produce in the studio help people sell stuff to make money, that's why I'm paid more than a wedding photographer, that and the fact an amateur will struggle to get close to what I produce.
At last someone in the business that understands. This is exactly it, those pictures have a value to the customer. They help them sell a product. Some pictures however, no matter how technically brilliant they are, just don't have any value to the customer.
Its like saying my Dad doesn't understand the value of the latest Metalica album. They have spent years learning to play that well have spent loads of money on studio time and equipment. So he must be a fool for not realising that and buying it. Its of no value to him !!!
I don't believe you. Just look at the composition, the balance, the lighting.....! Breathtaking!
Makes me want to put some Queen on & do the hoovering Dysoning....!!
Thats not a photograph, but you knew that , right?
trailwaggerThats not a photograph,
So?
So?
So it's easy to make that image look like it does. Whereas if you were to try and create a photograph of that product, that looks just like that, it would be extremely hard.
geetee1972 - MemberSo it's easy to make that image look like it does.
Please, explain the process to me as you understand it.
I love that picture - it was on the short list of the Taylor Wessing wasn't it?
Yes - now you mention it, I think it was. I also saw it in a collection with others in the same series so you see it as part of a series of pictures of one person (his daughter).
The light and colour in all his pictures are amazing.
Putting on my 'pseud's corner' hat, what it communicates, for me, is something about a mutual trust (you want me to wear a bag? won't I look stupid?) and affection; that the girl is vulnerable but protected.
@JimJam
1 - Put model* in to whitebox environment in raytracing package
2 - Apply materials [only if not imoprted with model, which is unlikely]
3 - Position/mess with the lighting in the scene
4 - Press render.
5 - Do something else while it renders, preferably STW.
1-4 Should take you a couple of hours, tops. *Assuming the solid model is already made as the thing is probably scheduled/in production when you are going to make an advertising render like that.
As you can see the motor and impeller in a cut away, I am guessing that Dyson picture is rendered straight from CAD.
Please, explain the process to me as you understand it.
OK I guess 'easy' was the wrong word. It takes a lot of skill to make a computer rendering of that quality. It's a different set of challenges though.
Lighting a product to look like it does in that image (if that were a real thing rather than computer generated), is very difficult and requires a whole other skill set.
I'm not convinced Hendrik Kerstens gives away free session vouchers.
Just sounds like a shitty gift voucher that does no favours to pretty much everyone involved in the transaction - the giver, who doesn't think that £50 essentially gives the family the chance to sit in the same room as the photographer for an hour, the receiver, who also doesn't realise this, and the photographer, who knows that he's relying on the hard sell to a surprised punter to make any money at all.
The only winner is the firm that sells the voucher, who get fifty quid for pretty much sod all.
In a nutshell.
trailwagger - MemberThats not a photograph, but you knew that , right?
If you're telling me what I think you're telling me......does this mean that the Dyson I've just bought doesn't come with genuine X-sectional motor functionality....
GODDAMN IT!!!
Yeah. Easy to get that effect in a computer though. Just pressing buttons isn't it....?
Just pressing buttons isn't it....?
That's what people say about my wife's job (she's an airline pilot).
I am no way belittling the work of professionals or bemoaning the cost involved in getting professional photos done. But, I am saying that just because you employ a 'professional' it doesn't mean you are assured of a good result....
The same is true of any profession though, isn't it. I work with a bunch of 'engineers,' some of them know more than I could ever hope to learn, some of them I wouldn't trust to tie their own shoelaces without supervision. Or for a more commonplace example, GPs. They're all "professionals" but there's a gulf of experience and ability between some of them.
Surely straightforward rather than easy.
Anyway what were these photos that the photographer felt s/he had the ability to blackmail?
"Anyway what were these photos that the photographer felt s/he had the ability to blackmail?"
White background, people in front of it.
Pfft! That'll never catch on
Cougar - ModeratorThe same is true of any profession though, isn't it.
It's almost like someone said the same thing about 4hrs ago!
I would quote it, but the forum is running so badly on my computer that I have given up and swapped to my phone...(see website lagging thread for more details)
Mark my words, in the future camera technology will develop to the point where photographs can be taken of people outside, doing stuff they enjoy. That day cannot be far off.
"It was £800 around a decade ago.....and it wasn't the entire day. It was the ceremony & shots afterwards up to the point that everyone went to the reception - so all in all about 3-4hrs absolute max shooting time.How long to upload, edit and select images??!! A day or two!! WHAT!? As I said previously, surely someone who does this for a living should have the camera & settings dialled in such that the amount of editing is kept to a bare minimum & is done in a batch manner as much as possible based on conditions on the day. I doubt he went through every image & gave it the full 'processing' treatment. The customer shouldn't have to pay for the professional's inefficient methods...."
All this has already been explained. If you can't be bothered to read and try to understand, there's little point in trying to explain it all again.
"Anyway - regardless - you seem to be missing the point that this bloke was supposedly a professional photographer yet even with all this 'time' he spent on the shoot, all the post-processing, the cost of equipment, the overheads, the insurance blah blah.......he managed to do a less satisfactory job than I managed to do with my new to me D80 & a kit lens.....with no formal training, no overheads, very little post processing & £35 worth of Photobox Photobook....."
Woud be nice to hear his side of things, and see the respective photos, to make an objective judgment...
"The point I was making was that 'professional' doesn't mean the output won't be mediocre, which is I thought geetee was alluding to.....(and he has since replied to)....."
No-one's arguing against this. 😕
"Would be nice to hear his side of things, and see the respective photos, to make an objective judgment..."
An objective judgement of something subjective....
Remind me, from an objective standpoint, what is the best piece of music ever?
