Beating the pro

[MarkLe]

centralcoastmagazine,

the topic here is amateurs beating pros, so weddings are more diffucult than shooting fur fun where if a picture doesn't come out right who cares

the approach is different, the attitude is different, the resbonsability is different

mark

http://www.imagingphotographics.com

 

[LeeBase]

the topic here is amateurs beating pros, so weddings are more
diffucult than shooting fur fun where if a picture doesn't come out
right who cares

Not "on the whole" but on "any given Sunday". Every now and again there's a wedding and one of the guests shoots shots that are better.

Doesn't mean they can do so every time. Doesn't mean the can beat any and every pro. Doesn't mean the pro shouldn't be paid. Or anything like that.

It SHOULD mean that folks who tell of their experience shouldn't be mocked or ridiculed as if they are claiming to have done the impossible.

the approach is different, the attitude is different, the
resbonsability is different

Absolutely.

Lee

 

[AlanG]

I don't shoot weddings for a living. I used to shoot them when I was a kid of 14-16 years old. They weren't hard for me to do at the time, but I had low standards and I guess my clients did too. At least they had low expectations if they hired a kid. But I did a pretty good job all in all. (I had a natural talent.)

I can remember one wedding - the groom looked ok but the bride was quite homely. Her father had suffered a stroke and had a droopy face and a very distorted mouth. This was a little shocking for me to deal with at 15! I remember thinking, "How will I make these pictures look good?" Then I guess I decided that they knew what they looked like and I plunged ahead.

Now I'm a commercial photographer. I crave and sometimes demand total control. With weddings, the photographer has minimal control. You can't tell the subject to repeat their kiss at the alter over and over again while you, the AD, and the client check each frame on the computer (tethered to the camera.) And with wedding photography you have to either think real fast on your feet, or have everything buttoned down and tested. You have to be pretty conservative with lighting technique and can't take too many chances and still guarantee results.

Additionally, what I think is a big problem is having to please your subjects. In commercial photography, I hire models and if they don't like the way I make them look, I don't care as long as my client is happy with the picture. And I don't have to try to get into their head and pick up their foibles or deal with any anxiety or family probnlems that may be bubbling beneath the surface.

None of these things are a problem for the guest who shows up with a camera either.

Alan Goldstein

http://www.goldsteinphoto.com

 

[centralcoastmagazine]

Aside: Thanks for another great architectural link...

Would love to see you camera collection for that one... another forum
topic I guess. My limited architectural work is done with my Silvestir S4,
my favorite camera.


Yes, control or lack of it in wedding is a concern. Since you are a commercial,
model and commercial photographer, you get used to control in your work.
It might be a bit fustrating to jump into the middle of a crowd and switch
mind set.

That is a challenge, but in your example of the "homely" family, you rise to
the challenge and they were probably very happy.

Have you ever heard a mother say "It is so much work to raise kids"? I hate to
hear statements like that because they should be saying how much of a joy it is
to raise them!

Same when I hear that photography is "difficult". It is just a mind set and
reflects how you approach the subject.

If I heard an assistant day his work was 'difficult', they would get a good long
chat asap..... I just don't want that mind set and certainly not on the job.

Since this thread is about 'Beating the Pro', then it does have a connection.

The connection is about attitude. Attitude will reflect in the work and All these
amateurs with digital seem to have the passion and fast learning curve to nip
at the heals of any pro if they so desire. Heck, they may reach that goal with
a bit of experience.

So, are weddings difficult..... nope.... not at all...... it is just my experience.

Well, a 100k digital portraits behind me doesn't hurt either....

 

[MarkLe]

all true,

and yes, they do prefer the pictures where they look good in it, regardless of the overall quality.

About repeating the scenes... well, sometimes I do but I feel deeply sorry when it happens, but it happens (exchanging rings for example, not kisses..that I couldn't do! eheh)

Mark

http://www.imagingphotographics.com

 

[MarkLe]

LeeBase

better pictures than mine?

nahh.. that would be all considered impossible

eheh

Mark

http://www.imagingphotographics.com

 

[LeeBase]

Lee

LeeBase

better pictures than mine?

nahh.. that would be all considered impossible

eheh

Mark

http://www.imagingphotographics.com

 

[eyevibe]

Your a funny guy!

As for the "I worked years....and they show up....." --- I'm only
bothered if "they" interefere with my work. If they happen to get
some great shots -- good as or better than mine -- what's that to
me?

Lee

People cook all the time. Only some try it as a profession.

Practically everyone takes pictures.

Only some try taking pictures as a profession.

See everybody can be good at things others are good at. I can't
stand here and say no one takes better photos than me (I don't
think anyone can) but I think what blows pro's away (and not all of
them!) is that they have taken years to perfect their craft,
establish their business and book a wedding and someone else comes
in with their weekend hobby and tries to compete. It's not about
who can get a better first kiss shot, it's about doing a wonderful
job for the B&G so they have memories to cherish forever. If you
want to be a wedding photogrpaher, be one, there is room for
everyone, but constantly ranting about who is better the am or the
pro or the pro was shooting an old film camera and I had my new
MKII equates to who has a bigger......ego!
--
m.munoz

--
m.munoz

 

[John Burns]

Another photographer whom I met in a lab, one time, was known to
swear at his customers guests . For instance, he would be happy
telling individuals to look at his camera or "get the f*k out of
the way". For whatever reason, he was still in business.

LOL. He might even become vice-president!!

-
John

 

[Andrew Chiciak]

I just chimed in on this thread and, Lee, if maturity is the sign of a good photographer, you are definitely not one. I think what he is trying to explain is that there has to be an element of repeatability and a certain amount of knowledge and control of the elements around you week in and week out...good or bad. Sure anyone with a fairly decent camera and an eye can grab those shots when the conditions are great and the people are very good looking, lighting is adequate and even. But try to shoot under conditions I had yesterday, when it rained heavily the entire day and the humidity was horrible and the people were irritated...I still had to produce and use all of my skiills and training and understanding of lighting characteristics to make the most of the day. It does take time and experience to achieve this. There are many talented photographers...I was talented when I first started and managed to get some very good shots despite my ignorance. The difference with me now after 30 years is that I have that library of triumphs and failures in my brain to help me keep the quality consistent and at the same time fresh.Doesn't make me more talented than you....just wiser.

I suggest that you post a gallery of the ten best shots from your last 20 weddings so we can see how great you really are....after all "a picture is ...... a thousand words."

 

[Andrew Chiciak]

"all pros are not created equal" The same can be said of many professions,

there are good and bad accountants...although most people can balance their checkbook, it does not qualify them as a CPA. We understand your point....there are people hired to do weddings who probably shouldn't be paid for the quality of work they are producing....there are construction workers who do a shoddy job of building houses that fall apart within a few years. Some people care about their work and do their best to stay on top of things...I know I do..... and I really don't appreciate some snide amateur coming up alongside me with the sole purpose of "showing me up" just because he has a camera and an attitude. It just doesn't prove anything and BTW this whole post is ridiculous. Wedding photography the way I do it is very hard work...I doubt that many wannabees would really want to go thru the effort and time I put into my work. BTW, I have attended Dennis Reggie's workshop in Atlanta and he gets $42,000 to personally shoot a wedding now....he is booked every weekend....is he worth it? I think to the people who hire him...he is.

But don't you think that folks should be treated according to who
THEY are and not what class of people they belong to?

if any mention of an "any given Sunday" moment or a "lucky set of
shots" moment brings out uncalled for derision -- you gotta wonder
how these people are handling themselves as pros at their events.

People skills and personality are a big part of pleasing the client
-- are they not?

Clearly, though, there is an underlying stress to this industry
that I had not formerly understood. It's difficult as the paradigm
upone which one makes a living shifts. I understand as a software
developer -- and industry that's going through it's own turmoil.

Lee

Ok...I think I've about had my fill of the snide remarks from the
pro's about folks who shoot at wedding who aren't pro.

There are tons of threads about "outshooting the pro". Who are
they talking about? For every wedding photographer who I would
consider a pro, there must be 50 guys with a camera who are paid to
show up at the wedding. Some are weekenders, some are "wannabees"
and some have studios and are members of PPA (which, at worst,
means absolutely nothing).

I think your friend who does "amazing" work might qualify as a pro.

Sorry you've got your panties in a wad, but consider the
perspective of those who do wedding photography for their
liveliehood. Wedding photography has gone through many revolutions
since the days wedding formals of the B&G being taken with 8x10's(I
have some negs to prove it). Every revolution has reduced the cost
of being a wedding photographer, both in technical expertise and in
equipment. The shift to digital is the lastest and one of the
biggest changes. Digital includes not only cameras, but also
ancilliary equipment. For a couple of hundred bucks, anyone can
buy a scanner and printer that will provide them with high quality
copies of a photograph. Wedding photographers are getting
squeezed by both avid amateurs with sophisticated equipment who
give away their photos and by the rampant copying of proofs and
prints by the customer.

Wedding photography as it existed in the 70's, 80's and early 90's
is gone. At best, the full time wedding photographer will have to
change their entire business model. At worst they won't survive.
While avid amateurs have been a fact of life for 30 or 40 years,
digital has significantly increased their numbers and their threat.
It is understandable for some pros to regard them as the "enemy"
and make snide remarks. You also need to realize, as I learned in
the 20 years as a pro (mostly commercial, but some weddings), a
significant portion of the avid amateurs are just plain PITAs.

Doug

--
Andy C

 

[Chris George205457]

I learn something new every time I shoot a wedding, and that's what I love about doing it. Hopefully I'll hit that zone one day where the only thing that I worry about is my ability to press the shutter at the right moment. When I've hit that zone where I'm totally confident in all the technical aspects of the profession, and the only thing I'm doing is creating art. My wife has a pretty good handle on that aspect of photography, I'm playing catchup. But that's why she's the boss.

-Chris
Always on the lookout for that perfect candid.

thanks, Chris, you have enough passion to know the feel (in zone) and
the experience to make it technically 'easy' and those moments
challenging
and rewarding at the same time.

Part of the business model one picks up over the years is to answer
every
question and seek solutions to any challenge. The more you work
these out
with experience, the more you feel in the zone. That is where you
are a
pro with and 'eye' and not a pro with a (expensive digital)
camera.....

 

[LeeBase]

Who said that they hobbyist is better than the seasoned photographer -- and I've made NO claims of being anything special myself.

With your 30 years of experience, do you go around dissing someone who mentions about the time they out shot the pro?

That's what I was addressing. It can and does happen. Every day is not like the day you just shot. Every pro does not have your 30 years of experience.

Lee

I just chimed in on this thread and, Lee, if maturity is the sign
of a good photographer, you are definitely not one. I think what he
is trying to explain is that there has to be an element of
repeatability and a certain amount of knowledge and control of the
elements around you week in and week out...good or bad. Sure anyone
with a fairly decent camera and an eye can grab those shots when
the conditions are great and the people are very good looking,
lighting is adequate and even. But try to shoot under conditions I
had yesterday, when it rained heavily the entire day and the
humidity was horrible and the people were irritated...I still had
to produce and use all of my skiills and training and understanding
of lighting characteristics to make the most of the day. It does
take time and experience to achieve this. There are many talented
photographers...I was talented when I first started and managed to
get some very good shots despite my ignorance. The difference with
me now after 30 years is that I have that library of triumphs and
failures in my brain to help me keep the quality consistent and at
the same time fresh.Doesn't make me more talented than you....just
wiser.

I suggest that you post a gallery of the ten best shots from your
last 20 weddings so we can see how great you really are....after
all "a picture is ...... a thousand words."

 

[Mickey64564]

I'm always interested in viewing inspirational and exceptional wedding work. Does this high end shooter have a website? I'd like to take a look at his work.

Thanks,

Michael

Ok...I think I've about had my fill of the snide remarks from the
pro's about folks who shoot at wedding who aren't pro.

Is it REALLY that hard to believe that some of the non-pros can
equal or better the hired help?

I have a friend who runs a wedding photography business. His work
(and those of the shooters who work for him) are AMAZING. I went
on a shoot with him and he included a couple of my shots in his
presentation to the client -- didn't have my "pro gear" at the time.

Anyway -- there's NO WAY I can outshoot this guy. Not now....not
for a long time. Then again, he's a high end wedding photographer
-- second generation, grew up in the business and now runs it.

On the other hand -- I can CERTAINLY do better than the pro we
hired 14 years ago that did OUR wedding.

All pros are not equal. And frankly, there are some rather
talented shooters who just don't happen to shoot for a living.

Lee

--
Equipment list in my profile
http://www.morpheusmultimedia.com/gallery

 

[LeeBase]

As some folks have reacted rather angrily to this thread -- I'm not sure I want to subject this guy to harrassment.

Lee

 

[Mickey64564]

No problem, I understand. Could you possibly email me the link to his site so I can take a look? My email address is in my profile. I promise I won't contact him...just want take a look at his work.

Thanks,

Michael

As some folks have reacted rather angrily to this thread -- I'm not
sure I want to subject this guy to harrassment.

Lee

--
Equipment list in my profile
http://www.morpheusmultimedia.com/gallery

 

[Andrew Chiciak]

Yes, but what is the point of your post....consistency is the issue here, which comes with developing your skills over time. An amateur golfer can have the game of his life and shoot a very low score once in a while, but the pro has to do it week after week.

With your 30 years of experience, do you go around dissing someone
who mentions about the time they out shot the pro?

That's what I was addressing. It can and does happen. Every day
is not like the day you just shot. Every pro does not have your 30
years of experience.

Lee

I just chimed in on this thread and, Lee, if maturity is the sign
of a good photographer, you are definitely not one. I think what he
is trying to explain is that there has to be an element of
repeatability and a certain amount of knowledge and control of the
elements around you week in and week out...good or bad. Sure anyone
with a fairly decent camera and an eye can grab those shots when
the conditions are great and the people are very good looking,
lighting is adequate and even. But try to shoot under conditions I
had yesterday, when it rained heavily the entire day and the
humidity was horrible and the people were irritated...I still had
to produce and use all of my skiills and training and understanding
of lighting characteristics to make the most of the day. It does
take time and experience to achieve this. There are many talented
photographers...I was talented when I first started and managed to
get some very good shots despite my ignorance. The difference with
me now after 30 years is that I have that library of triumphs and
failures in my brain to help me keep the quality consistent and at
the same time fresh.Doesn't make me more talented than you....just
wiser.

I suggest that you post a gallery of the ten best shots from your
last 20 weddings so we can see how great you really are....after
all "a picture is ...... a thousand words."

--
Andy C

 

[LeeBase]

Yes, but what is the point of your post....consistency is the issue
here, which comes with developing your skills over time. An amateur
golfer can have the game of his life and shoot a very low score
once in a while, but the pro has to do it week after week.

Ok...let's work with this example as it is very illustrative. Let's say this is a golfer's forum where amateurs are also allowed to participate. Along comes one amateur who talks about the pro-am tourney he was in where he shot lower than the pro.

And he's pounced on by "pro's" making fun of him and scoffing at the idea that any amateur could ever beat a pro.

My post would be in reply to those nasty behaving pro's that -- "come on, any given Sunday somebody can beat the pro" so there's no call for ridiculing folks who tell there story.

Doesn't mean that they can beat the pro all the time -- or even ever again. But that day, they did -- and there's no reason to ridicule them.

Lee

 

[Michael Long]

so there's no call for ridiculing folks who tell there story.

True.

Doesn't mean that they can beat the pro all the time -- or even
ever again. But that day, they did....

But that then ignores the obvious. Because on that same day 99.9% of all the other amateurs playing out there did not.

It's just the Ansel argument in disguise. "Well, give Ansel Adams a P&S, and he could..."

Which, while comparing the poster in his own mind to Ansel, conveniently ignores the fact that the vast majority of us are in fact NOT Ansels, or Annies, or Tigers, or whomever else takes your fancy.

Yes, on any given day, a handful of amateurs may outshoot the pros.

But how many did not?

And what were the consequences?

 

[KenEis]

Pros aways beat amatures? No. Amatures sometimes beat pros? Yes

I just "shot" my family reunion and beat the pro that did it last reunion hands down. Is this because I'm better then the pro? 80% chance that I'm not. The reason is that I stayed at the reunion for 4 solid days and nights and was there for a bunch of activities and interactions. The pro came for a group of formal portraits. I knew all the people involved and could engage them to get good expressions etc. So yes I can beat the pro on my own turf. But I would never say I could at someone elses reunion.

For formal portraits and wedding shots I could do a competent job but I'd want them to hire the pro with better lighting and understanding of the details of portrai poses etc.

Just because us advanced amatures have the equipment that provide in focus, well exposed images doesn't mean they carry the emotional impact a good pro can get with proper lighting and modeling.

If there is one thing I've learned doing a lot of photography in the last 35 years is that I'm not that good with people. I'll pose a mushroom with the best of them but not my wife. In this day and age of instant information everyone thinks they can do anything if they just buy expensive gear. I know enough to know I don't know it all.

On the other hand -- I can CERTAINLY do better than the pro we
hired 14 years ago that did OUR wedding.

To bad you got a bad photographer and you did not know how to hire a
good one. Maybe you learned. Maybe you found a wana-be?

The point is -- the person was a full time "pro" and I'm sure that
lots of folks on the forum here could have done a better job. Thus
I don't greet with skepticism the stories folks tell of when they
"out shot the pro".

Because frankly, it's not that hard to do. Rather than "most all"
pros being "awesome" like my friend is -- I'd say that there's a
good many of them that aren't really all that good.

So this high and might stance of "pro" is something I don't give
much credence to. If they are "talented" then they are "talented"
-- pro or not.

The fact that some folks do this day in and day out is not what
makes them worthwhile. Only what they can produce.

Listening to some of "the pros" on this "pros" forum dis the "non
pros" is reminiscent of reading a Nikon forum where nothing but
Nikon gear is worthy.

Lee

--
Ken Eis