anotherview wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Ha! I was referring to the distracting wrinkles in the backdrop in the post of photos of that flash handle!..
But to expand on your point regarding facial detail, Lightroom 3 also has a "Smooth Skin" brush that works very well, particularly for quick fixes. No fussing around with layer masks etc.
ChrisDM: Ha, ha. I guess I could've applied my blur technique to the background of the flash setup photo. The wrinkles distract.
As to your comment about L3 and its Smooth Skin brush, let me say I use only CS5 and several plug-ins for it. The masking technique for blurring skin in CS5 allows fine control over the blurring by adjusting the layer opacity, too.
anotherview wrote:
ChrisDM: Ha, ha. I guess I could've applied my blur technique to the background of the flash setup photo. The wrinkles distract.
As to your comment about L3 and its Smooth Skin brush, let me say I use only CS5 and several plug-ins for it. The masking technique for blurring skin in CS5 allows fine control over the blurring by adjusting the layer opacity, too.
Or, back to the original point I tried to make, you could have simply opened up the aperture to get a "natural" blur on that background.. A lot less tedious than using layer masks... But once again the Soften Skin brush in LR is wonderful, with auto masking, density & flow controls, etc.
anotherview wrote:
ChrisDM: Ha, ha. I guess I could've applied my blur technique to the background of the flash setup photo. The wrinkles distract.
As to your comment about L3 and its Smooth Skin brush, let me say I use only CS5 and several plug-ins for it. The masking technique for blurring skin in CS5 allows fine control over the blurring by adjusting the layer opacity, too.
Time is Money. I would rather use high end gear to get the results I need and do a lot less messing around with fake bokeh, adjusting off white balance, contrast , etc...
When you deal with 2000 plus images per wedding, you will thank yourself down the line...
Ever played with a 50d + kit lens and then with a 1d4 or 5d2 and an L prime? Makes a world of difference in terms of bokeh, white balance, High ISO ability, color + contrast, speed of focusing, etc.
Sure can you eventually get the same results? maybe.... But your keepers are going to be MUCH higher with pro gear and you will have to do a hella lot less post processing.
My sister shot family portraits for years with my old Minolta Maxuum 7000i until she moved to digital, when she got a D90 (not long after it came out) and a couple of kit lenses. She has no training, no other equipment, never uses a flash and yet gets really excellent results. She's just got an eye for composition and a nose for how to use light. (to say this pisses me off is an understatement.... ).
I think the net is that pro equipment doesn't make a pro, and consumer equipment can deliver results in the right hands. Who knows, maybe the photog has arthritis like my wife (who at 40 is in a lot of pain from her hands) and can't hold a big body with a heavy lens, but knows how to use what she's got to maximum effect.
I'd hope anyone hiring a photographer for a wedding would look at the body of work and expect to get something similar. If they are happy with that, then they are happy.
amonline wrote:
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.
Interesting! What genre do these guys shoot in, and why do they choose to use the gear they do? I figure we could learn a lot from them.
I've seen some great photos from a kit setup and a little photoshop help.
But I believe a lot of people think that spending $1,000 on a T3i kit is a professional camera and therefore they are now a professional photographers since all the job requires is pushing a button and that there are levels of "good cameras" and that one that cost $1,000 surely must be top of the line.
We need to remember that not everyone can afford a $3500 wedding photographer. Sometimes you get what you pay for in this business. I'm shooting with two Canon 50D, Sigma 30mm, 17-55mm f/2.8, 580ex II. I've spent tons of money more on manual flashes, white lightnings, modifiers, etc. Would I love better equipment? Obviously. I spent too much time worrying about getting better gear that I didn't learn to use what I already have. Every time I come into a little cash I try to remind myself not to be brought down by people with red rings or big cameras.
anotherview wrote:
Recently, a relative got married, and invited me. She asked me to take pictures, too, even though she'd hired a wedding photographer. I went with a handheld off-camera flash setup (T2i, Sigma 17-70mm, f/2.8-4, and 580EX II modified).
The WP had the same camera but with the kit lens and a lesser dedicated flash mounted on the camera without any light modifier.
The WP and I briefly talked. She did have some training and had begun doing weddings about a year or so ago. I will say she did know how to arrange and set up shots for documenting a wedding.
I saw a similar WP setup and activity in Texas a few years ago.
Both weddings had a 100 or more attendees, with an ample budget for the occasion.
I'd assumed a WP would bring top-end photo gear including modified lighting equipment, if not owned then surely rented, to match the importance of the occasion.
My question: How common is it for a hired WP to use non-pro gear and unmodified flash lighting?...Show more →
Far more than you can imagine. Just because someone is there photographing the wedding doesn't mean they are professional by any standard.
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 →
Yes it does. A lot of newsrooms just have their reporters carry P&S cameras because they don't see the value in or have the budget for a photographer. Also bloggers have entered the fold. For example the photo bleachers at the end of the runway at Fashion Week is surprisingly filled with rebels and P&S. You don't need to be a pro photographer on assignment from vogue. Just have a website and pay the $120 for credentials and you're standing elbow to elbow with the best and thousands of dollars worth of gear and your D70. So just because you see a crap camera in a setting where you wouldn't expect it doesn't mean some veteran thought it was good enough. It very likely means someone who has no clue what they are doing found their way into the room.
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?
I don't know or care about what tools the mechanic uses to work on my car. All I care about is that the maintenance/repair is done correctly.
RichardLavigne wrote:
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.
And, without knowing what the photographer's pictures look like, you can't really say. You aren't the one who hired that person. The only person who's opinion matters is the one who does the hiring.
We are all photographers here, and most of us show know better than to judge the photographer by the camera that they are using. The average client isn't going to be able to tell what pro-level gear looks like anyway, other than judging based on the size of the camera/lens. Before I became a photographer, I never, ever noticed or cared what studio photographers were using for gear, the important thing is the pictures that they produced.
It's often said here frequently on FM how a wedding is a once in a lifetime event with unrepeatable moments and that clients should hire a professional. Yet many are saying gear doesn't matter, only results.
IF a photographer is photographing a wedding with ONLY one low end camera, kit lens and one flash, how is that professional ? Doesn't matter what the results are. What if something breaks ? Does she stop the wedding, run out and buy a new whatever at Best Buy ? It's a lot more than just the camera. It's the entire business presented and the camera is just one piece of the pie.
Taking chances with a "once in a lifetime" event is not professional regardless of the results.
alohadave wrote:
I don't know or care about what tools the mechanic uses to work on my car. All I care about is that the maintenance/repair is done correctly.
Correct.. and in this example, you represent the consumer that is naive to the advantages of technology in this particular industry... like many couples that are shopping for wedding photography. Laser alignment offers many advantages and a much higher level of precision than a simple string alignment. That doesn't mean that someone in the know can't do a good string alignment. I've seen race team mechanics do a string alignment that is more accurate than a laser alignment... just like someone that is a true professional will be able to take great photos with any camera.
alohadave wrote:
And, without knowing what the photographer's pictures look like, you can't really say. You aren't the one who hired that person. The only person who's opinion matters is the one who does the hiring.
We are all photographers here, and most of us show know better than to judge the photographer by the camera that they are using. The average client isn't going to be able to tell what pro-level gear looks like anyway, other than judging based on the size of the camera/lens. Before I became a photographer, I never, ever noticed or cared what studio photographers were using for gear, the important thing is the pictures that they produced....Show more →
You're right.... and if you read my statements again, you'll see that I never said that technology is the one and only thing that separates a professional. The OP asked ,"My question: How common is it for a hired WP to use non-pro gear and unmodified flash lighting?"... and my answer was that in the vast scheme of things, I think it probably is common. I don't think it is common amongst the people who come here.. but we all know the industry is being populated by many new shooters, people who get a camera and think that's all they need. IMO, they probably outnumber the people that are doing things correctly. Again, I'm not saying that its a guarentee that the pictures were subpar.. but if I had to bet money.
In the field, I've examined the gear and set-ups of so-called professional photographers (i.e., one who charges money for doing photography). They use low-end gear (even outdated gear) and basic lighting setups (sometimes with run-down items). The general public just wants a photograph that documents the moment or the occasion. Working photographers cater to this expectation, produce a suitable photograph, and collect their earnings.
anotherview wrote:
in my going to events where photographers have been hired to take photographs, I’ve observed most use low end gear and lighting setups. Naively, I’d expected working photographers to use better gear
Working pros, I mean those who make their living as photogs, have to financially justify gear expenses. New gear has to "earn" its keep. For example, will that new expensive pro body bring in $XXXX more in client dollars at the end of the year as compared to continuing on with what you have now. For most photog's clients, they would not notice the difference in the pictures.
Hobbyists and "semi-pros" on the other hand, it's all "toys" to them. They've got their day job supporting their toy collections.
).