50 dollar wedding photographer

with equipment that most would turn their noses up at for professional work. It's the eye and the talent that mean the most. Although I wouldn't call the 707, 717 and 828 low-end cameras, even though they are considered prosumer. Especially the 717 and the 828. They are very nice cams.

Scott

1ofUs! said:

I know it is a matter of taste and preference, but for some clients
the candids turn out to be as important or more than the tradional
shots.
Cindy

Click to expand...

That's a valid point and IMO often underestimated by photographers, wheather professionals or serious amateurs.

A photography for them is something special, a piece of art, with a certain value in itself. But for many, should I say "common" people a photography is more a kind of a visual memory. They are indeed attracted by the subject, the story telling scenery. And that's where the naive shooter, a friend or a relative, comes to honours.

--
Kind regards,
Peter B.
('Pardon my English. Still practising.')

feivel said:

you're talking about the website posted in this thread of the
wedding taken by shay?

Click to expand...

Probably. And I should clarify that they are examples of (IMO) excellent photography. I'm sure the people who paid for them were extremely pleased. However, they aren't universal. They aren't pictures I would want.

feivel said:

if so
i find your remarks quite surprising, but i guess for anything,
there will always be someone who doesnt like it. the skewed end of
the bell curve of that beholder thing, i suppose

Click to expand...

Yep. That's the point I was hoping someone would take from what I said....

--
So you run and you run
to catch up with the sun
but it's sinking; Racing around
to come up behind you again.

So the answer is "none"?

Phileas Fogg said:

dpophyte said:

How many exactly?

Some of this is just weird and the customers probably wouldn't want
it anyway. I'm not knocking anyone's artistry, but...pictures like
the woman fiddling with another woman's butt? I'm talking about one
from a gallery posted in this thread. It is just strange. Maybe
slightly deviant. A few of the shots were like that. Art?
Yep...but. And pictures with 1/3rd of a a guy's face cut off? Or
people with, "you boring little prick" expressions looking at each
other? That's fine actually, but to call it "wedding glow" is dam
ned cynical.

--
Muzak is not art.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
So you run and you run
to catch up with the sun
but it's sinking; Racing around
to come up behind you again.

1ofUs! said:

dp, . . . I couldn't find any pics of a woman fiddling with another
woman's butt . . .there was one of a bride getting her dress
buttoned up in Shay's portfolio - maybe that is the one you meant?

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what the caption said. She was hunched over fiddling with the other woman's butt.

1ofUs! said:

If so, firstly you have a strange (deviant?) way of looking at
things,

Click to expand...

Amen and thank you!

1ofUs! said:

and secondly - maybe you don't realize how important it is
to get all the buttons buttoned and in the right order and how
impossible that would be to do alone! lol. Buttoning in the bride
is almost a ceremony in itself. My wedding photography experience
is very limited, so maybe it doesn't count for much . . .but I took
lots of getting ready candids and the people involved like them
very much.

Click to expand...

I do too actually. The other pics (rings, rented cars, table settings, shoes, and so forth) tend to be glorifications of materialism and social stratification with no more intrinsic artistic merit than a J.C. Penny catalog....but candids require an eye for people and the social dynamic.

I could've pointed out other pictures I actually liked, even though perhaps some clients wouldn't....like the shot of a group sitting around a table where most of them are posed and smiling at the camera but one woman is looking down/off into the distance as though this whole thing is just really not her idea of a fun day out. And I like some of his "fine art" collection too.

That wasn't the point. The point was that what Fillius Phog considers to be the required minimum service to prevent bridal hysterics (OK, womanly tears if you prefer) may be another bride's worst nightmare.

1ofUs! said:

I know it is a matter of taste and preference, but for some clients
the candids turn out to be as important or more than the tradional
shots.

Click to expand...

And for someone else, the shots of the band or the guests thrashing in the mosh pit might be special favorites.

--
So you run and you run
to catch up with the sun
but it's sinking; Racing around
to come up behind you again.

dpophyte said:

Phileas Fogg said:

dpophyte said:

How many exactly?

Some of this is just weird and the customers probably wouldn't want
it anyway. I'm not knocking anyone's artistry, but...pictures like
the woman fiddling with another woman's butt? I'm talking about one
from a gallery posted in this thread. It is just strange. Maybe
slightly deviant. A few of the shots were like that. Art?
Yep...but. And pictures with 1/3rd of a a guy's face cut off? Or
people with, "you boring little prick" expressions looking at each
other? That's fine actually, but to call it "wedding glow" is dam
ned cynical.

--
Muzak is not art.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
So you run and you run
to catch up with the sun

Click to expand...

No, I woluld say in my years of studio work and selling myself as a wedding pro, Id have heard a few dozen horror stories and" I wish we had..." stories.

I have personaly photopgrapheed well over 400 weddings. Though I do not attack or abuse others' style. I know what looks good artistically and what looks as filler or incompetent. I know all too many brides to save money, hire only based on a photographers equipment and not so much onhis/her abilities or because such persoin 'whores' themsleves out not realising the amount of work it takes in total to put together a competent and professional wedding photography package and final results.

Having good equipmnent can make your job easier or more versatile, but until anyone can show me a camera itself pose, compose and create the image, I'd say the difference between beautiful wedding images and poor ones lies with the photographer.

Phileas Fogg said:

dpophyte said:

Phileas Fogg said:

dpophyte said:

How many exactly?

Some of this is just weird and the customers probably wouldn't want
it anyway. I'm not knocking anyone's artistry, but...pictures like
the woman fiddling with another woman's butt? I'm talking about one
from a gallery posted in this thread. It is just strange. Maybe
slightly deviant. A few of the shots were like that. Art?
Yep...but. And pictures with 1/3rd of a a guy's face cut off? Or
people with, "you boring little prick" expressions looking at each
other? That's fine actually, but to call it "wedding glow" is dam
ned cynical.

--
Muzak is not art.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
So you run and you run
to catch up with the sun

Click to expand...

No, I woluld say in my years of studio work and selling myself as a
wedding pro, Id have heard a few dozen horror stories and" I wish
we had..." stories.

I have personaly photopgrapheed well over 400 weddings. Though I
do not attack or abuse others' style. I know what looks good
artistically and what looks as filler or incompetent. I know all
too many brides to save money, hire only based on a photographers
equipment and not so much onhis/her abilities or because such
persoin 'whores' themsleves out not realising the amount of work it
takes in total to put together a competent and professional
wedding photography package and final results.

Having good equipmnent can make your job easier or more
versatile, but until anyone can show me a camera itself pose,
compose and create the image, I'd say the difference between
beautiful wedding images and poor ones lies with the photographer.

Click to expand...

Please excuse my typing, I am without a doubt the absolute worse typer around. LOL

You have to be able to produce enough light from a distance regardless of what camera you are shooting with if you are indoors under poor lighting which may very well be the case with most weddings. Some people recognize the difference between well taken pictures and poorly taken pictures. I wouldn't want to blow someone’s wedding with inadequate equipment. It is a once in a life time event for some. I think that is very selfish thing to do just to make some money to go to someone’s wedding not properly equipped and not having the proper knowledge to produce a good product.

yes of course it's the photog, not the camera... but in the end, we actually print the pics... and no matter how great the photographer is, the pictures will be worse from a digicam than from a decent DSLR...

we print, don't we? so if we intend to print the pics, it's important to have proper quality output. That's why I'd choose a 6MP Canon D60 over a 8MP Sony 828 any day. Those digicam wedding shooters (if they exist) probably don't know what they're doing. Or is it the couple that doesn't know what they're buying? I know, as long as the couple is happy, the job is done. But i think it's unfair to shoot important pictures with less than proper equipment. If you sell these, of course. If it's for free, no problem...

Phileas Fogg said:

Phileas Fogg said:

Phileas Fogg said:

but photography is not the camera, it's the person using such.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Guillaume
http://www.at-sight.com

dpophyte said:

And for someone else, the shots of the band or the guests thrashing
in the mosh pit might be special favorites.

Click to expand...

lol. Maybe so -

at anyrate we have veered off topic since the whole thread is about the level of equipment and my whole point in linking Shay's gallery in the first place was to show that skillfully shot and skillfully processed a different (some would say lower-quality) type of camera can produce professional looking results. I know large format, medium format, 35 mm, and higher quality dslr owners who look down their noses at the 10d level of kit . . . the original poster in this thread in turn does the same thing to P&Ss.

I personally wouldn't feel comfortable shooting a wedding with only a high end P&S (although as expressed above I would like to have one there) but some photogs, at some weddings, can pull it off. Buying more expensive equipment doesn't invalidate the capability of lower priced stuff nor does it assure a brilliant outcome. . .although we would like to think so sometimes. Cindy

dpophyte said:

--

Click to expand...

--
CindyD or SarahD
If one of us is laughing, and the other one isn't, one of us must be wrong...

Guillaume paris2 said:

Phileas Fogg said:

Guillaume paris2 said:

Guillaume paris2 said:

but photography is not the camera, it's the person using such.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Guillaume
http://www.at-sight.com

Click to expand...

I agree, equipment matters for final quality of image. My point is that no camera good or bad will make up for incompetent photography. GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT!

I do not doubt buying better equipmnet has its place, that was not my point and as I said earlier I love techie stuff too!. But too many people think that just because they bought the latest and greatest SLR or D-SLR or Med Format etc. that they automically become a Yousef Karsh. It "ain't" that simple. Many photographers are naturals at creativity, others balance their thirst to know the mechanics and utilise the equipment with formulas for success , but both of these types will create with confidence images people will want and will buy.

do you remember that you're looking at web-sized electronic images on Shay's website? do you remember what we usually say to the idiots oooooohing and aaaaaaaaaahing at the lack of noise in high ISO -web sized- pictures from any camera? yes, downsizing reduces noise, defects, misfocus... so they can't judge.

Most people actually PRINT their wedding pictures!! it's the print that counts!! and frankly, I don't think a 828 can print beautifully unless you shoot it at ISO100... which is not enough anyway at a wedding (unless once again it's in broad daylight only).

Yes the camera is more convenient, yes it's the photographer not the camera, yes a great photographer with a crappy camera is better than a newbie with a top-end camera, but in the end, it's the print that counts... and I'd be curious to see how a 828 compares side by side against my old D60. Print-wise, of course.

I'm not saying Shay's work is bad. Just that we're not looking at prints (enlargements at 8x11 and bigger, of course, not 4x6 where a 3MP digicam is more than enough).

I've tried a 828 one day, and this camera is veeeery responsive, AF is fast, shutter delay is short... but the image is pitiful. I couldn't believe my eyes back at the computer. I certainly wouldn't want my wedding shot with that crâp.

Guillaume
http://www.at-sight.com

Allthough i do agree i would not want to hire someone to turn up with a camera that costs just a bit more then i paid him. It just still isn't just the gear... i myself have a DSLR and a few lenses, still i see much better photographers with way cheaper gear from time to time, and at the same time i can see photographers i dare say are not quite as good as i am with waaaaay more gear then i have... It's not the pots and knives, it's the chef...

Phileas Fogg said:

dpophyte said:

Phileas Fogg said:

dpophyte said:

How many exactly?

Some of this is just weird and the customers probably wouldn't want
it anyway. I'm not knocking anyone's artistry, but...pictures like
the woman fiddling with another woman's butt? I'm talking about one
from a gallery posted in this thread. It is just strange. Maybe
slightly deviant. A few of the shots were like that. Art?
Yep...but. And pictures with 1/3rd of a a guy's face cut off? Or
people with, "you boring little prick" expressions looking at each
other? That's fine actually, but to call it "wedding glow" is dam
ned cynical.

--
Muzak is not art.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
So you run and you run
to catch up with the sun

Click to expand...

No, I woluld say in my years of studio work and selling myself as a
wedding pro, Id have heard a few dozen horror stories and" I wish
we had..." stories.

Click to expand...

I think this goes a ways towards making my basic point. These people were unhappy with their previous wedding photog, so on their next wedding they decided to "do it right". That's life...they make a mistake, they learn something, they go and make it again. No big deal.

I suppose you could argue that if the poor quality of the wedding photos really bothered someone, they could want to get remaried just to replace them. I would say it is unlikely, but these are people we are talking about and people do strange things.

Hmmm...I bet that's why a friend of mine actually had two weddings with the same bride. I had always sort of wondered what insanity led to it...it seemed like a waste to use the same bride for both. They didn't see it that way. I wrote it off to OCD (like locking and unlocking a door several times to "make sure".) Shrug. They called one the dress rehersal or something, but the wedding photos were from both. Very expensive and dull.

Next time you hear such a story you should tell your customers that you will shoot reweddings for a 10% discount. "You'll be so happy with these photos you'll forget the first wedding ever took place!"

Phileas Fogg said:

Though I do not attack or abuse others' style. I know what looks
good artistically and what looks as filler or incompetent.

Click to expand...

Where's the fun in that?

Phileas Fogg said:

I know all
too many brides to save money, hire only based on a photographers
equipment and not so much onhis/her abilities or because such
persoin 'whores' themsleves out not realising the amount of work it
takes in total to put together a competent and professional
wedding photography package and final results.

Having good equipmnent can make your job easier or more
versatile, but until anyone can show me a camera itself pose,
compose and create the image, I'd say the difference between
beautiful wedding images and poor ones lies with the photographer.

Click to expand...

I'd say in practice it lies with the customer's choice of photographers. Never having seen your work, I'd hazard a guess that you would make an abysmal wedding photographer for any of my weddings (at least without some stern talking to about what style I really wanted), because it sounds like you are focused on things I don't care about. On the other hand, you probably make an excellent wedding photog when you hit a couple that want what you have to offer, and I imagine they are more common.

BTW: Typos are nuthin... I've myself leaving out key words because I'm thinking faster than I'm typing. Sigh.

--
So you run and you run
to catch up with the sun
but it's sinking; Racing around
to come up behind you again.

I agree with what you are saying - that the 10d is far better equipped to produce a fine quality print than a high end P&S - and it is the prints that count. But I think we are too fast to dismiss these cameras. Shay sells his work for a lot of money and people buy the prints. He has also displayed very large prints at PMA from his Sony cams.

For that matter I've produced prints as large as 16X20 with a 3 MP P&S and won best of show over 400, mostly film - some medium format, prints. Could the 10d have made a higher quality print - no doubt. But it was the image that caught the judges eye. And I have this nagging feeling I might have missed that shot had I been using a DSLR because I would of probably had to change lenses or I wouldn't of been out there in the first place due to it being in the middle of a rainstorm! lol

Regarding ISO 100 - yes that is what P&S photogs usually stick to. But depending on lens choice you can sometimes shoot at 100 when a dslr would be at 400-800. Cindy

Guillaume paris2 said:

do you remember that you're looking at web-sized electronic images
on Shay's website? do you remember what we usually say to the
idiots oooooohing and aaaaaaaaaahing at the lack of noise in high
ISO -web sized- pictures from any camera? yes, downsizing reduces
noise, defects, misfocus... so they can't judge.
Most people actually PRINT their wedding pictures!! it's the print
that counts!! and frankly, I don't think a 828 can print
beautifully unless you shoot it at ISO100... which is not enough
anyway at a wedding (unless once again it's in broad daylight only).
Yes the camera is more convenient, yes it's the photographer not
the camera, yes a great photographer with a crappy camera is better
than a newbie with a top-end camera, but in the end, it's the print
that counts... and I'd be curious to see how a 828 compares side by
side against my old D60. Print-wise, of course.
I'm not saying Shay's work is bad. Just that we're not looking at
prints (enlargements at 8x11 and bigger, of course, not 4x6 where a
3MP digicam is more than enough).
I've tried a 828 one day, and this camera is veeeery responsive, AF
is fast, shutter delay is short... but the image is pitiful. I
couldn't believe my eyes back at the computer. I certainly wouldn't
want my wedding shot with that crâp.

Guillaume
http://www.at-sight.com

Click to expand...

--
CindyD or SarahD
If one of us is laughing, and the other one isn't, one of us must be wrong...

Hi Guillaume,

I tend to agree with you about the 828 not being quite up to snuff for any and all wedding situations. But with proper lighting (natural or artificial) you can get good print quality using it. I stopped using the 828 in wedding situations not because of image quality but because of camera performance. The 828 just takes way too much special handling to be an enjoyable camera to use for weddings on a weekly basis.

Now about noise, even the 10D shows noise at when using high ISO or when pushing lower ISO shots. I personally don't worry about noise since it can be made to look like film grain, and I think it adds character to wedding photos. And when discussing the lighting situation with clients, they nearly always think the same thing and are not worried or put off by "grain" in photos.

Some photographers will go to some pretty amazing lengths to put down "P&S" cameras and then turn around and extol the virtues of a camera like the Holga or Lomo. I find it funny and also illustrative of the fact that the choice of camera is an artistic and subjective decision for each photographer. So here again, I don't get too worked up about what camera one chooses to use, because in the end, it is the photographer that make the photograph, no the equipment, if you know what I mean ;-)

--
Portfolio: http://www.shaystephens.com/portfolio.asp

dpophyte said:

Some of this is just weird and the customers probably wouldn't want
it anyway. I'm not knocking anyone's artistry, but...pictures like
the woman fiddling with another woman's butt? I'm talking about one
from a gallery posted in this thread. It is just strange. Maybe
slightly deviant. A few of the shots were like that. Art?
Yep...but. And pictures with 1/3rd of a a guy's face cut off? Or
people with, "you boring little prick" expressions looking at each
other? That's fine actually, but to call it "wedding glow" is dam
ned cynical.

Click to expand...

Did you know that I specifically got hired by a bride because of this photo:



One thing I never try to do is try to please other photographers. So many are so focused on the technical that they nearly completely ignore the artistic side of things. The grainy, soft, color casted photos that so turn off the typical techno-shooter are the very photos that make the clients cry openly for joy even if it is not their wedding photos they are looking at.

And like all art, it will never appeal to everyone. There are some out there that like a certain style. Fortunately, there is a photographer out there somewhere who can satisfy that particular look or style. Imagine how dull it would be if we all shot the same thing in exactly the same way. We would then become a commodity and no one could make a living ;-)

Thank you for the comments by the way, I do appreciate them. Here are a few from this Saturday's wedding:
Getting ready and showing Dad the dress for the first time



West Point Chapel



And you probably won't like this one, but that is ok with me
Father hugging new son-in-law



So don't worry, be happy, all of our different styles, talents, and skills serve to make photography as a whole a better and happier experience to better serve clients

--
Portfolio: http://www.shaystephens.com/portfolio.asp

Shay Stephens said:

Did you know that I specifically got hired by a bride because of
this photo:

Click to expand...

LOL... good.

Shay Stephens said:

One thing I never try to do is try to please other photographers.
So many are so focused on the technical that they nearly completely
ignore the artistic side of things. The grainy, soft, color casted
photos that so turn off the typical techno-shooter are the very
photos that make the clients cry openly for joy even if it is not
their wedding photos they are looking at.

Click to expand...

Even I have been hit with that... I do some funky "artsy" composition with the whole scene shifted 45 degrees from sunday and whatever else (tilted lens, shifted perpective, whatever), and most people like it (or hate it, or shrug and walk off) but photogs (of a certain sort) say "the horizon isn't level."

Shay Stephens said:

And you probably won't like this one, but that is ok with me
Father hugging new son-in-law

Click to expand...

Actually, that's the best of that set. The first two are documentary but don't have (or show) much personality. They are "what happened that day,"...in other words, they are high quality snapshots. Nothing wrong with that, and it is just my opinion, but they aren't shots that would go in your portfolio. The last shot, OTOH...it is expressive.... the female is displaying real emotion, happy but also looking down as though she is perhaps trying to hide her thoughts, the males...who wants to consider what goes through male minds as they do such things, but at least it is action. The focus is well chosen. It is one of those glimpses everyone...well, I, and obviously you...catch as we look at the world, a [near] perfect moment that you, and only you, see for just that second or two -- if you didn't have a camera in your hand it is lost forever, or at best trapped in your memory where nobody else can ever see it. Capturing that instant is the reason a lot of people take up photography.

You and I may "see" different moments...that's part of what a photographer brings to the camera, but The Moment, in abstract, is the same.

--
So you run and you run
to catch up with the sun
but it's sinking; Racing around
to come up behind you again.

the digicams will have become as good as today's 10D... and everybody knows it will happen as technology evolves... I mean, in 2 or 3 years the 12MP sensors in these cams will be as good as can be, shot-to-shot performance will have improved and only their EVF will betray the digicam nature... then maybe we'll see pros using them and producing good prints. But what will the DSLRs look like at the same moment? yes, much better again!

Shay Stephens said:

quality but because of camera performance. The 828 just takes way
too much special handling to be an enjoyable camera to use for
weddings on a weekly basis.

Click to expand...

you mean the operating system & procedures are not usable under high pressure? just to think I found the 10D cumbersome to set a custom WB during last wedding...! what must it be like to shoot one with the 828... wow.

Shay Stephens said:

Now about noise, even the 10D shows noise at when using high ISO or
when pushing lower ISO shots. I personally don't worry about noise
since it can be made to look like film grain, and I think it adds
character to wedding photos. And when discussing the lighting
situation with clients, they nearly always think the same thing and
are not worried or put off by "grain" in photos.

Click to expand...

yes but when the 10D gets grainy (800), the 828 is already at 200 and grainy!

Shay Stephens said:

Some photographers will go to some pretty amazing lengths to put
down "P&S" cameras and then turn around and extol the virtues of a
camera like the Holga or Lomo. I find it funny and also
illustrative of the fact that the choice of camera is an artistic
and subjective decision for each photographer. So here again, I

Click to expand...

yes but in the end, it's not the photographer, it's the print that counts!! and this is probably where those guys prefer a Lomo to a 828... the Lomo gives "terrible" pictures but they have their charm (or so they think)... the only personality I can find on a 828 is its noise! LOL and that's an ugly noise...

Guillaume
http://www.at-sight.com

First off, I really enjoyed looking at your recent work. I think it's beautiful and your style has matured and grown so much since I last visited your website!

Completely off topic, I noticed that the dad in this picture appears to be taking a photo of the bride and she is looking at him rather than you (the paid pro). I know many pros are driven nuts by friends and family members who distract the bride and groom during weddings. You seem to be able to work fine under those circumstances. Would you mind sharing your philosophy about how to deal with amateur photogs when you are shooting weddings?

I am asking because I have only shot one wedding and I was really stressed by a few aggressive amateurs. I have another wedding coming up to shoot and would like to deal with the situation better.

Lisa

Shay Stephens said:

Getting ready and showing Dad the dress for the first time

Click to expand...

--
LisaFX
http://www.pbase.com/lisafx