tough to be a wedding photographer
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: C J Campbell on 13 Jul 2010 22:08 On 2010-07-13 16:29:54 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> said: > C J Campbell wrote: >> On 2010-07-12 20:07:40 -0700, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> said: >> >>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:45:35 -0700, C J Campbell >>> <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> : On 2010-07-12 12:03:52 -0700, tony cooper >>> <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said: >>> : >>> : > On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:10:23 -0700, C J Campbell >>> : > <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> : > >>> : >> On 2010-07-12 10:48:13 -0700, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> said: >>> : >> >>> : >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9HD5GZooPQ >>> : >> >>> : >> He blocks the videographer from filming the entire wedding retreat. He >>> : >> doesn't know where the fountain is. >>> : > >>> : > Font, not fountain. That's a baptismal font. >>> : >>> : So it is! Well, he baptized himself, eh? >>> : >>> : It also seems to me he could have dressed appropriately for a wedding. >>> : Too many photogs out there looking like slobs. >>> >>> Interesting point. I thought all wedding photographers dressed in black. I've >>> been told that it's to prevent any reflected light from colorizing the bride's >>> dress. >>> >>> Bob >> >> Black has that advantage, of course. It also makes you less visible. >> People do not 'see' people who are wearing black. My outfit consists of >> black slacks, black shirt & tie, black shoes, and a black jacket if a >> jacket is necessary. Everything has a discreet logo embroidered on it. >> My assistant wears a long black dress, but she is the sort that is just >> not invisible no matter what she wears. > > Do you wear a dinner jacket if in the evening? (Some people call it a > tux, or tuxedo, from its origin in Tuxedo Park, NY) No. We are west coast. A dinner jacket would stick out like a sore thumb. Too bad; I like dinner jackets. -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor
From: Peter on 13 Jul 2010 22:17 "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2010071319083716807-christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmailcom... > On 2010-07-13 16:29:54 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> said: > >> C J Campbell wrote: >>> On 2010-07-12 20:07:40 -0700, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> said: >>> >>>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:45:35 -0700, C J Campbell >>>> <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> : On 2010-07-12 12:03:52 -0700, tony cooper >>>> <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said: >>>> : >>>> : > On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 11:10:23 -0700, C J Campbell >>>> : > <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> : > >>>> : >> On 2010-07-12 10:48:13 -0700, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> said: >>>> : >> >>>> : >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9HD5GZooPQ >>>> : >> >>>> : >> He blocks the videographer from filming the entire wedding >>>> retreat. He >>>> : >> doesn't know where the fountain is. >>>> : > >>>> : > Font, not fountain. That's a baptismal font. >>>> : >>>> : So it is! Well, he baptized himself, eh? >>>> : >>>> : It also seems to me he could have dressed appropriately for a >>>> wedding. >>>> : Too many photogs out there looking like slobs. >>>> >>>> Interesting point. I thought all wedding photographers dressed in >>>> black. I've >>>> been told that it's to prevent any reflected light from colorizing the >>>> bride's >>>> dress. >>>> >>>> Bob >>> >>> Black has that advantage, of course. It also makes you less visible. >>> People do not 'see' people who are wearing black. My outfit consists of >>> black slacks, black shirt & tie, black shoes, and a black jacket if a >>> jacket is necessary. Everything has a discreet logo embroidered on it. >>> My assistant wears a long black dress, but she is the sort that is just >>> not invisible no matter what she wears. >> >> Do you wear a dinner jacket if in the evening? (Some people call it a >> tux, or tuxedo, from its origin in Tuxedo Park, NY) > > No. We are west coast. A dinner jacket would stick out like a sore thumb. > Too bad; I like dinner jackets. > I went to a dinner in near Beverly Hills, forgot the name of the restaurant, but everybody wore a tux and the big thing was to be served in the kitchen. -- Peter
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 14 Jul 2010 13:21 Nervous Nick <nervous.nick(a)gmail.com> wrote: > That guy must have had a battery pack for the flash. Only if that were full power flashes. -Wolfgang
From: Mr. Strat on 14 Jul 2010 21:53 In article <2ugs3612sqhbsjhdkqoi3vclogtkjrg5re(a)4ax.com>, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: > That's a pretty dangerous thing to say on this newsgroup, isn't it? I sure > wouldn't say it to a newsgroup regular, because I know damn well that not > everybody here is a relative newbie like I am. Maybe you've just got more > balls than I have; I usually don't care to risk having an experienced > professional call my bluff. ;^) I used to do photography for a living for many years.
From: Roger on 21 Jul 2010 16:20
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:32:29 -0700, C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On 2010-07-12 13:42:31 -0700, DanP <dan.petre(a)hotmail.com> said: > >> On Jul 12, 7:35�pm, George Kerby <ghost_top...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> On 7/12/10 1:10 PM, in article >>> 2010071211102316807-christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmailcom, "C J Campbe >> ll" >>> >>> <christophercampbellremovet...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 2010-07-12 10:48:13 -0700, Bowser <Ca...(a)Nikon.Panny> said: >>> >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9HD5GZooPQ >>> >>>> He blocks the videographer from filming the entire wedding retreat. He >>>> doesn't know where the fountain is. As Robert Cole pointed out, he is >>>> using a flash with a diffuser pointed straight up -- hardly helping him >>>> at all. He walks backwards for a long distance without looking where he >>>> is going. >>> >>>> He deserved what he got. >>> >>> What the hell was he doing with that Canon 'cannon' on his shoulder. Usel >> ess >>> for that particular event. Showing off, I guess... >> >> Just an idea, would you consider covering the walk with a long lens >> from the other end of the aisle? >> >> DanP > >I might. The thing is, can you imagine in your wildest dreams the bride >and groom buying any of those frames? I can't. Let the videographer >shoot them. The bride and groom will buy the video. Stills and video are two different approaches. If the family decides they want both then they need to (They are responsible) have the two coordinate their work. Even if the family doesn't think/forgets about it, it's up to the two (videographer and still) to work out a coordination scheme. The last wedding I shot was when video was just becoming popular...(quite some time back) I worked with the family through the rehearsal dinner...the whole works, BUT I knew what they wanted from where and above all, what they didn't want. > >I am all for documentary wedding photography, mind you. But a repeat of >the same shot over and over is not the way to do documentary. Wayyyy back when... I used to do candid weddings along with the formal shots which was as much as two whole days. You might think that with all the others shooting there would be no market, but it made me more money than the formal shots. Again, I knew ahead of time what the family/couple wanted and those are not necessarily the same. Even catholic weddings. During the ceremony I used a long lens and available light. The priests would uniformly tell me when I should and should not shoot. IOW, if I could understand what they were saying it was fine. When they switched to Latin it was not. > The >photographer should be getting other angles, other perspectives, and >different framing. His tightly framed pair of faces with a bit of >church all around them is fine -- for one or two shots. But that is not >the whole show. He needs to move around more relative to the subjects >and he especially needs to be invisible. Yup, at least most of the time. There are very few shots the family is going to want that will have him/here "in the center of the action" Even the coming down the aisle (If the family wants one) can be done with a long lens from down front. After that you *sneak* over to the outside and to the back. Many churches have a balcony in back and spots up front from which you can shoot without even being seen Roger |