Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If so, I'd call it a happy accident, with a result that is probably better than the one you indicate was intended. An artist is more likely to recognize such a happy accident than is someone who has a "professional" rote routine.I could have said the photo with the "arc" was great, but it's plain to see all the men jumped, he obviously tried to capture them all in mid-air, but either through fault of the men not being able to coordinate the jump together or him not capturing it properly, failed to do so.
Victor Engel wrote:
RhysM wrote:
If so, I'd call it a happy accident, with a result that is probably better than the one you indicate was intended. An artist is more likely to recognize such a happy accident than is someone who has a "professional" rote routine.I could have said the photo with the "arc" was great, but it's plain to see all the men jumped, he obviously tried to capture them all in mid-air, but either through fault of the men not being able to coordinate the jump together or him not capturing it properly, failed to do so.
Actually I can argue that a bit. While the couple did have the money indeed, a while back they asked me to shoot their engagement photos. The bride new me personally, knew I practiced photography and had seen my work before. They liked what I did and thus they were more inclined to give me this job because of that(even with the risk involved). So I'd say its more of a personal taste rather than financial situation..GHwell wrote:
Pictures are not bad for a first attempt. Too grainy for me.
The big thing is I see once again there was money for a nice dress, a fancy reception, new cars, big church, but when it came to hiring a good experenced photographer they choose not to do it.
As they say you get waht you pay for so let it be
Yes, a jumping shot should be absolutely perfect, especially when it's done as a favour!PenguinPhotoCo wrote:
ask the groomsman with the hands in front of his face what he thinks of the pic.
"Unforgivable?" Oh come on!PenguinPhotoCo wrote:
And as for not knowing how to use flash and 'pushing buttons till it worked' is VERY IRRESPONSIBLE AND UNPROFESSIONAL - friend or not. For you it's a'fun day shooting pictures' - for the couple it's a year's planning and $20,000 spent on ONE DAY that they (plan, hope) to never do again. It's IMPORTANT and for you (or any photog) to take it lightly and 'learn on the job' and experiment and have no clue on how their equipment works is IMO unforgivable.
PenguinPhotoCo wrote:
ask the groomsman with the hands in front of his face what he thinks of the pic.
Whole bridal party? sure. But this is a gay wedding shot IMO. A bit weird in this context.
First??? How about now. As soon as he cut up the little girl sleeping I knew he can't be serious.John Motts wrote:
"Unforgivable?" Oh come on!PenguinPhotoCo wrote:
And as for not knowing how to use flash and 'pushing buttons till it worked' is VERY IRRESPONSIBLE AND UNPROFESSIONAL - friend or not. For you it's a'fun day shooting pictures' - for the couple it's a year's planning and $20,000 spent on ONE DAY that they (plan, hope) to never do again. It's IMPORTANT and for you (or any photog) to take it lightly and 'learn on the job' and experiment and have no clue on how their equipment works is IMO unforgivable.
If it was so absolutely vital that every photograph was absolutely perfect, then the couple themselves were to blame.
Was your first wedding perfect.
Weddings are busy things for the bride and groom. I got married a few years ago, and there were numerous details we would have missed -- if not for the photographers going out of the way to get a shot.PenguinPhotoCo wrote:
Why so many kid pics? A full page one of a kid asleep at a table? SHE hired you? Of course not - its all about the bride and groom - make THEM full page, not the guests and bridal party.
Exactly.Jeff Seltzer wrote:
Some good shots, some very good shots, some poor shots, and some very poor shots. You know what? I bet you could say the same thing about many of the photographers on this pro forum.
I knew how to use my equipment.John Motts wrote:
"Unforgivable?" Oh come on!PenguinPhotoCo wrote:
And as for not knowing how to use flash and 'pushing buttons till it worked' is VERY IRRESPONSIBLE AND UNPROFESSIONAL - friend or not. For you it's a'fun day shooting pictures' - for the couple it's a year's planning and $20,000 spent on ONE DAY that they (plan, hope) to never do again. It's IMPORTANT and for you (or any photog) to take it lightly and 'learn on the job' and experiment and have no clue on how their equipment works is IMO unforgivable.
If it was so absolutely vital that every photograph was absolutely perfect, then the couple themselves were to blame.
Was your first wedding perfect.
I get lots of detail shots and lots of guests and family chosen for albums. My clients certainly don't pick just pictures of themselves.PenguinPhotoCo wrote:
And having shot 100+ weddings and sold 80 some albums to brides and another 20 to parents I KNOW what they buy.
When shown 400-600 images and told 'pick 75 for your album' the DO NOT pic sleeping children pics. Even when they are cute.
They choose images OF THEMSELVES - NOT the guests, family, bridal party. Sure, group shots of those people.
Dad getting his flower on? Nope.
The BM dancing with his wife? Nope.
