yes, I know this is for professional wedding photographers and most people in this section hate the "Uncle Bob" with his old and cheap Canon Rebel XSi/450D doing wedding photography instead of hiring a professional. Probably makes your blood boil! but what the heck, I'll post my experience and you can go ahead criticize and comment. The bride really didn't care about photos, she just wanted a few pics to record the event and that became obvious because she didn't even want photos before the 6:00 PM ceremony, she repeatedly said skip it, she was too busy. Didn't want anyone seeing the dress or something. But I was prepared, another guest had a back-up camera (there were actually three guests with DSLR cameras) I had off-camera lighting and an umbrella but never got to use it. (and I really wanted to set-up some nice shots). I had spare batteries, cards, etc. I did get some nice shots of the bride and groom the day before the wedding and I got some decent shots of the ceremony and reception and dinner afterwards. Everything was fast moving and little time so it was mostly candid shots on the go, nothing really prepared lighting-wise. I ended up taking over 500 pics and put 300 on a DVD. I think everything went OK, the bride and other guests like the photos.
NYstyles wrote:
I think you did great for being an Uncle Bob.
To the above poster what do looks have to do with coverage? I dont get it... Im one of those 'pretty' girls and I still dont get it.
Two separate thoughts that ended up in the same paragraph.
dmacmillan wrote:
She's a pretty girl. I'm not sure why she didn't want more coverage.
both the bride and groom were above average in the "looks" dept
They probably have millions of pics of them. But yes, I wanted to shoot more especially on the wedding day but minimal coverage was their choice. - thx
dmacmillan wrote:
They are decent. Your fill flash is too hot for my taste, but if she's not interested in photos, you provided good coverage.
She's a pretty girl. I'm not sure why she didn't want more coverage.
This may be the most misogynistic comment I've seen on here since I've been around. WTH does it matter if your eyes find her attractive or not as to whether she should want pictures taken of her? Check yourself.
Jamesbjenkins wrote:
This may be the most misogynistic comment I've seen on here since I've been around. WTH does it matter if your eyes find her attractive or not as to whether she should want pictures taken of her? Check yourself.
My eyes are rolling nearly out of my head. Also, I don't think you understand the meaning of the big word you used.
Ian Ivey wrote:
My eyes are rolling nearly out of my head. Also, I don't think you understand the meaning of the big word you used.
Let me quote from Wikipedia to make it simpler for you: " Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women...and sexual objectification of women." So, yeah, I'm pretty sure I know what the word means.
Now, can we get back to talking about pictures, please?
Jamesbjenkins wrote:
Let me quote from Wikipedia to make it simpler for you: " Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women...and sexual objectification of women." So, yeah, I'm pretty sure I know what the word means.
Now, can we get back to talking about pictures, please?
, well, if you need wikipedia to define a word you used, bless your heart. In any case, none of the three examples (discrimination, denigration, or objectification) were present in the post that was the subject of your overwrought outburst.
dmac was talking about pictures, namely the subject of the photos in this thread. His post was reasonable, and even though it was possible to interpret it multiple ways, none of them could reasonably be called mysogynistic. And he went so far as to clarify his comment prior to your complaint. So, sure, let's get back to talking about pictures.
Jamesbjenkins wrote:
Let me quote from Wikipedia to make it simpler for you: " Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women...and sexual objectification of women." So, yeah, I'm pretty sure I know what the word means.
Now, can we get back to talking about pictures, please?
THIS is why people can't even give compliments in the office these days Can't even get on a forum without someone calling some form of harassment. It's mostly a compliment to her looks....there's really nothing wrong with that bit of included statement.
There must be something in the water today because my partner she is on like 11 of the mood meter. I read the pretty comment but it didn't mean anything to me. Then again, my breakfast order and my lunch order got screwed and I still ate them both, guess I just didnt' care enough, but my partner was well like wow, good thing she didn't have her gun.
yes, I know this is for professional wedding photographers and most people in this section hate the "Uncle Bob" with his old and cheap Canon Rebel XSi/450D doing wedding photography instead of hiring a professional. Probably makes your blood boil! but what the heck, I'll post my experience and you can go ahead criticize and comment. The bride really didn't care about photos, she just wanted a few pics to record the event and that became obvious because she didn't even want photos before the 6:00 PM ceremony, she repeatedly said skip it, she was too busy. Didn't want anyone seeing the dress or something. But I was prepared, another guest had a back-up camera (there were actually three guests with DSLR cameras) I had off-camera lighting and an umbrella but never got to use it. (and I really wanted to set-up some nice shots). I had spare batteries, cards, etc. I did get some nice shots of the bride and groom the day before the wedding and I got some decent shots of the ceremony and reception and dinner afterwards. Everything was fast moving and little time so it was mostly candid shots on the go, nothing really prepared lighting-wise. I ended up taking over 500 pics and put 300 on a DVD. I think everything went OK, the bride and other guests like the photos. ...Show more →
Well, you were not hired to shoot this wedding and you worked it for free anyway? (You were a guest, I presume). You were not the "official photographer" and yet you came back with over 500 pictures? You did not get paid and yet you gave them 300 pics on a disc for free? You are not a wedding pro and yet you had off camera lighting and an umbrella in the car and you were disappointed that you could not use it? You carried a backup camera and extra batteries and cards, like a pro would do. You got church pictures, outdoor pictures and reception pictures. Does anyone else see the irony in a guest doing this?
williamkazak wrote:
Well, you were not hired to shoot this wedding and you worked it for free anyway? (You were a guest, I presume). You were not the "official photographer" and yet you came back with over 500 pictures? You did not get paid and yet you gave them 300 pics on a disc for free? You are not a wedding pro and yet you had off camera lighting and an umbrella in the car and you were disappointed that you could not use it? You carried a backup camera and extra batteries and cards, like a pro would do. You got church pictures, outdoor pictures and reception pictures. Does anyone else see the irony in a guest doing this?...Show more →
Come on williamkazak !!! the topic is now about "Misogyny" not about an Uncle Bob doing such an extensive reportage that the B&G dont have to hire a pro.
williamkazak wrote:
Well, you were not hired to shoot this wedding and you worked it for free anyway? (You were a guest, I presume). You were not the "official photographer" and yet you came back with over 500 pictures? You did not get paid and yet you gave them 300 pics on a disc for free? You are not a wedding pro and yet you had off camera lighting and an umbrella in the car and you were disappointed that you could not use it? You carried a backup camera and extra batteries and cards, like a pro would do. You got church pictures, outdoor pictures and reception pictures. Does anyone else see the irony in a guest doing this?...Show more →
I think though that they were having 0 coverage anyways, so Uncle Bob stepped in; in such a case, I can't see the real harm. I mean, these images are nice snapshots for sure, but really not on any level of someone who does this for a living. If this was instead of a pro ('don't worry about hiring someone, I can do it for free!') or even taken while the pro was trying to do his job, then that's another matter.
jeremy_clay wrote:
I think though that they were having 0 coverage anyways, so Uncle Bob stepped in; in such a case, I can't see the real harm. I mean, these images are nice snapshots for sure, but really not on any level of someone who does this for a living. If this was instead of a pro ('don't worry about hiring someone, I can do it for free!') or even taken while the pro was trying to do his job, then that's another matter.
Maybe they would have had to hire a pro even when they thought they werent, sure not every guest doing the reportage for "free" is keeping away a pro from their duty but surely sometimes they are.
jmraso wrote:
Maybe they would have had to hire a pro even when they thought they werent, sure not every guest doing the reportage for "free" is keeping away a pro from their duty but surely sometimes they are.
Nice stuff in your site bytheway
Definitely possible too. I mean, if the couple is really interested in ensuring quality results, we must hope they would check with a Bob's portfolio ahead of time and if they are happy with that, then all the best to them saving the money and getting a free photographer for their day. I'd think though that most working pros even in lower brackets have portfolios exceeding this (no offense intended to OP), but in a time where some major togs portfolios look is being replicated by cellphone apps, a professional needs to really deliver something above and beyond to win clients over as to why they are worth bueno bucks. Cheers for the kind words as well.
you did great given the circumstances that she didn't really want many photos, it happens to us paid photographers sometimes the bride and groom eventually just want to enjoy the party and not spend more time doing photos... so I can relate to your desire to do more but not have willing subjects, you just do what you can with what you are given
, well, if you need wikipedia to define a word you used, bless your heart. In any case, none of the three examples (discrimination, denigration, or objectification) were present in the post that was the subject of your overwrought outburst. 
Can't even get on a forum without someone calling some form of harassment. It's mostly a compliment to her looks....there's really nothing wrong with that bit of included statement.
Why go out of your way to be a condescending jerk?