oh. my. god. don’t even get me started on it.
i’m way too young to sound like you old farts (j/k) but there’s no substitute
for knowledge and know how and experience. *THAT’S* what you pay for. Sure
equipment goes a long way towards making it work, but a GOOD photog can get
great shots out of even a mediocre camera. A wanna be can get OK results most
of the time, especially since society today is full of dumbed down lowest
common denominator “this will do mentality” crowd, not willing to pay for what
it really takes. Sure, if ‘most of the time, and this is ok’ is good enough.
subtlety is a lost art.
no, i’m not jealous of my friend, just out of undergraduate college, who has a
carload of expensive new cameras, lights, computers, and inkjets, but it irks
me that she passes herself off as pro. she might look like it, but her products
sure don’t. and she’s booked solid every weekend months in advance. clearly
she’s doing something right. or they’re all crazy.
i’m gonna go load up two OM-1n’s with Fuji 400, stick a 50/1.8 on one, and a
28/3.5 on the other, and go shoot some stuff this weekend.
wow, i sound old and crabby, and i’m one of hte younger ones on the list (no
longer the youngest i’m afraid).
what have all turned me into?!
/s
On Oct 5, 2010, at 3:45 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> In the spring I attended the wedding of the daughter of a good friend.
> The wedding photogs looked like a pair of twin sisters in their late
> 20's. They were each sporting a pair of Canon 5D Mk IIs. One of the
> cameras carried a 24-70/2.8 and the other a 70-200/2.8 as well as being
> fitted with 580EX II flash units (in the hot shoe and pointed straight
> up). I suspect the reflector panel was also up for a little forward
> flash but I couldn't tell. The wedding was in an old, stone
> Presbyterian church which was a bit like a mini-cathedral. Very high
> ceilings of stone and wood beams. I spoke to one of the photogs later
> and asked what they had been doing and she said they were definitely
> bouncing off the ceiling at high ISO.
>
> I haven't seen any of the in-church photos but I've seen the outdoor
> stuff which was OK. Except the mother was very distraught in that
> certain key photos she had very explicitly requested were never taken.
> In particular, there isn't a single photo that shows the bride's full
> (and lengthy) train.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> On 10/5/2010 5:46 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>> I've been observing the "current m/o" of other wedding photographers lately.
>> I'm seeing lots of untrained individuals doing the "I bought a technology
>> solution which somehow does its thing so I don't have to think abou it"
>> routine.
>>
>> 4. Bouncing the on-camera flash off the ceiling. OK, no problem--except the
>> ceiling was very high... That's OK, though. I'm sure she was shooting at ISO
>> 12800.
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|