Kenski stop taking things so personally....you're being like a girl for goodness sakes. Read all of what I said carefully. I never at any time said your lens is a piece of junk.
All I said was L lenses do the same things, better and more efficiently. It is up to each person whether or not they decide the price difference is worth it. I could buy a 1ds and use that instead of my 5d2's. But to me, the price difference is not worth it, FOR ME. talk to a high end fashion photog, and they might argue differently.
Read my profile by the way. I own 2 5d2's as well as 1d's. please keep an open mind.
Yer know when i used to work as a auto-journalist, I attended many "by-invitation only" unveiling events and test drives. Many of the pro journalists don't even bring along a SLR camera. Let alone pro gear. Alot of them just carry a P&S or bridge cam.
Does that mean they are not pro? No way. Many of you have probably read magazine articles from these guys.
A D3x does not get me any more seat time on the new BMW M anymore than the other guy with a Nikon Coolpix. So please try not to judge a photographer by the colour of their lens ring or barrel or size etc...
A Rebel purchased today is equivalent to a top-of-the-line DSLR of "X" number of years ago. People might disagree on how many years "X" equals but whatever number you come up with you'd have to agree that people were taking great pictures long before that.
wsmeyer wrote:
A Rebel purchased today is equivalent to a top-of-the-line DSLR of "X" number of years ago. People might disagree on how many years "X" equals but whatever number you come up with you'd have to agree that people were taking great pictures long before that.
William.
I agree with that, but I would worry about photographer having his newest Rebel for two months, and not much experience with similar cameras. Though I would not worry about equivalent older camera that the photographer has used for few years and knows all its quirks. The first one might be very surprised by some bugs and unintuitive features that strike only when both camera and the photographer is under the wedding stress.
Ghost wrote:
Yer know when i used to work as a auto-journalist, I attended many "by-invitation only" unveiling events and test drives. Many of the pro journalists don't even bring along a SLR camera. Let alone pro gear. Alot of them just carry a P&S or bridge cam.
Does that mean they are not pro? No way. Many of you have probably read magazine articles from these guys.
A D3x does not get me any more seat time on the new BMW M anymore than the other guy with a Nikon Coolpix. So please try not to judge a photographer by the colour of their lens ring or barrel or size etc......Show more →
Are you a writer who takes photos or a photographer who writes?
Lots of auto journalists used to bring along photographers or use the images supplied by the manufacturers. But because of the lack of decent budgets, many writers are now also photographers. But they dont consider themselves to be a professional photographer. Some even set up a flip cam and do their own stand up video for their websites but they don't usually consider themselves to be filmmakers or video directors.
...and I have been at many events when the journalist with the photogpher who DID have a D3x actually did get more access to the cars but that was because of who they were working for.
Ghost wrote:
Yer know when i used to work as a auto-journalist, I attended many "by-invitation only" unveiling events and test drives. Many of the pro journalists don't even bring along a SLR camera. Let alone pro gear. Alot of them just carry a P&S or bridge cam.
Does that mean they are not pro? No way. Many of you have probably read magazine articles from these guys.
A D3x does not get me any more seat time on the new BMW M anymore than the other guy with a Nikon Coolpix. So please try not to judge a photographer by the colour of their lens ring or barrel or size etc......Show more →
At least no one brought a Holga or some plastic lens camera for the whole job. I heard that there are people who think they are good photographers because they can use their cell phone and get decent pictures although the color balance is usually off.
This got me thinking about my friend. He forgot to bring his flash on Sunday for a Yoga class photo shoot although he brought a Fuji 5 and a bunch of Nikon lenses. He left the flash on his kitchen table.
What is a tripod? He used to know but he left that at home also. I asked him if he got any decent pics. The answer; no, so he deleted all of them.
I got the Yoga job done. All is well. Sometimes a backup photog fails, sometimes a primary photog.
I've been reading this kind of advice for years. Its influence led me to expect more from a WP than a T2i, a kit lens, and an unmodified on-camera flash unit.
BTW: Yesterday evening, I had a causal conversation with the groom in the wedding I attended, and he too had noticed the non-pro gear of the WP. He gave me the impression he expected better photo gear, in keeping with the occasion.
In closing, I wish to make clear that in my original post, I wished only to consult experienced FMers for their opinion as to the commonness of non-pro gear used by WPs. The answer appears that the quality of gear varies, depending, but in the end skill means more than gear for achieving a satisfactory photograph.
morganb4 wrote:
Talk to Melanie (unblinkable). She does not own any L glass but routinely outclasses many shooters on this forum.
+1, but I'll add that she outclasses the majority of the "PRO" photographers on this forum. Just my opinion and not to take anything away from the forum's fav's.. (I wouldn't want to be banned for saying that).
I would pay Melanie (unblinkable) to shoot my wedding/event with a disposable camera from walmart, why you may ask!!! Because she has 4 things 1) Skill 2) Talent 3) Incredible Eye 4) Her own style.
She doesn't have 1 L lens listed in her profile and quietly outclasses the vast majority here with a SIGMA 70-200 2.8 lens. I've been watching this forum for a number of years and if I could shoot like anyone here it would be her.
Never judge a photographer by the gear they use or how many assistants they have, it's the end result that counts. I just think that a lot of "pro" photogs are upset that canon keep making rebels better everyday and why not. Everyone can't afford to pay $2500.00 plus dollars to learn photography and don't need it to stay relevent in this over populated industry.
One more thing did you ask the wedding photog if it was ok for you to shoot. I wonder how you would have felt if you were shooting a wedding and a "noob, uncle bob" came up to you with the same or better gear and started posing people for you. Kind of disrespectful huh!!! Karma is unfortunately a bi+ch!!!
Using a wider aperture to isolate your subject there would blur some of those wrinkles. You don't need L glass either, a simple 50 1.4 shot wide open would melt those distracting wrinkles away. An iron would also work.
ChrisDM: Photoshop has a blur filter that easily adjusts for too much detail in skin texture.
I use the technique of applying the blur filter to the image while in a layer with a mask. Then I remove the blur from eyes, lips, and hair (and maybe clothing and jewelry) by painting on the mask using the Brush tool set to the Soft Round effect.
A book I read that said we humans key on face parts (eyes and lips) when viewing a human face. In turn, if those two parts look detailed, the human perception translates this observation to the entire visage.
Note that when tapped, the back-slash key draws a red color over areas of the image where the Brush tool has traveled.
For my part, I prefer to control the range of facial detail in Photoshop instead of with a lens setting.
Back to the original post: A few days after the wedding I also talked with the bride, and she informed me the WP had already delivered the wedding pictures. I must presume the WP shot in the JPEG format given this speedy delivery. I've read that WPs and other event photographers shoot in JPEG. I gather they do so in part to write that invoice for payment sooner. Naturally, though, the client wants to see the pictures ASAP.
>applying the blur filter to the image while in a layer with a mask. Then I remove
>the blur from eyes, lips, and hair (and maybe clothing and jewelry) by painting on
>the mask using the Brush tool set to the Soft Round effect
I think both photography gear and Photographer is important in Wedding Photography. At the end of the day, a good wedding photographers job is to produce stunning images of the event. This means the photographer has to have the experience to work within the limitations of his or her equipment and know what he can or can't do to produce a good photo. A good photographer can produce wonderful images with a point and shoot camera given the right conditions.
Where the gear comes in is expanding the possibilities and tools a good photographer has to take great photos. WP will constantly upgrade their gear to some of the best equipment to be able to take some of those difficult shots or creative shots to be able to provide the client with a quality picture that can be blown up and hung on their wall.
The other benefit of high end gear is how it is perceived by your clients and potential clients. It's acts as an indicator of how good of a photographer you are and important to be able to sell your services.
At the end of the day is it required to have high end gear to produce good wedding photos? I don't think so!!!
Are there benefits of having high end equipment as a WP? Definitely!!! Especially if the photographer knows how to utilize it
Monoatomic, I'll suggest that the thing which makes it a professional item is the end results...what the USER can do. There is something to be said about someone who is frugal with their money and can still produce the same images as someone with the best in class equipment.
This was a very entertaining thread...keep these up
checked out your site... I must say that I'd never seen such awesome examples of dogs having sex as you show on your site. I had a very hard time understanding the polish text but If I'm getting the jist of it, you're saying that Tomasz Sadowski is a douchebag who likes to troll the internets posting links to his site.
Then again... I suppose you could be a piece of shit competitor of Sadowski who is trying to hurt his reputation with such a blatant violation of forum rules.
Off with your head! :P
P.S. If you're gonna add links you want to make them contexual... like this:
HBOC wrote:
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! ...Show more →
Sigma 10-20 and 30 1.4? He brought a 1ds3 to test? Arent those lenses incompatible?
o! and about the topic: I think the gear makes a little difference, but if you cant use a 5d2 at all, your pictures wont be helped much.
Think of it like a fast car.. whos going to win a race - the guy with the stick-shift Toyota Supra (who cant drive stick), or the guy with the, oh i dont know, Ford Focus automatic?
