Age is just one of those things that kind of creeps up on you. One day
you're 21 and the next you're 92. But you do tend to gain a little
wisdom along the way. Well, at least enough to know to keep the bride's
mother happy. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
On 10/5/2010 7:05 PM, siddiq@xxxxxxx wrote:
> 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/
|