Remind me, from an objective standpoint, what is the best piece of music ever?
[url=
this I think.[/url]
clodhopper - Member...and see the respective photos, to make an objective judgment...
An objective judgment of the pics is irrelevant.
He was being paid to shoot pics for my mates wedding. I was not being paid & was there in an amateur/hobby/bloke with camera capacity.
My mate & his wife didn't like the pics that the professional (he'd paid to take pics) had taken as much as the ones that I had. End of. You can cast your objective eye over the pics as much of you want, but the fact is that the photo's I took reflect their wedding TO THEM more clearly than the ones that the 'professional' took.
So, you looking critically at composition, lighting, balance, rule of thirds, Fibonacci sequences, mystic runes or any other arty stuff is absolutely & totally irrelevant.
To be honest I thought my photos were OK, but could pic holes in them left, right & centre if I wanted to. But again, that is irrelevant. They prefer them, & that is what matters.....
C'mon STW - stay cheerful, don't let me down 🙂
My mate & his wife didn't like the pics that the professional (he'd paid to take pics) had taken as much as the ones that I had. End of. You can cast your objective eye over the pics as much of you want, but the fact is that the photo's I took reflect their wedding TO THEM more clearly than the ones that the 'professional' took.
Or he was just being a good mate. 😉
Ashley COle sent me a photograph. I didn't like it one little bit.
EDIT - maybe not
We come back to where this thread diverted away from discussing the business model. Maybe stumpy's mate prefers his pics because they have more of a sense of being there rather than just the standard formal wedding photos. Of course a good wedding photographer might get some of that as well, and stumpy was doubtless piggybacking on the paid photographer setting up shots. But the point is that most ordinary people are more interested in the content than the technical excellence. I think some are also missing the point of the dad photo - it's not just that it's his dad, it's his dad somewhere with good memories - better than a posed photo just for the sake of a photo however technically excellent.
The point being that the amateur in the right place can get photos the pro never will, which might be more valuable to the "customer" than a posed studio shoot ever will be. If they can also do technical stuff well then so much the better. The days of needing a pro to get a quality photo are long gone - who cares if the pro would have done a better job, they weren't there.
...many years ago I remember going to a wedding where everyone got given a disposable camera for those spirit of the event shots. Don't think I've been to one since camera phones became ubiquitous - I presume nowadays lots of people take pics at weddings anyway and share them?
people are more interested in the content than the technical excellence.
Sorry but they are the same thing. Getting good content is what you pay a pro-photographer for, whether it's for a studio or a wedding shoot.
Last wingding I went to had disposable cameras - 'twas fun 🙂
captainsasquatch - Member
Surely straightforward rather than easy.
Most things are straightforward when you know how.
Judging by the amount of crap photos I see posted on social media, everyone has the technology yet very few have the ability to take consistently good photos.
...many years ago I remember going to a wedding where everyone got given a disposable camera for those spirit of the event shots. Don't think I've been to one since camera phones became ubiquitous - I presume nowadays lots of people take pics at weddings anyway and share them?
We looked at this when we got wed last year and decided that the cost of film cameras + processing (even just a couple on each table) was way too expensive given that everyone would probably take mobile shots. In the end we didn't get many phone shots back, kinda wish we'd done it in hindsight.
Last two weddings I've been to the bride and groom have provided selfie sticks rather than disposable cameras.
I'm not sure how many decent pics they got from the guests though.
That's a shame - I guess with the disposables people are encouraged to have fun with them.
Sorry but they are the same thing
I really don't think they are, because as I explained, no matter how much you pay, the pro simply won't be there to take some shots. Wedding photos maybe isn't the best example, but even there the pro will be busy with the formal official shots, and even the best will miss some of the more informal stuff going on while that's happening. I suppose if I ever got married, had enough money and cared I might employ 2 wedding photographers.
"doubtless piggybacking on the paid photographer setting up shots."
Yeah, were digressing somewhat but this is exactly happened at our wedding.
The Photographer(s) set up shots, meanwhile 10/12 people would gather behind them and get the same shots from a slightly different angle/settings/time. A few people had better lenses and bodies too. All the photos came back to us and many of the Guests got (by luck) better shots than the pros, even Grannies with Compacts hit the button at a lucky moment and captured the perfect smiles, whatever.
Good for us but the Photographers didn't like it much. It was quite clear to everyone that 99pc of the work going into the shots was done by the pros before anyone touched a shutter so I don't know why it bothered them, it didn't harm their rep and I know they got two more wedding gigs from the day.
I'm surprised the Wedding Photography business has gone south. I'd have thought Commercial and Weddings would be two lines of revenue that would never dry up.
Bit of a digression from portrait business models though.
EDIT: Just remembered one of our evening guests was a proper paparazzi - you see him all time time on the red carpet at Oscars etc. I distinctly remember he had a compact with him. Like most guests, gave us his shots. Given this thread I'll dig them out and see what I think.
Good for us but the Photographers didn't like it much. It was quite clear to everyone that 99pc of the work going into the shots was done by the pros before anyone touched a shutter so I don't know why it bothered them, it didn't harm their rep and I know they got two more wedding gigs from the day.
A confident pro shouldn't be worried, but even Graham Watson would have a strop if you dared to criticise one of his photos or question his ability. 😆
He's a sensitive flower then?
I suppose if I ever got married, had enough money and cared I might employ 2 wedding photographers.
That's precisely what the good wedding photographers do.
This is such a pointless argument I really don't know why I'm bothering but here goes.
This is a bit like trying to argue why everyone should be watching a BBC2 drama or documentary rather than a Channel 4 reality show. We all know that the BBC2 programming is more high brow and stimulating but loads of people still like watching the drivel that is reality TV.
It's the same with people's exepctations for photography today. Most people are perfectly happy to have shit and that's fine. It doesn't make them bad people it just makes them people.
I will look at 90% of what most people offer as an acceptable photograph and think very differently. Consequently, when I got married (back in 2007) and we both looked at the rising number of 'man with a camera wannabe wedding photographers' and just shook our heads. I insisted on selecting a very good local photographer and insisted she shot with a medium format film camera (which I now own as it happens!)
If you don't care don't buy but don't expect anyone who does care not to regard you decision with slight disdain and sadness that you're appreciation of talent isn't more nuanced.
"A confident pro shouldn't be worried,"
It was good natured and their skill was beyond question but I think there was a little lense insecurity. 🙂
It wasn't the expensive kit that should have worried them though - it was the amazing quality of output from cheap Android phones with fixed 2mm apertures.
If you don't care don't buy but don't expect anyone who does care not to regard you decision with slight disdain
Yeah I got that when you equated my preference for substance over style with reality TV 😉
"This is a bit like trying to argue why everyone should be watching a BBC2 drama or documentary rather than a Channel 4 reality show. We all know that the BBC2 programming is more high brow and stimulating but loads of people still like watching the drivel that is reality TV."
I agree it's a pointless debate and totally irrelevant to the topic but why is a photo of me outside grinning because I'm doing something I love less high brow than me inside in front of a white background doing something staged & self consciously 'whacky'?
It's not art if they haven't spent time arranging you, oob
"Yeah I got that when you equated my preference for substance over style with reality TV"
That's how it read to me.
"It's not art if they haven't spent time arranging you, oob"
If it was art they should have let me take my pants off!
I agree it's a pointless debate and totally irrelevant to the topic but why is a photo of me outside grinning because I'm doing something I love less high brow than me inside in front of a white background doing something staged & self consciously 'whacky'?
I don't understand this, sorry.
Yeah I got that when you equated my preference for substance over style with reality TV
I should apologise; this was a poor analogy and I really have nothing against, what I do lovingly call, 'snaps', i.e. the kind of casual photo's of things, of life, of the everyday but also the important. These kinds of casual snaps are really valuable and we should preserve them.
My point is to know the difference and recognise the things that are valuable and important. My problem, such as I have one, is people that people only seem to put value on the snaps, not on anything else.
My problem, such as I have one, is people that people only seem to put value on the snaps, not on anything else.
Ah well, if that is still aimed at me then you have me wrong. I do also value the art, but to come back to the OP I'm not sure the sort of standardised high street studio shoots are anything more than reality TV.
Actually I've been thinking about what you'd do with that whacky family shot earlier. Would you hang it on the wall of that room, and if so, wouldn't it be improved by photoshopping the pic into the background?
This is a good read on the costs of taking photos:
Fuxake. I'm one of the few here who follows posts from start to finish.
Point #1 I'm confident in my abilities as a photographer with a few specialist abilities, and recognise those fields where I am better off passing jobs to other pros.
Point #2 Almost nobody does "people in front of a white backdrop" anymore - that went out with Venture.
Point #3 Yes, you can have Photoshop and Lightroom and Silverephex and a D5 and still be a shite photographer
Point #4 There are good professionals with integrity, learning and experience behind them and there are shysters making a fat buck just as there are in any profession.
If a business model works, it works. You Don't have to ****ing like it and you don't have to partake.
I'll accept criticism in form of comparison to event photographs taken of you doing a running/cycling event.
footflaps - Member
They didn't really capture any atmosphere.
That is slightly OT from what I had in mind, i was more thinking of what is the favourite event photo taken of yourself and why do you like it, it it because it captures the spirit of the event, brings back memories of a good performance, or makes you look awesome, etc.
Some good examples and food for thought though - maybe I shouldnt be so focussed in isolating the athelete. Thanks for sharing and commenting.
You might prefer this one which I also took on my 2nd outing.
[img] 
[/img]
"Point #2 Almost nobody does "people in front of a white backdrop" anymore - that went out with Venture."
At least my shots will be unique!
"If a business model works, it works. You Don't have to **** like it and you don't have to partake."
If you receive it as a gift, or if you're a bit naive and don't ask questions upfront, then you might well be partaking without really wanting to. Not that it matters, if I hadn't partaken I'd still think it was sh1t.
Ah well, if that is still aimed at me then you have me wrong
No I promise you it wasn't.
if I hadn't partaken I'd still think it was sh1t
I was taught that getting baked at a wedding was rude!
PS you're allowed to write "shit" on here.
Sorry for the potty mouth word, no excuse in text when I actually had time to think.
So; yesterday, my wife asks me to take a picture of her, for a book she's collaborated on. Just the standard simple portrait for the sleeve notes. 'Doesn't need to be amazing, it'll only be printed small'. So I grab the camera and 85mm lens, do a few snaps by the window. Perfectly adequate.
Today, she gets emails from all the other contributors, saying what a 'fantastic' and 'gorgeous' photo it is, and how their own pictures are 'terrible' (mostly snapped on 'phones by the looks of things), and how they really need to get 'proper' pictures done by a 'professional' (IE, me!). Quite amusing, because I really didn't put too much time and effort into them; camera and lens are as good as you can get, the light from the window was perfect, and my wife is particularly photogenic. I suppose having the experience of doing some portraiture helped a bit.
Outofbreath etc; how much do you think I should charge per portrait photo for the other contributors?
It's not really a fair comparison is it?
You have the experience AND the kit.
Do you also do portraits with an iPhone and no processing? How much less do you charge for those?
"It's not really a fair comparison is it?
I'm not actually comparing myself to the other 'photographers'. You're missing the point...
<edit>
you're missing the point
Seems likely.
Are you saying the difference was the kit? I think you might have added the "quotes" after.
If you mean what I mean then i think we're largely in agreement. Or something 🙂
Outofbreath etc; how much do you think I should charge per portrait photo for the other contributors?
£1200
Nice job if you can get it 😀
clodhopper - MemberI'm not actually comparing myself to the other 'photographers'. You're missing the point...
Just send them a free portrait session voucher. And then charge the for the pics.
That way we've gone full circle...!
The people you took photos of can moan they're being ripped off and you can moan about people not understanding the art or the costs involved in being a professional and we've got another 10 pages of discussion....
So I had a really interesting experience this week. We need photo's for our company website and my employer asked if I would take them. The owner of the company is also into photography in a significant way and specialises in studio lighting subjects; quite different to my style.
He has a very capable and expensive studio light set that I was able to work with. I've never used anything like this before and it was a fascinating experience that told me just how hard it is to get the lighting right. We were working in a very small space so the lights were very close to the subject so small movements in their placement relative to the lights were making a very big difference in the amount of light falling on them. Fascinating experience though the results aren't really up to par for use in a corporate website.
This is the best example.
[img] 
[/img]
Personally; I think the lighting is coming from the sides too much, and I'd like to see flatter, more even lighting on the centre of the subject's face. Or perhaps the background is overlit, and you've got light spilling from that.
Buy you know yourself, just how difficult it is to get portrait lighting right. Static subjects are much easier than people!
"£1200"
Per photo??! 😆
Mind you, I do fancy a new D5...
they really need to get 'proper' pictures done by a 'professional' (IE, me!).
So you're going to get the buyer to contact Groupon to buy a Voucher. Groupon pocket 100pc of the voucher price. Then you'll do the shoot for free and charge the customer an unspecified price per photo.
Wouldn't it be simpler just to agree a price direct with the customer?
