TTLKurtis wrote:
There are many ways to skin a cat, not all of them require the most expensive gear.
As many here know, I prefer skinning my cats with only the finest, but it's not a requirement.
And I would think most people here are of the same (or mostly) the same opinion.
I have seen plenty of wedding shooters use sub-pro level gear. The studio (or "factory", you might say) that I worked with for a few years was full of photographers shooting on pro-sumer level bodies and lenses. In fact, the studio owner had asked me if he could "borrow" the numbers from my L glass so they could qualify for a higher tier of CPS. Apparently of the 10+ photographers on staff, I was the only one with more than one piece of L glass and most had none.
I remember when I was first starting out with them one person told me to be sure to stop down to 6.3 or 7.1 or so to ensure images are in focus. I then realized that most people were using 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 IS lenses...
If I could have swooped down and handed the wedding photographer mentioned by the OP a couple of 1Ds's and a full complement of L glass, I doubt the results would have been much different. If I could swoop down and snatch a 1Ds or 5D out of the hands of a talented wedding photographer and replace it with a Rebel with a kit lens, the results may be a little more different but still would be fine.
The lack of appropriate equipment is just one more indicator the photographer mentioned doesn't have what it takes. While it's painful and I think damaging to the industry, a significant amount of blame should be placed at the feet of the consumer who continues to hire the unqualified.
I'm glad the OP referred to the offending party as the WP, not the wedding pro. There's a lot of photographers showing up at weddings and getting paid nowadays, but there are precious few professional photographers showing up.
I have gone to several weddings where the guests have "better" and definitely more expensive cameras than the hired pro. Yervant made the comment that I really like... he says he doesn't care that the guests have better cameras, or that they're shooting at the same time as he is. In the end, his images will come out better because he will take the time to post process, and his images will be presented as "finished" products. Now, unless the guest who's also shooting is getting paid a lot of money, I doubt that he's going to spend the hours making sure all his images are top quality. So when the bride and groom has seen everyone elses (emailed to them or quickly printed), they then get to see Yervants... 4 weeks later, and well... the rest is history.
Wedding photography has always been about the final images. Back in the old days, we paid money for someone to process our prints, and do the montages, and the burning and dodging. Now, we do it ourselves; but it was always a huge part of the process. Another part of the process is "sales". You can have the best images in the world, but if you can't win the clients with your business savvy (regardless of what camera you use), you don't have a business, you just have pretty pictures.
RichardLavigne wrote:
This is bunk... every single one of us judges the companies we deal with based on their level of technology and gear they use and provide us with the product we want. When you take your car to get worked on, do you bring it to the shop down the street that can do laser alignment or do you bring it to uncle bobby because he can do a string alignment? Are you still using dial up to access Fred Miranda or have you upgraded to the new fangled high speed internet?
If you've chosen to use 20 year old manual focus lenses.... you've chosen to do so because in your professional opinion they offer you a look and style that isn't compatibly with the latest technology. It's still a decision that's based on experience and knowledge. a Rebel T2i and kit lens represents none of those things and using one in a professional setting is silly. ...Show more →
It's not bunk.
If I get the same download speeds out of a 3 year old obsolete cable modem as you do out of a newly install top of the line modem, does that make my connection lacking because the hardware used to achieve it isn't brand new?
Using your alignment example. If we both take our cars to a shop and you use one way to get your car aligned and I choose another, but after all is said and done, both cars are now back to full factory spec, is your car automatically better because your way of getting an alignment is technologically superior?
I've chosen to use manual lenses not because of the look and style, but simply because they are dirt cheap in relation to the more advanced technologies out there now. Do any of the lenses take better or worse pictures? I'm sure it's quantifiable if you stripped down the picture to it's absolute base form, but as far as being able to take a properly exposed, in focus, interesting photo at a wedding, does it matter if I used my 105 2.5 manual focus glass as opposed to my 105 2.8 ED AF-S VR nano coated glass?
Can you define for me what would classify as pro gear? What exactly it is that turns a piece of metal and glass or plastic and circuit boards from a novice item into a professional item?
If the photog can make money with entry level gear, then great for them! Lower cost helps increase profit margin. The T2i despite being a rebel has many great features that were only available to pro-cameras a few years ago.
It is sad that so many people judge the prowess of a photographer by his/her gear.
Have you ever encountered after having a great meal at a friend's or relative's place and asked them what utensils they use? We sure don't. Instead it is always about ingredients and methods.
In my years of dealing with clients, I have not once asked what sort of gear I use.
monoatomic72 wrote:
Can you define for me what would classify as pro gear? What exactly it is that turns a piece of metal and glass or plastic and circuit boards from a novice item into a professional item?
it is quiet easy ....
'pro' gear generally has different plastic/metals/glass.
there are different grades of metal/plastics/glass.
Then the different material will be processed thru different manufacturing techniques to obtain a higher quality product.
Example: hand tool. We can grab a fairly soft metal and use a press to shape it into a tool.
metal is cheap and the process is fast.
Or we can spend a little more money, buy a chrome alloy steel and forge it.
This tool while performing the same job - will last longer, take more punishment in use without losing it size/tolerance.
there is a saying in the Automated-manufacturing world:
You have commercial grade, military grade, NASA grade then you have Allen Bradley grade.
Allen Bradley designs and builds PLC (think an extreme, built like a tank, computer) that can control anything.
For example, you would use one to control a prison (gates, lights, toilets, video) or an airport runway/tarmac lighting system.
generally speaking, pro gear is manufactured to operate / reliablilty in in higher temperature/humdity gradients.
What makes this all murky is the fact that we, as the general public, can purchase 'pro' quality equipment. And i am not just talking Cameras.
Take bicycles for example. In the US, there are several places to purchase an off-road/mountain bike that has front suspension. for discussion we will keep it hard tail only.
But if you wanted, you can modify this bike or purchase a completely custom bike used by pro riders.
Both bikes get you from A to B.... but will push the limits on material to get the best balance of strength/weight/ride
Bringing this home ..... one difference between a rebel and 1D series and even 5Dmkii/7D series is the shutter life.
A lot of people don't know photography. They don't see the beauty of an image with little DOF and gorgeous bokeh. They are more interested in whether or not they have a great expression or their kick-ass buddy is in the shot doing something stupid. Their reference point is a cell phone camera. Does an entry level DSLR and kit lens wedding look great to them? Sure, especially if the price is $250 and includes all day coverage and 400 4X6 prints from Walmart.
It's all a matter of their level of experience. They don't understand photography as art. Pro gear to them is a Nikon D3100 and big kit lens. And flash is never off camera.
anotherview wrote:
My question: How common is it for a hired WP to use non-pro gear and unmodified flash lighting?
Very common today. That said, it does not take mega-dollar equipment to produce outstanding results. It helps, but it's not a requirement for some that know what they're doing. I know of guys still shooting 40D's, 2-3 lenses and making six digits a year doing it.
The flip of the coin is that many couples today just don't give a rat's ass about the value of their memories and will hire those $500 noobs without a second thought. That's the part you should be more concerned with.
Unmodified lighting has nothing to do with any of this. It's all about how you use the light you have.
Surely the main problem is not "pro" vs "non-pro" gear. but how appropriate the gear is, someone mentioned Mel not using 'L' lenses....no, but she uses (among others) a host of fast primes....just because it's not designated as "pro" by Canon's marketing department, doesn't stop it being appropriate.
What ISN'T appropriate at a wedding is an f/4-5.6 kit lens when you're a natural light shooter working in a 17th Century British church where even at ISO3200 you're still only getting 1/15 at f/5.6....THAT is unprofessional, not the build quality of your lens........
I haven't been in this business to long, but one thing I will say is that there are a lot of people out there with minimal knowledge/understanding masquerading as wedding photographers. However, the only measure of whether they did a good job or a bad job is what the bride/groom think of the work.
As for gear - we all know that there are people who could kick a wedding's ass with a Rebel, however most of us want to maximize whatever skill we have. Add in a little bit of Canon/Nikon marketing and its not hard to see why people spend the bucks to buy the 'best'.
A 5DmkII and a D700 are non pro gear and they are probably the most common wedding cameras so I would say very common. I don't see how lighting modifiers have anything to do with anything, does a fong dong make you pro?
If this women gets clients to pay her rates turning out the results she does with her current gear then she just saved her business 6k and probably doesn't care what other gear snobs think of her when she looks at her books. Loads of rich amateurs have better gear than than pros these days because they don't have to have a business case to justify it's cost.
Also we have no idea what kind of wedding this was, the ceremony may have been outside in great light for all we know.
Mark_L wrote:
A 5DmkII and a D700 are non pro gear and they are probably the most common wedding cameras so I would say very common.
Why aren't they "pro" ? Both Canon and Nikon consider them eligable cameras to meet their pro service requirements, hell Canon considers the 40D a pro camera.
anotherview wrote:
My question: How common is it for a hired WP to use non-pro gear and unmodified flash lighting?
Very uncommon, because a photographer has to be more skilled to get pro results out of amateur gear. Not that it cannot be done but it just makes their job that much harder. She was likely highly skilled or a rank amateur – I cannot tell by her equipment, I can only tell if I saw her images.
Mark_L: The two weddings I mentioned both had situations with a need for flash lighting.
The WP at the recent wedding used a dedicated on-camera flashgun (likely a 480EX or a similar unit). Given my limited experience (only 2 weddings), I assumed this WP would use some kind of modification to the flash lighting for more flattering results.
Let me add another fact to my recent experience: The WP had the bride posing with others under a tree, causing that dappled lighting effect on the subjects. The WP started taking pictures anyhow, and I did not owing to my experience with this lighting as introducing distractions.
I called this lighting effect to the WP's attention, and she immediately moved the subjects into an even lighting condition. Her behavior signaled to me her inexperience.
Again, this scenario goes to the old issue of photo gear quality versus photographer skills.
anotherview wrote:
Mark_L: The two weddings I mentioned both had situations with a need for flash lighting.
How did you come to that conclusion? What were the circumstances?
anotherview wrote:
The WP at the recent wedding used a dedicated on-camera flashgun (likely a 480EX or a similar unit). Given my limited experience (only 2 weddings), I assumed this WP would use some kind of modification to the flash lighting for more flattering results.
How do you know they were not bouncing? Are you sure you did not miss any off-cam flash? Are we talking ceremonies? Reception? What? What are the circumstances?
anotherview wrote:
Let me add another fact to my recent experience: The WP had the bride posing with others under a tree, causing that dappled lighting effect on the subjects. The WP started taking pictures anyhow, and I did not owing to my experience with this lighting as introducing distractions.
Was this effect on the front of the subject? Was the sun to their backs? Was she shooting fill? Was she spot metering? Again, you're assuming a lot.
anotherview wrote:
I called this lighting effect to the WP's attention, and she immediately moved the subjects into an even lighting condition. Her behavior signaled to me her inexperience.
You actually stopped the photographer and told them how to do their job? I'd like to hear the answers to the above questions to show that you had a right to tell the hired pro how to do their job. I'm just saying... that's an awful lot of assumption.
I bought (several years ago) a Sigma 10-20 and a Sigma 30mm 1,4 from a guy on CL. The camera he brought for me to test was a 1Ds3. He shot weddings and upgraded to the 16-35 MkII. I asked him how long he had been shooting weddings, and he told me about a year. I asked if he had always used a 1Ds3, and he said that he had started with an XTi + L glass.
My point is that it just goes to show that JUST because you use a lower end body doesn't mean the person is not talented!
just a quip from a non-pro who happenned on this thread because it was an interesting titile in the 'recent threads' on the front page.
I think that a good photographer can use ANY SLR to take a good picture. But as someone once told me "better cameras make it 'easier' to *quickly* take the same difficult photo". Unlike the rebel sereis, any XXD, XD have the flexibility for the photographer to 'drive' it faster and adapt from situation to situation (more hard buttons, rear control wheel, more custom functions). If I was a pro, I could not fathom missing a pic, because I was digging through a Rebel's menus. I assume many photogs would rather use a 30D or maybe 20D than the newest rebel for that reason mainly, regardless of sensor.
In fact, I hire pros for important events b/c I assume they are better than me at going from a dark corner of a reception hall to turning around on a dime to catch a 'surprise' moment in totally different lighting in blink of an eye. Yes, I could get that pic given 1-2 minutes (an eternity to the subject) to set up in a non-pressured environment, but an experienced pro needs 5 secs and still gets a 90% hit rate. That process seems kludgy on most rebels.
Just for background, I consider from the XXD's and up the start of 'pro' useable grade stuff. And yes, the WP I hired for my 2005 wedding (before i became educated) used a rebel 300D, and photos were horrible. Not really b/c of the equipment, but he clearly didn't know how to use what he had. Our photos are all improperly exposed, contrast/saturation jacked, and our expensive enlargement clearly shows pixelation effect on our faces.
My question: How common is it for a hired WP to use non-pro gear and unmodified flash lighting? Define Pro and unmodified flash lighting. You had one experience with this topic. Are you impressed wp's can do a lot with little "lesser" gear, or or is this a gear thing?
Most photographers go through stages, so I could care less what their gear is. We've all worked our way up as we saw fit. Not gonna judge someone on gear. We get the shot in different ways based on the equipment. It's everywhere and in between.
