what person would still work with a canon digital rebel?

[shayneyasinski]

I will be working a wedding this weekend and there I will be shotting Video and then dj'ing the dance.
At the rehersal at the church I met the wedding photographer and she is using a canon digital rebel and what looks like the 18-55 lens.
she also has 5 screw on lenses that she says will use at the church that will add fisheye, zoom,wide angle,more zoom and a macro ....

now I shoot video with my crusty set of GL2's and sure they are old but I rarely shoot wedding video anymore and try to dj as much as possible.
I also have alot of new camera gear and shoot with a 40d and a wack of good glass L included !

What gets me is that i want to shoot wedding photos but have so much to learn and hell even after you know it all that is only half the battle as you still have to pose and create magic.

OR do I????????

looks like an old dslr and a business card will do.

I will wait till I have time to spend with my pro photog friends on gigs befor make any plans on weddings.

any of you guys scratch your head when you meet a photog shooting with old gear and no idea what raw is??

[HyperYagami]

any of you guys scratch your head when you meet a photog shooting with old gear and no idea what raw is??

what's wrong with that? if you can take good pics with that old gear, what's the problem?

even a rebel is better than what was in the film days, and that didn't stop people from taking good pics.

[Lizzy7]

Have you seen her work? She might just be fabulous.

Today I'm shooting my first wedding on a digital camera (i've had a couple of years break from weddings) Not only did I use film before that but even as little as 4-5 years ago I was still using my AE1-P alongside my EOS5s.

Maybe she can create magical pictures with her old DSLR. That is, after all, what it's all about ;)

Lizzy

[bsaber]

I'm assuming those screw on lenses are good manual focus primes which in some cases might be better or equal to L series zooms. And I agree with the two others have said above me. Nothing wrong with a Digital Rebel and if she gets the shots then who cares what she uses?

[NeoTokyo]

I am pretty sure that what he meant by screw on lenses were those filter like accessories that go onto your existing lens to try to make it a Macro, or tc or fisheye, not an actual full bodied lens.

I dont see a problem with the equipment that she is using except really that 18-55mm.... Not very fast for indoor services so she might have some problems there. Of course we could only be seeing one of the lenses that she has.

Another thing. Everyone has to start somewhere and not everone is lucky enough to be able to afford pro or near pro equpment.

She is out there doing it and learning so that is all that matters.

Also, how do we know she doesnt know what RAW is?

-Eric-

[Persephone]

The only way you can tell for sure about her knowledge of RAW is to see what mode she has it in. Green mode, def. she can't shoot RAW.

[bsaber]

I am pretty sure that what he meant by screw on lenses were those filter like accessories that go onto your existing lens to try to make it a Macro, or tc or fisheye, not an actual full bodied lens.

I dont see a problem with the equipment that she is using except really that 18-55mm.... Not very fast for indoor services so she might have some problems there. Of course we could only be seeing one of the lenses that she has.

Another thing. Everyone has to start somewhere and not everone is lucky enough to be able to afford pro or near pro equpment.

She is out there doing it and learning so that is all that matters.

Also, how do we know she doesnt know what RAW is?

-Eric-

Didn't think of that. Also it could be possible that this person is a friend or family member of the couple. It's not uncommon for people to try and save money by having a family member or friend with a "good camera" do the wedding photos. I'm just speculating of course. It doesn't sound like this is the case from the info that the OP has revealed.

[vdao1972]

I just recently bought a bunch of FD prime lenses for super cheap from one of the second hand camera shops here a month ago and completely agree with bsaber about the image quality of manual primes.
I am now a complete convert to primes and am searching constantly for cheap ones around the region!

[Roy Mathers]

even a rebel is better than what was in the film days, and that didn't stop people from taking good pics.

:confused::confused:

[Jonathan]

Because you know nothing of the quality of this woman's work, your comments are irrelevant. Not everything is about gear.

[Roy Mathers]

What gets me is that i want to shoot wedding photos but have so much to learn and hell even after you know it all that is only half the battle as you still have to pose and create magic.




The first thing to learn is not to judge people on the equipment they use.

[brownbugger]

The first thing to learn is not to judge people on the equipment they use.

+1 , great artistry comes out of great imagination ratter than tools.

[ScootersDaddy]

No question, however good tools can help. ;) But you're right, I have seen people make incredible things in all artistic fields with seemingly very very little to work with. A craftsman is a craftsman and part of being a craftsman is learning how to make the most of what you have on hand. Personally I'd rather have more options though.

[ScullenCrossBones]

We tend to think that everyone should use "pro" equipment for professional situations. For one thing, it inspires confidence in others that the right person is on the job.

But over the years, I have met a number of photographers that have a wonderful artistic eye, yet seem to barely know which end of the camera to point towards the subject. We forget that, 98% of great photography is composition, light control and exposure. All the technology, rugged camera build quality, red rings around our lenses digital imaging, auto-focus, auto-exposure still doesn't guarantee the average joe can capture a decent picture, nor does the lack of all of these things, nor their knowledge guarantee they can't.

While I doubt I would attempt a wedding with a rebel, on the other hand, give me a decent flash and bracket and why not? Rebels do manual as well as anything else.

[bohdank]

Of course I would be curious if I saw someone show up with a Rebel, the 18-55 and a bunch of screw on adapters to shoot a wedding. I do agree that talent comes before equipment.

I was married in the Caribbean. I had someone recommend a photographer to me and went to see his work. He has had exhibitions in Mexico and Spain. He does exceptional work but none of it is wediings. His talent was in intimate portraits of famous Jazz artists under natural light and he is very very good. He shot with a Canon film SLR and Canon lenses. (I don't remember what he had). Well, he was the most untalennted "wedding" photographer I could have met. If it wasn't for a local friend that I lent my Sony 707 to, shots I took myself, and setting yp the shots myself, I would have had virtually no decent shots of the wedding. I also bought 1 dozen throw away cameras, that I handed out to the guests, and managed to get a few shots that the guests took with them.

To make a long story short I ended up buying a dedicated film scanner (now for sale) and 3 months scanning Agfa film (which was excellent for the type of stuff he did) and PP'ing to get enough shots together for a wedding album.

Long story short... the equipment does not make the photographer but it can give you a clue. You can't come to any conclusions, though, until you see the person's work.

I would be inclined to think that the photographer that is going to do the wedding is a friend.

[mrbigisbudgood]

"Point and Shoot" Kodak DX7590 in manual mode when I was still learning........

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j9/mrbigisbudgood/2007/Hong_Kong/100_3429adjusted_brd.jpg

It's not always about the equipment. Don't judge.

[Roy Mathers]

What a rubbish camera - it tilts the horizon!

[mrbigisbudgood]

What a rubbish camera - it tilts the horizon!

I was hanging out with an Austrailian girl that evening....I was paying more attention to her........:p

[stevefossimages]

Weddings are a big part of my living.

Tools say nothing about a person's imagination, so I second, third, fourth, fifth and so on all those who have already said that. And ditto to seeing a photographer's work before hiring them.

Whether she's a friend/rellie of the family or not, the images still better be what the couple want. They're only going to be married once (one assumes). Most churches do not allow flash during the ceremony, though flashing the processional and recessional usually is OK. But maybe flash is fine for this church, and she'll be using flash with that old Rebel. No prob there. If it's ambient light and high ISO, then the Rebel is not a good performer regarding noise.

To the OP, I say sure you can get into wedding photography. And you have an advantage in that you already know wedding videography and dj-ing, so you've spent a lot of time around weddings. That's all to the good. Tagging along with a friend who is a pro wedding shooter is a great idea. Until you are the one behind the camera, there are things even an experienced wedding-goer doesn't think about.

As far as not knowing what RAW is, for the last couple years I've shot all my weddings in large jpeg mode with my 30D bodies using Adobe RGB color space. With the ability of CS3/4 and Lightroom to do all the jpeg manipulation that used to require the RAW preview screen, the largest advantage to shooting RAW disappeared, IMO, for wedding situation. I've made jpeg capture prints to 20x30 with these bodies that are gorgeous, and have seen larger prints from the same sensors that shine brightly, so I don't bother with RAW now for weddings, and in fact only shoot RAW when a commerical/promotional client specifically requests it. In the 15+ weddings I've photographed since switching to jpeg, my wedding clients have all been very happy with the quality.

And I shoot all my weddings with only two lenses.

[artyman]

I could give a Winsor & Newton Series 7 sable brush to another artist, doesn't mean they can produce a good painting though. What is it about poor workmen and tools.

[benesotor]

I'm shooting a wedding with a 400D, but the bride and groom did the right thing and accepted down to the samples i showed her rather than the camera in my rucksack... that's how it should always be done.

[Roy Mathers]

How would the bride know what camera you had in your rucksack - and would she care?

[RPCrowe]

Most non-photographers would not know the difference between a rebel with a Kit Lens and a 5D Mk-II with a 24-70mm f/2.8L.

The Rebel with a Kit Lens "MAY" be able to produce excellent results but, its capability is surely limited.

On the other hand, whos to say that the photographer was producing excellent results. I have seen many crappy weddings shot by photographers who, with a Rebel in their hands, think that they are professionals.

[benesotor]

How would the bride know what camera you had in your rucksack - and would she care?

I've met her a few times..she knows i don't own pro gear.

She might care, the thread-starter is someone who obviously does.

[pknight]

Also it could be possible that this person is a friend or family member of the couple. It's not uncommon for people to try and save money by having a family member or friend with a "good camera" do the wedding photos.

Shudder. My sister took the photos at my brother's second wedding, which was a relatively small afair. This was 4-5 years ago, and she had a film SLR. Bottom line is that she lost all of the pictures. I heard this from my parents, and have not been brave enough to ask her, or my brother's wife, about what happened. She must have either lost the film before processing, or everything after processing.:cry:

There is a reason that professionals charge for their services. If the photos are important to you, and you can find some way to pay the photographer, do it!

[shayneyasinski]

I will try to get some pics of her work to see what she can do but so far her bag of gear looked like junk!

the screw on lenses that fit on to an 18-55 are good for bringing out blue fringing ect ...

her hand cut cards look horrible but again I know that these things mean nothing if she can make good pics.

I asked her about raw and she did say that her computer wont let her email raw pics and that she can't open them ...

I think she is a friend of the brides and I hope she can pull it off as I have seen this befor and that time it was bad.. REAL BAD!

that photog claimed that her bad pics were artistic and that focus is not everything, she also missed the "kiss" because her batteries fell out!! yes 4 aa batts rolled down the isle.

[Hogloff]

Most non-photographers would not know the difference between a rebel with a Kit Lens and a 5D Mk-II with a 24-70mm f/2.8L.

The Rebel with a Kit Lens "MAY" be able to produce excellent results but, its capability is surely limited.

On the other hand, whos to say that the photographer was producing excellent results. I have seen many crappy weddings shot by photographers who, with a Rebel in their hands, think that they are professionals.

And many photographers who think they can buy a 1DsIII and somehow miraculously they become a great photographer. In fact, if this person truly made her living from photography and she was shooting with a rebel, I'd say she has some great talent. Photography is a hard business to maintain and if she is doing so with limited equipment...talent must be the reason.

[tkbslc]

I think if a photographer has done enough weddings to have the experience I would want, they should have made enough money back to afford upgraded gear. I don't care who you are, rebel + kit lens means you are just starting out or not good enough to charge much. You can say it comes down to the "Art", but a good artist knows the good tools and would want to use them.

FWIW, I think a rebel could shoot a wedding just fine with the right lights and lenses. If those screw on lenses were actually nice MF primes, then maybe that is OK. No way you are going to shoot an indoor wedding with an 18-55, though.

[mritchy]

After following a professional photographer down in Houston for a couple of weddings, I shot my first few with an XS. Granted, I had nice glass to match with it, but I felt like I had to add the grip so that people wouldn't look at me funny with such a small camera. Pictures came out great.

[shayneyasinski]

Ok I have an update.
the lens is the 18-55 kit
no name high definition screw on wide angle that needed black tape to mount to the 18-55.
ISO is what she said!
asked if I use the "other" settings on the dial.
had a flash but lost it.

does this for fun and yes Walmart does the prints.

I will try to get a sample of what she shot.

[dave kadolph]

I could give a Winsor & Newton Series 7 sable brush to another artist, doesn't mean they can produce a good painting though. What is it about poor workmen and tools.


I'm not sure I'd want my heart surgeon using a set of kitchen shears and a rusty pocket knife though.

Proper equipment is an important consideration--in this case the shots from the rear of a dark church just won't happen with the rebel and a 55mm lens--but that 1 series with a fast telephoto won't miss a beat.

[Showdad]

The biggest reason I added a 50d to my 300d was for the burst capability when shooting horse shows. Otherwise I probably would have just spent money on better glass as the IQ from the Rebel was as good as what I got from MF film.

[Photon Phil]

Ok I have an update.
the lens is the 18-55 kit >>>>>> Hmm.
no name high definition screw on wide angle that needed black tape to mount to the 18-55. >>>>>>> Uh Oh!

asked if I use the "other" settings on the dial.>>>>>> Ouch!
had a flash but lost it. >>>>>>> Doh!



I will try to get a sample of what she shot. Please Do!

[Jon Foster]

My old 300D took some great photographs. No, wait, it took some amazing photographs. And it still does. My son still shoots with it all the time.

Have you seen any of her work? It might be some of that "knock your socks off" kind of work!

Jon.

[egordon99]

I just came back from shooting a Bar Mitzvah reception WITH a Rebel (gasp!) Of course I had a Canon 85mm f/1.8 and 580EXII mounted, but the Rebel did fine...My Sigma 30/1.4 was on my 40D and I kept swapping the flash. Except for a brief (attempted) stint with my 10-20, the whole thing was shot with my two primes.

But yeah, had I been using the pop up flash and a kit lens, my pictures would look no different than all the ones coming out of everyone's P&S (except for the faster focusing bit)

[bsaber]

Shudder. My sister took the photos at my brother's second wedding, which was a relatively small afair. This was 4-5 years ago, and she had a film SLR. Bottom line is that she lost all of the pictures. I heard this from my parents, and have not been brave enough to ask her, or my brother's wife, about what happened. She must have either lost the film before processing, or everything after processing.:cry:

There is a reason that professionals charge for their services. If the photos are important to you, and you can find some way to pay the photographer, do it!

I totally agree.

I'm not sure I'd want my heart surgeon using a set of kitchen shears and a rusty pocket knife though.

Proper equipment is an important consideration--in this case the shots from the rear of a dark church just won't happen with the rebel and a 55mm lens--but that 1 series with a fast telephoto won't miss a beat.

What you said is true but photography is different. It's more of a talent type of thing (just like music and art) so it can't be truly compared to professions such as medical doctor, engineer, etc.

[runninmann]

I totally agree.



What you said is true but photography is different. It's more of a talent type of thing (just like music and art) so it can't be truly compared to professions such as medical doctor, engineer, etc.I'm sure my Pickett slide rule added at least 2 points to my WGA!;):)

[bsaber]

I'm sure my Pickett slide rule added at least 2 points to my WGA!;):)

It sure did! :lol:

[stevefossimages]

Ok I have an update.
the lens is the 18-55 kit
no name high definition screw on wide angle that needed black tape to mount to the 18-55.
ISO is what she said!
asked if I use the "other" settings on the dial.
had a flash but lost it.

does this for fun and yes Walmart does the prints.

I will try to get a sample of what she shot.

Danger! Danger, Will Robinson! Danger! :oops:

[psykon99]

I would, did, and will again shoot a wedding with a Digital Rebel. Two in fact in addition to my 40D. Back in September I shot a wedding with my 40D and Xti and got superb results (if I say so myself). I since have added an XSi to my bag of tricks, and quite honestly, the image quality is on par with my 40D.

I love my Rebels. Sure the 40D has a slight high ISO advantage, and the ability to go up to 3200 ISO, but the Rebels - particularly the XSi - can match it at almost everything else. I even enjoy the smaller size and enjoy using the "alt" button for aperture adjustements as opposed to the spin dial on the 40D.

Really, it comes down to the artist and the lenses. I use consumer primes (they work great - the 35 f/2 and the 50 f/1.8) and my 17-55 and 70-200. At that point, whether it's one of the Rebels or the 40D it really doesn't matter.

In fact, when I'm shooting for fun or traveling, I use the Rebel XSi more than my big 40D and love it. I'm even working on starting a blog around my Rebels to prove the point. lifeofarebel.wordpress.com though there's nothing there yet.

I just did this shot last weekend... shot with my Rebel XSi. You tell me, is it capable of a wedding?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3324/3653493953_b1f9701645.jpg

[cdifoto]

The kit lens makes a fine wide angle and it's less costly than anything else out there that's even halfway decent. The 300D is still adequate if you can work around its shortcomings (speed being the biggest one).

She could be clueless or she could be laughing all the way to the bank. You just don't know when you limit yourself to glancing, assuming, and scoffing.

[cdifoto]

How would the bride know what camera you had in your rucksack - and would she care?
The brides who go to wedding websites and print out those "One million and one questions to ask your wedding photographer" lists do. :rolleyes:

[cdifoto]

I'm not sure I'd want my heart surgeon using a set of kitchen shears and a rusty pocket knife though.
Being alive or dead isn't a matter of artistic interpretation though.

[shayneyasinski]

I was able to sit and talk for about an hour with the girl and I have to say that she will be the first to say she does not know much about her camera and wants to learn more and then buy a new camera and a new lens but she is having a baby and simply does not have the money.
she does weddings for friends and charges around the $500 dollar mark so her work I am sure is ok but not up to my standards for IQ.

I gave her my case of gear to use and she declined but did try my 24-70L and 70-200 2.8 IS and was taken buy the speed and sharpness that she saw in just her camera lcd.
(just a note the 24-70L was borrowed from my good friend and I am planning on buying my own )

we talked about ISO and a few other setting and she is also going to buy a sub to popular photography that I suggested and also looking into this site as well.

In the end I saw that she kinda just fell into the field and needs new stuff but at this time will have to wait.

[Roy Mathers]

Rambusanna - Sree is cute! - but you're photographing her with her head in the middle of the frame. Same with most of your other pictures. Use the rule of thirdsas a guide in your photography and put her eyes about one third down from the top. Also, think about when it would be appropriate to do the same horizontally.

HTH

Richard

The vertical ones are cropped. Maybe I should uncrop them? Portraiture is tougher than I thought.

Rambusanna
>The vertical ones are cropped. Maybe I should uncrop them?
>Portraiture is tougher than I thought.

It's the horizontal ones I'm looking at. The vertical ones are better, but you could still reduce the headroom there too. If it was simple there'd be no need for portrait photographers :) . Your daughter is much more interesting than the brick wall but there's a lot more wall in most of them than her. Also shoot her further from the background or wall so you can blur it nicely.

Just my 2c... Why don't you post them as a separate thread so you can get more opinions.

Once I started using the rule of thirds and filling the frame, my photography improved greatly - in my eyes at least...


Could someone please explain what these posts are about?

[Emington]

I've never shot a weeding before but I don't think a rebel is that bad. As long as she's got flashes (Which I think is more important than the camera) it should be ok. It's ok saying it's a starting out camera lens but having a expensive camera and lens doesn't mean your any good. Just that you've got cash to splash.

[The Moose]

You're a good guy to help her out but look what you've done now! Given her a taste of the L and sent her here to POTN :lol:

Could someone please explain what these posts are about?

They were relating to this post:

I am a beginner and shoot with a XSI and a 70-200 F4 L. Visit my gallery, let me know what you think. www.busanna.com .

I don't know why he even posted in this thread to begin with. And the person who replied should have PM'd instead.

[bluefox9er]

If the couple are satisfied with the pictures, then thats all that matters. I *really* don't think that the couple will say to the caterers after the wedding " wow, the food was delicious, what sort of pots and pans did you use to cook it in"

but that said, if I saw a *pro* wedding shooter with the very basic canon camera and lenses, i would think that either his work is so incredibly outstanding and has quality of biblical proportions, or the photographer has absloutley no idea. one extreme or another, im afraid.

[Roy Mathers]

You're a good guy to help her out but look what you've done now! Given her a taste of the L and sent her here to POTN :lol:



They were relating to this post:



I don't know why he even posted in this thread to begin with. And the person who replied should have PM'd instead.

Thanks for that Glenn, but I'm still confused. Are the posts on a different thread? Have they been removed?

[cdifoto]

I reported them to be moved. They don't belong in this thread.

[Roy Mathers]

Thanks cdi

[The Evil One]

I personally have to agree with all that says it has to do with being artistic and not always about the equipment. When my wife and I got married, her mother worked for a worldwide photo lab that had there own professional photographers. She had haired one of their pros to shoot our wedding. He had done a few weddings before but was really known as a sports photographer. On the day of the wedding, he showed up with all sorts of expensive equipment and looked the part. Now at the same time, I had a good friend of mine taking classes at college on photographing and he asked if he could shoot our wedding for the experience. No problem I said. Too make a long story short, the shots he did with his not as expensive as the pro photographers gear turned out better than the pro's. In fact we used his shots in our photo album. Of course it was an outdoor Medieval/Celtic wedding but his eyes and use of angles were so much better. So one can never tell.

[nphsbuckeye]

even a rebel is better than what was in the film days, and that didn't stop people from taking good pics.
Debatable that a Mark III is better than film.

[Roy Mathers]

I too thought that HyperYagami's comment was a bit silly.

[cdifoto]

There are too many variables in the film vs digital debate and it's all been hashed and re-hashed before.

[tkbslc]

Debatable that a Mark III is better than film.

I'd rather have a Mark III than a roll of film, wouldn't you? So I don't think it is very debatable. ;)

Anyway, yeah, "film" is a pretty broad topic isn't it? Is a Quicksnap disposable better than a mark III? It is if you are stuck in the middle of nowhere, run out of batteries and need to take a quick picture. Is medium format better than a rebel? Not if you are going on a weeklong backpack trip. "better" is always debatable. Personally, I don't think many would prefer an EOS 1V over a Mark 3.

[Roy Mathers]

I'd rather have a Mark III than a roll of film, wouldn't you?




That's rather like saying I'd rather have a Rolls Royce than a gallon of petrol!

[BobOh]

Back on topic? I too saw a wedding photographer shooting with a 300D. I was less concerned with that than I was with some of her technique: On some of her vertical shots she would take them with the shutter button on top (no grip). Then, very often, she would turn the camera 180 and take the same shot with the button on the bottom. Did she really think she was getting an appreciably different shot? That also has to be awfully uncomfortable trying to take a picture in that position.

[tkbslc]

Back on topic? I too saw a wedding photographer shooting with a 300D. I was less concerned with that than I was with some of her technique: On some of her vertical shots she would take them with the shutter button on top (no grip). Then, very often, she would turn the camera 180 and take the same shot with the button on the bottom. Did she really think she was getting an appreciably different shot? That also has to be awfully uncomfortable trying to take a picture in that position.

maybe she was just trying to get comfortable?

[dave kadolph]

maybe she was just trying to get comfortable?

An experienced shooter can tell in a short period of time if another photographer is experienced or not--and in nearly 40 years I've never felt the need to turn a camera completely upside down--or a real urge to return to film. ;)

[JeffreyG]

There have been a number of posts about how a Rebel can be good enough for a wedding, and of course it can.

But the wedding photog observed by the OP is inadequately gunned and on thin ice. Ya'll can pretend this woman is the next Cartier-Bresson if you like but I notice:
1. No backup gear.
2. No flash plus using f/5.6 lenses as primary equipment
3. Use of cheap screw on WA filters which I will come right out and state baldly do not deliver acceptable quality.

I understand that these threads about wedding photogs using cheap ass gear always attract defenders, but there must be a line somewhere right? There is a difference between a professional that uses a couple Rebels to control costs but knows what they are doing and a person that has a Rebel, an f/5.6 lens and no flashes?

[psykon99]

There have been a number of posts about how a Rebel can be good enough for a wedding, and of course it can.

But the wedding photog observed by the OP is inadequately gunned and on thin ice. Ya'll can pretend this woman is the next Cartier-Bresson if you like but I notice:
1. No backup gear.
2. No flash plus using f/5.6 lenses as primary equipment
3. Use of cheap screw on WA filters which I will come right out and state baldly do not deliver acceptable quality.

I understand that these threads about wedding photogs using cheap ass gear always attract defenders, but there must be a line somewhere right? There is a difference between a professional that uses a couple Rebels to control costs but knows what they are doing and a person that has a Rebel, an f/5.6 lens and no flashes?

Well, I agree, this particular wedding photographer in question surely doesn't know what she's doing - or is severely under experienced - at photography in general let alone weddings. Heck, I've only shot one myself but I know better than the stuff that's been posted about her.

That being said, wasn't the original question about whether or not a Rebel was good enough for a wedding? I'd say: If it's in the right hands with the right lens - no question. Absolutely.

[shayneyasinski]

Well, I agree, this particular wedding photographer in question surely doesn't know what she's doing - or is severely under experienced - at photography in general let alone weddings. Heck, I've only shot one myself but I know better than the stuff that's been posted about her.

That being said, wasn't the original question about whether or not a Rebel was good enough for a wedding? I'd say: If it's in the right hands with the right lens - no question. Absolutely.


I am the OP and my question was asking what so called pro would use a rebel and the equipment she was using.

I know that a rebel and some good glass along with a flash can shoot like the best of them but in this case the screw on crap put up a flag of inexperience , that was the case in the end but she did fill up 2 4 gb and 1 2gb cards so I am sure some will be good.

I will get a few from her and post them .

[mritchy]

I completely agree with what is being said about being underequipped. I shot two weddings single handedly this weekend and was a second shooter at a third. The photographer that I was following had ONE 40D and ONE 430EX flash unit+ 2 lenses. I know that alone can get great shots, amazing shots even that can run with the best of them. BUT, what happens when the flash bulb burns out? That is when she asks to use one of of mine, which I don't find professional. Or what happens when her 40D gets ERR99? Then I hand her my XS and tell her to have a field day. Again, I don't understand why people take such important moments in others' lives and rest them on one body and one flash... It baffles me.

[runninmann]

I completely agree with what is being said about being underequipped. I shot two weddings single handedly this weekend and was a second shooter at a third. The photographer that I was following had ONE 40D and ONE 430EX flash unit+ 2 lenses. I know that alone can get great shots, amazing shots even that can run with the best of them. BUT, what happens when the flash bulb burns out? That is when she asks to use one of of mine, which I don't find professional. Or what happens when her 40D gets ERR99? Then I hand her my XS and tell her to have a field day. Again, I don't understand why people take such important moments in others' lives and rest them on one body and one flash... It baffles me.For the same reasons they don't back up their hard drives.;):)

[bsaber]

I completely agree with what is being said about being underequipped. I shot two weddings single handedly this weekend and was a second shooter at a third. The photographer that I was following had ONE 40D and ONE 430EX flash unit+ 2 lenses. I know that alone can get great shots, amazing shots even that can run with the best of them. BUT, what happens when the flash bulb burns out? That is when she asks to use one of of mine, which I don't find professional. Or what happens when her 40D gets ERR99? Then I hand her my XS and tell her to have a field day. Again, I don't understand why people take such important moments in others' lives and rest them on one body and one flash... It baffles me.

The wedding photog that I had the opportunity to work with hired me just for that situation. He had a 1Ds Mark III and 24-70, 85L, and 50L. Business went bad after the purchase of the 1DsIII and he couldn't afford a second body so he hired me for the wedding where the couple only paid for the one photog package. In case his stuff failed, I could lend him mine.

[cdifoto]

The wedding photog that I had the opportunity to work with hired me just for that situation. He had a 1Ds Mark III and 24-70, 85L, and 50L. Business went bad after the purchase of the 1DsIII and he couldn't afford a second body so he hired me for the wedding where the couple only paid for the one photog package. In case his stuff failed, I could lend him mine.
Surely an entire backup kit (used 20D, kit lens, and third party E-TTL flash) could be bought outright for around the same amount he paid you for one day...

Having said that, I can't see how spending 8 grand on a body is justified if it destroys the ability to buy a backup. There are many other more than capable options that can be had in multiples for the same cost or less. It's my opinion that a backup/2nd shooter should be hired as a backup/2nd shooter - not as an equipment rental.

[bsaber]

Surely an entire backup kit (used 20D, kit lens, and third party E-TTL flash) could be bought outright for around the same amount he paid you for one day...

Having said that, I can't see how spending 8 grand on a body is justified if it destroys the ability to buy a backup. There are many other more than capable options that can be had in multiples for the same cost or less. It's my opinion that a backup/2nd shooter should be hired as a backup/2nd shooter - not as an equipment rental.

The wedding was scheduled right after the purchase and the sudden "fall" of business resulted in being unable to get a 5D body for backup which he was planning for. He paid me minimum wage because I offered to do it just for the experience. It was only my second wedding at the time.

[cdifoto]

The wedding was scheduled right after the purchase and the sudden "fall" of business resulted in being unable to get a 5D body for backup which he was planning for. He paid me minimum wage because I offered to do it just for the experience. It was only my second wedding at the time.
So you worked cheaper than a rental. Hiring you makes more sense now. However, I still don't think there's any logic to a 1Ds III when buying a backup to it is based upon business that hasn't come in yet. Sounds like he's more photographer than accountant.

[bluefox9er]

There have been a number of posts about how a Rebel can be good enough for a wedding, and of course it can.

But the wedding photog observed by the OP is inadequately gunned and on thin ice. Ya'll can pretend this woman is the next Cartier-Bresson if you like but I notice:
1. No backup gear.
2. No flash plus using f/5.6 lenses as primary equipment
3. Use of cheap screw on WA filters which I will come right out and state baldly do not deliver acceptable quality.

I understand that these threads about wedding photogs using cheap ass gear always attract defenders, but there must be a line somewhere right? There is a difference between a professional that uses a couple Rebels to control costs but knows what they are doing and a person that has a Rebel, an f/5.6 lens and no flashes?

+1 and amen to that!

funny now the replies are going in a different direction completley after the intitial assumptions that the pro using a reble and no back up gear/cheap convertors and f5.6 lenses was probably a fantastic photographer who didnt need any more gear !!..

[cdifoto]

+1 and amen to that!

funny now the replies are going in a different direction completley after the intitial assumptions that the pro using a reble and no back up gear/cheap convertors and f5.6 lenses was probably a fantastic photographer who didnt need any more gear !!..
Some of us like to give other photographers the benefit of the doubt.

[mritchy]

Some of us like to give other photographers the benefit of the doubt.

There is a difference in giving someone the benefit of the doubt by thinking they can get great picks from their non pro gear vs. someone being an absolute idiot for not preparing should something happen to the non pro gear. There is a reason it is non pro gear, and build/durability is one of them.

[Optiq]

While it's true the OP shouldn't pre-judge, and skill outweighs equipment, there are hundreds of threads here of people talking about the importance of good glass.

Think of it this way: If the best limo driver in the world showed up with a 1970 stretch VW bus, you can bet there would be some raised eyebrows!

[egordon99]

This post should be titled "what person would still work with a canon digital rebel with ONLY the kit lens and no other lighting when hired to shoot a once-in-a-lifetime event in a dark hall?"

[bsaber]

So you worked cheaper than a rental. Hiring you makes more sense now. However, I still don't think there's any logic to a 1Ds III when buying a backup to it is based upon business that hasn't come in yet. Sounds like he's more photographer than accountant.

Indeed :D

[cdifoto]

There is a difference in giving someone the benefit of the doubt by thinking they can get great picks from their non pro gear vs. someone being an absolute idiot for not preparing should something happen to the non pro gear.
The person giving the benefit of the doubt and the unprepared idiot are two different people so of course there's a difference. ;)

I've always felt it's better to assume the best than to assume the worst. Call me an optimist.

[mritchy]

This post should be titled "what person would still work with a canon digital rebel with ONLY the kit lens and no other lighting when hired to shoot a once-in-a-lifetime event in a dark hall?"

I like this. I think it drives the real point home.

[lyonsdennn]

what's wrong with that? if you can take good pics with that old gear, what's the problem?

even a rebel is better than what was in the film days, and that didn't stop people from taking good pics.

hmmm obviously someone never had a good SLR....i have three SLR's that each were top of the line in their days and still produce better quality images when compared to a rebel...granted less convenient but still produces great images...

obviously someone only knows the modern age of photography...
try getting ur self a film camera...digitals are great fun but film has a nostalgic look that can not easily be imitated. film also gives you a great feeling when you capture something that is one of a kind...

[lyonsdennn]

There have been a number of posts about how a Rebel can be good enough for a wedding, and of course it can.

But the wedding photog observed by the OP is inadequately gunned and on thin ice. Ya'll can pretend this woman is the next Cartier-Bresson if you like but I notice:
1. No backup gear.
2. No flash plus using f/5.6 lenses as primary equipment
3. Use of cheap screw on WA filters which I will come right out and state baldly do not deliver acceptable quality.

I understand that these threads about wedding photogs using cheap ass gear always attract defenders, but there must be a line somewhere right? There is a difference between a professional that uses a couple Rebels to control costs but knows what they are doing and a person that has a Rebel, an f/5.6 lens and no flashes?

agreed, any professional would invest in better quality equipment, not to mention at least have other gear, battery grip, several lenses, especially some lighting equipment...it sounds this couple got ripped...

maybe shes good but anyone who takes photography seriously would have more, & nicer gear...

[cdifoto]

maybe shes good but anyone who takes photography seriously would have more, & nicer gear...
Spoken like a true gear head.

[mritchy]

hmmm obviously someone never had a good SLR....i have three SLR's that each were top of the line in their days and still produce better quality images when compared to a rebel...granted less convenient but still produces great images...

obviously someone only knows the modern age of photography...
try getting ur self a film camera...digitals are great fun but film has a nostalgic look that can not easily be imitated. film also gives you a great feeling when you capture something that is one of a kind...

Woah, whao, whao. I am honestly not one that likes to sit here and brag. Believe me. But I guarantee you I can take shots with my XS that would at the bare minimum match film. At the very least.

[lyonsdennn]

Woah, whao, whao. I am honestly not one that likes to sit here and brag. Believe me. But I guarantee you I can take shots with my XS that would at the bare minimum match film. At the very least.

hmm i just love my SLR's and film alot...sry...im grouchy today two weeks working : / but yeah honestly film can do amazing things :D
but digital is more practical since developing and purchasing a roll of film is around 12-14 bucks now-a-days : /
i still use all my 35mm's..

[Jethro790]

Digital Rebel cameras suck! I can't get a single decent picture out of mine. Here are a few of the garbage shots I have decided not to delete for some reason. I can't see why a single photographer would waste their time with such a toy!

http://geoffreysworld.com/fireworks1.1.JPG

http://geoffreysworld.com/Daytimemoon.JPG

http://geoffreysworld.com/iris1.1.JPG

See what I mean? Horrid, vile, underperforming camera. I may just throw it in the dumpster today.

[ScullenCrossBones]

Just send them to me and I will take care of proper disposal. ;)

[Christopher Steven b]

@jethro790
I don't think the point is that digital rebels can't deliver decent images. I shot with one for a year and it did. However, I think it is fair to say that weddings pose, as every other photography niche does, their own set of challenges and that digital rebels might not always be able to keep up. For example, flash was not allowed for one of the weddings I shot; and I ended up shooting at 1600 and sometimes pushing this in post. I remember what a pushed iso 1600 photo looked like with the rebel and it wasn't pretty. With the 5d it is.

[bsaber]

^Definitely true about the pushing in post.

[KIP]

I recently shot (my first) wedding with a 40D and two XT's. Because that's what was available to me. Granted, I put an arsenal of glass in my bag, and used the 40D 95% of the time, but the XT's did not disappoint. I would have to think hard when looking at the album now as to which photo was taken with which body. While I understand that the XT is outdated, I do not consider it to be a body that one can not work with. I love to put the 50mm f/1.8 on the XT for parties, when I want a lightweight enjoyable evening. It rarely disappoints. Your tools are what you make of them.

[Bill Boehme]

Digital Rebel cameras suck! . . . . .

. . . I may just throw it in the dumpster today.

I feel for you, bro. I have one of those worthless things, too. ;)

. . . . . I ended up shooting at 1600 and sometimes pushing this in post. I remember what a pushed iso 1600 photo looked like with the rebel and it wasn't pretty. . .

Properly exposed, ISO 1600 can yield really decent results as shown in the link here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=8117896&postcount=3216). But, I agree, it all falls apart if you have to push it any further.

[Photo13]

even a rebel is better than what was in the film days, and that didn't stop people from taking good pics. :rolleyes:

I have looked this up before because I am still a die hard film user, but 35mm film when scanned properly is equivalent to a 16mp camera. I do not understand why some people think that film is a horrible and outdated media.

[cdifoto]

I do not understand why some people think that film is a horrible and outdated media.
Because high ISO looks like ass and scanning is a pain in the same. Since I can get a great looking 20x30 out of my 8MP cameras with care at any ISO and would be shooting medium format (whether film or digital) if I wanted to shoot for an art gallery or certain commercial clients, 35mm film is pointless.

[Photo13]

Because high ISO looks like ass and scanning is a pain in the same.

I shoot Kodak P3200 Tmax all the time and the results are always great. The detail is amazing, while it may not compete with the 5D II, it still competes with many other cameras in just pure detail captured. Scanning a whole rule of film takes me maybe 1-2 hrs total for scanning and PP but my film shots take alot less PP than my digital ones.

While true digital is a lot more flexible at shooting at say a wedding doesn't even come close to saying that "even a rebel is better than what was in the film days"

[cdifoto]

I shoot Kodak P3200 Tmax all the time and the results are always great. The detail is amazing, while it may not compete with the 5D II, it still competes with many other cameras in just pure detail captured. Scanning a whole rule of film takes me maybe 1-2 hrs total for scanning and PP but my film shots take alot less PP than my digital ones.
Still looks like ass. 1-2 hours per roll? Even at the larger 36 exposure rolls that's a lot of time wasted. I have a thousand or so digital images offloaded to my computer in less time.

[Atlandis]

I met only 1 with "pro" gear live..

all the rest Ive seen got entry lvls and a semi pro d200, 30d, 50d max as their best.

maybe you should reverse the question :). All cameras do nice photos.

[benesotor]

I think it's almost silly to say 'she might be amazing and not need the good gear'... because if she is amazing, she probably knows it, and would think to invest in her talent.
It can't really be possible for her to think that nicer gear couldn't make her pictures any better... unless she knew nothing about how to work a camera that is, and in that case, it's unlikely her pic's are 'amazing' anyway!

Saying she could be an amazing photographer who doesn't need gear just doesn't stand up as an argument.

I don't think we need good gear to make good photo's, but if she knew she was good, she'd improve her system.

[bsaber]

Having good gear definitely helps getting the photos easier.

[Marcos Dantas]

Digital Rebel cameras suck! I can't get a single decent picture out of mine. Here are a few of the garbage shots I have decided not to delete for some reason. I can't see why a single photographer would waste their time with such a toy!

http://geoffreysworld.com/fireworks1.1.JPG

http://geoffreysworld.com/Daytimemoon.JPG

http://geoffreysworld.com/iris1.1.JPG

See what I mean? Horrid, vile, underperforming camera. I may just throw it in the dumpster today.



There is a lot of chroma noise in the first shot. Red and blue chroma noise. Horrible.
The moon in the second shot is strangely blue-tinted, and the sky too! Obviously it's a WB error.
In the last shoot the background is out of focus. That dammed camera can't focus properly.
Awful.

Marcos Dantas

[rdcamero]

There is a lot of chroma noise in the first shot. Red and blue chroma noise. Horrible.
The moon in the second shot is strangely blue-tinted, and the sky too! Obviously it's a WB error.
In the last shoot the background is out of focus. That dammed camera can't focus properly.
Awful.

Marcos Dantas

I agree.I think you should toss it and go with a nice Point and Shoot. :)

[Karl Johnston]

This guy has some kick-butt nature photography made with a 10D
Vozen (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=715946)

2000$ made on this picture and presented in the main hallway of a college:
Determination Of The Crew (http://www.synergystudiosphotography.com/fine-art/wildlife/2602883)

and it was made with one of these!:

canon powershot sx100 (http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-PowerShot-SX100-IS-Digital-Camera-4GB-Bundle_W0QQitemZ230347169440QQcmdZViewItemQQptZDig ital_Cameras?hash=item35a1c2dea0&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=65%3A12|66%3A2|39%3A1|72%3A1234|240%3A13 18|301%3A1|293%3A1|294%3A50)

My .02/3 of a cent; its the photog, not the gear.

[shayneyasinski]

This guy has some kick-butt nature photography made with a 10D
Vozen (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=715946)

2000$ made on this picture and presented in the main hallway of a college:
Determination Of The Crew (http://www.synergystudiosphotography.com/fine-art/wildlife/2602883)

and it was made with one of these!:

canon powershot sx100 (http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-PowerShot-SX100-IS-Digital-Camera-4GB-Bundle_W0QQitemZ230347169440QQcmdZViewItemQQptZDig ital_Cameras?hash=item35a1c2dea0&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=65%3A12|66%3A2|39%3A1|72%3A1234|240%3A13 18|301%3A1|293%3A1|294%3A50)

My .02/3 of a cent; its the photog, not the gear.

that shot would be even better with a wide angle screw on lens!:p

[bluefox9er]

Digital Rebel cameras suck! I can't get a single decent picture out of mine. Here are a few of the garbage shots I have decided not to delete for some reason. I can't see why a single photographer would waste their time with such a toy!

http://geoffreysworld.com/fireworks1.1.JPG

http://geoffreysworld.com/Daytimemoon.JPG

http://geoffreysworld.com/iris1.1.JPG

See what I mean? Horrid, vile, underperforming camera. I may just throw it in the dumpster today.


cute pics etc, but with respect...you shot plants, fireworks and the moon. the rebel is a great camera...i love mine even though I have other bodies and will never ever sell it, but

shooting a wedding is an entirley different ball game. you don't play in the NFL with sandlot seakers.

[lost canadian]

I was able to sit and talk for about an hour with the girl and I have to say that she will be the first to say she does not know much about her camera and wants to learn more and then buy a new camera and a new lens but she is having a baby and simply does not have the money.
she does weddings for friends and charges around the $500 dollar mark so her work I am sure is ok but not up to my standards for IQ.

I gave her my case of gear to use and she declined but did try my 24-70L and 70-200 2.8 IS and was taken buy the speed and sharpness that she saw in just her camera lcd.
(just a note the 24-70L was borrowed from my good friend and I am planning on buying my own )

we talked about ISO and a few other setting and she is also going to buy a sub to popular photography that I suggested and also looking into this site as well.

In the end I saw that she kinda just fell into the field and needs new stuff but at this time will have to wait.

While the rest of your are debating the merits of the digital Rebel..I'm surprised y'all missed this post. The OP did the right thing here. He gave this girl a shot to show what talent she has (or doesn't have) and guided her into new possibilities by pointing out resources and giving her tips. Hey, we all started somewhere and this girl was lucky to meet someone who took the time to get her pointed in the right direction. What matters is we have two people - an eager student and a patient teacher.

[bsaber]

While the rest of your are debating the merits of the digital Rebel..I'm surprised y'all missed this post. The OP did the right thing here. He gave this girl a shot to show what talent she has (or doesn't have) and guided her into new possibilities by pointing out resources and giving her tips. Hey, we all started somewhere and this girl was lucky to meet someone who took the time to get her pointed in the right direction. What matters is we have two people - an eager student and a patient teacher.

That's very true.

[Atlandis]

when 450 drops a bit.. I am about to get 1 or 2 for m every day things... and save my other babys for me. I've seen photographer " company who gets jobs like advert for a store.." snaping with compact ones.. 450 is a jewel :) with nice glass and nice flash

all photographers in greece do their heavy duty job with cheap models because they lose lots of interest if they use their upgraded equipment.. except if its a studio, agency or HUGE work with good money, only then I may used my very good stuff.. right now I use my 40d and eos-5, but looking at the market every day.. I believe I have to downgrade a bit as I still loose a bit of interest versus others, a 450 will be great! ... the market, is the reality (small shops building their websites, couples get married..).. if the market's demand stays behind, the need to upgrade and use of new technologys.. stays behind as well. I love tech and new stuff, but for me and I do upgrade all the time my stuff..

I hope they will do something about photographers instead, so nobody can get a job for 50bucks with any kind of result but just for the price.. and true photographers lose interest and customers because of it..


edit: now I hope you understand what I am talking about..

[RRocket]

...

[bohdank]

when 450 drops a bit.. I am about to get 1 or 2 for m every day things... and save my other babys for me. I've seen photographer " company who gets jobs like advert for a store.." snaping with compact ones.. 450 is a jewel :) with nice glass and nice flash

all photographers do their heavy duty job with cheap models because they loose lots of interest if they use their babys.. except if its an egancy or HUGE work with good money, only then I may used my very good stuff.. right now I use my 40d but looking at the market every day.. I believe I have to downgrade a bit as I still loose a bit of interest versus others... the every day market and not the HIGH super wow fashion and bolywood.. hehe stuff is not the reality.. if the market and the demand stays behind, the need to upgrade and use of new technologys.. stays behind. I love tech and new stuff, but for me..

I have no idea what you are talking about. Losing interest ?

[bohdank]

This guy has some kick-butt nature photography made with a 10D
Vozen (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=715946)

2000$ made on this picture and presented in the main hallway of a college:
Determination Of The Crew (http://www.synergystudiosphotography.com/fine-art/wildlife/2602883)

and it was made with one of these!:

canon powershot sx100 (http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-PowerShot-SX100-IS-Digital-Camera-4GB-Bundle_W0QQitemZ230347169440QQcmdZViewItemQQptZDig ital_Cameras?hash=item35a1c2dea0&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=65%3A12|66%3A2|39%3A1|72%3A1234|240%3A13 18|301%3A1|293%3A1|294%3A50)

My .02/3 of a cent; its the photog, not the gear.

Of course it is the photographer but good gear gets in the way, less.

There are always exceptions which you have posted. They are exceptions, not the rule.

[griptape]

when 450 drops a bit.. I am about to get 1 or 2 for m every day things... and save my other babys for me. I've seen photographer " company who gets jobs like advert for a store.." snaping with compact ones.. 450 is a jewel :) with nice glass and nice flash

all photographers do their heavy duty job with cheap models because they loose lots of interest if they use their babys.. except if its an agency or HUGE work with good money, only then I may used my very good stuff.. right now I use my 40d and eos-5 ,but looking at the market every day.. I believe I have to downgrade a bit as I still loose a bit of interest versus others a 450 will be great! ... the every day market and not the HIGH super wow fashion and bolywood.. hehe stuff is not the reality.. if the market and the demand stays behind, the need to upgrade and use of new technologys.. stays behind as well. I love tech and new stuff, but for me..

I hope they will do something about photographers instead so nobody can get a job for 50bucks any kind of result.. and true photographers loose interest and customers because of it.. thats a better topic to discuss I believe :) because this topic.. have to do with this matter...
I am young btw :) 29, so no rush..

Have you been drinking? Sorry, but I really don't understand anything you said. Anyway; it would turn me off initially to see someone with a rebel shooting my wedding, and if all they had to shoot with was the 18-55, I would definitely turn them down, but the rebel bodies are capable of great results in the right hands. A photographer who is using a rebel because it is dumbed down to a point they can understand and a photographer using a rebel because it fits their hands better for a 10 hour day of shooting are two entirely different people.

[Atlandis]

The only thing you have to do then is a good reasearch before u get married, see their work and ask for their system.. It is simple. But good system and good work, means lots of bucks.. sorry if you couldnt get my point..

Losing interest because the market is not watching result but price instead.. and the job takes who ever makes the best price. (no matter about the result).

a small example. I made an offer for 250 products studio photography a price between 300-400 including vat, but I lost the job because a guy with a compact camera made a better offer. 50 euro hahaha

I hope now you understand my point. (thats an example)

And thats my point of downgrading than upgrading instead.

[ed rader]

"Point and Shoot" Kodak DX7590 in manual mode when I was still learning........

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j9/mrbigisbudgood/2007/Hong_Kong/100_3429adjusted_brd.jpg

It's not always about the equipment. Don't judge.


have you figured out straight horizons yet ;)?

ed rader

[ed rader]

If the couple are satisfied with the pictures, then thats all that matters. I *really* don't think that the couple will say to the caterers after the wedding " wow, the food was delicious, what sort of pots and pans did you use to cook it in"

but that said, if I saw a *pro* wedding shooter with the very basic canon camera and lenses, i would think that either his work is so incredibly outstanding and has quality of biblical proportions, or the photographer has absloutley no idea. one extreme or another, im afraid.


yeah but there is no way to know if you're satisfied till after the fact....and there ain't no retakes :D.

i'm a tradesman and i do look at the gear you use and what you drive and all that when forming that first impression which usually has a lot of weight in final selection :D.

ed rader

[michaelbehlen]

I didn't take the time to read the conversations throughout this thread except for the first post. I had a 20d and a 30d with L glass ect. ect. I got into a tough spot and sold it all. Now I borrow a 300d to shoot with. I have . Want to know why? I am not pre-occupied with having pro equitment when htaken better pictures with the rebel and a 17-55 then I ever have with more expensive gearaving pro equitment doesn't make you a pro.

I do realize my spelling is a tad off. Sorry.

[Atlandis]

That makes you a fair and good pro ed rader. But what I wrote before it’s not for the whole world.. Eastern countries do work and think differently.

[griptape]

No, pro equipment doesn't make you a pro, but feeling an obligation to your customers to keep up with good equipment that will improve their final product is a huge step in making you a pro.

[ed rader]

No, pro equipment doesn't make you a pro, but feeling an obligation to your customers to keep up with good equipment that will improve their final product is a huge step in making you a pro.


true. if you are using a 300d to shoot weddings something's wrong unless it's your third back-up and your other two cameras have failed :D.

ed rader

[ed rader]

That makes you a fair and good pro ed rader. But what I wrote before it’s not for the whole world.. Eastern countries do work and think differently.

i'll second what Bohdank said above: "i have no idea what you are talking about" :D.

ed rader

[michaelbehlen]

I would presonally rather have someone shoot my wedding with a 10d and stock glass if they understand lighting, than someone with a 5dmii and 24-70 who just loves, "The Green Square". Not saying all with 5dmii's are just amatures with a big budget. Not at all. Just saying.

[mbell75]

any of you guys scratch your head when you meet a photog shooting with old gear and no idea what raw is??

Is this a joke? I personally know a few photographers who can produce a far better quality image with their 25+ year old cameras then most shooting today with brand new gear. Why do new photographers always think they need the latest and greatest to produce quality photos?

[ed rader]

I would presonally rather have someone shoot my wedding with a 10d and stock glass if they understand lighting, than someone with a 5dmii and 24-70 who just loves, "The Green Square". Not saying all with 5dmii's are just amatures with a big budget. Not at all. Just saying.

so would i but how would you know that? who would you scrutinize harder the guy with the 300d and kit lens or the fella with the 5d and L lens?

let's forget about "pro gear" for a minute. you don't need a 1d body or even L lenses to shoot a wedding when a 40d and 17-55 IS will produce "pro" results.

cameras like the 300d are abysmal at ISOs above 400 and any pro who's current with the craft and is trying to get the best results for the client and in fact himself just wouldn't be handicapping himself with such an old camera.

ed rader

[griptape]

cameras like the 300d are abysmal at ISOs above 400 and any pro who's current with the craft and is trying to get the best results for the client and in fact himself just wouldn't be handicapping himself with such an old camera.

ed rader
Exactly. Composition and timing is a huge part of what makes a photograph great. But technology plays a huge part too at this point when the customer wants a detailed, clean image at 8x10 or bigger, and knows it can be done because they've seen their friends' albums. Yes, older cameras can produce great results, but the reason we upgrade is that they produce GREATER results in tougher lighting conditions. Which is the same reason we upgrade from point and shoots.

[shayneyasinski]

here is a pic from the said photographer

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb93/shayneyasinski/picture1.jpg

[MomTo2]

I am glad to read that some of you aren't judging those of us who DO still work with a canon digital rebel. I can't afford a new camera, and I am still learning... but I do get good images for the most part. I wouldn't do a wedding though.
Can anyone explain to me, what exactly is RAW??? And, you'll have to tell me in plain terms, I don't understand all the photog jargon yet.

[egordon99]

Can anyone explain to me, what exactly is RAW??? And, you'll have to tell me in plain terms, I don't understand all the photog jargon yet.

First off, your camera ONLY shoots RAW. When you select JPG, the camera takes the RAW data and pipes it into it's on-board JPG processor to generate the JPG "image" to save to the card.

When you shoot RAW, the RAW "data" goes directly to the card and is not an image.

To generate an image, you use a RAW processor (software on your PC) which turns the data into a viewable image, much like the camera's JPG processor. The difference is that YOU have complete control over the image generation process. You can change the white balance, adjust the contrast/brightness/black point/etc....

So you can leave these decisions up to the camera's little processor (and hope it makes the right decisions since they are irreversible), or save the decisions for later where YOU have complete control over it.

[MomTo2]

PS,
What kind of equipment would you have liked her to have shown up with?

[MomTo2]

oh, thx, what kind of software do you use to change the image? Photoshop?

[egordon99]

oh, thx, what kind of software do you use to change the image? Photoshop?

Photoshop has a "plug-in" called ACR (Adobe Camera Raw). Other folks use Lightroom (which also uses ACR) or DPP (Canon's Digital Photo Professional). DPP does nice conversions but isn't very "workflow friendly", especially when dealing with 100s (even 1000s) of photos at a time. ACR along with Bridge (the "browser" that Photoshop uses) is better suited for this task.

[MomTo2]

whats a plug in? I have adobe photoshop elements 6.0... is it on there?
I don't know what all photoshop can do- or what all my camera can do for that matter.

[yonni]

whats a plug in? I have adobe photoshop elements 6.0... is it on there?
I don't know what all photoshop can do- or what all my camera can do for that matter.
Elements 6 does indeed have it. You will be able to process your raw files with your software. For a start see here: http://help.adobe.com/en_US/PhotoshopElements/6.0_Mac/help.html?content=WS9675D47A-589F-428c-8FDB-7F20096EE811.html

For examples of what Rebels can do see here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=496404&highlight=xt

[Kendoway]

My old Rebel XT has served me well, with 30 to 35k shutter actuations (I've lost count actually) and will become my backup when the 50D arrives.

I've taken some great pictures with that camera!

[dave kadolph]

PS,
What kind of equipment would you have liked her to have shown up with?

An external flash with a bracket to get it off camera and a decent low light lens for starters--and backup equipment for a paying gig IMO.

[MomTo2]

YONNI, WOW! those are beautiful pics in that thread you linked. Gives me hope. I only have a kit lens, can anyone explain what other lenses are about? I know you can zoom more or less with other lenses but what else?
Thanks for the link for using the RAW option & photoshop too. I'm excited to try it out. Not sure what I'm doing, but plan to take a RAW pic and play with it in photoshop.

[MomTo2]

Dave, what is a low light lens?
and PS. I love your quote about middle age. I have a pic of my hubby in front of a drop that says "the difference between men and boys is the price of their toys"

[gary88]

I had an XTi for two years before I upgraded to a 50D. Its completely capable of producing some stunnng images, you just have to work within it's limits.

[Kendoway]

YONNI, WOW! those are beautiful pics in that thread you linked. Gives me hope. I only have a kit lens, can anyone explain what other lenses are about? I know you can zoom more or less with other lenses but what else?
Thanks for the link for using the RAW option & photoshop too. I'm excited to try it out. Not sure what I'm doing, but plan to take a RAW pic and play with it in photoshop.

MomTo2 - my wife is just beginning her serious understanding of photography, and she recently picked up a copy of "Perfect Digital Photography" by Dickman and Kinghorn. I've thumbed through it, and it's excellent - and answers many basic questions in a simple and thorough fashion:

Amazon Link (http://www.amazon.com/Perfect-Digital-Photography-Jay-Dickman/dp/007160166X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247520021&sr=8-1)

Good Luck :)

[yonni]

YONNI, WOW! those are beautiful pics in that thread you linked. Gives me hope. I only have a kit lens, can anyone explain what other lenses are about? I know you can zoom more or less with other lenses but what else?
Thanks for the link for using the RAW option & photoshop too. I'm excited to try it out. Not sure what I'm doing, but plan to take a RAW pic and play with it in photoshop.

Some more homework for you here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=249006

and here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=155904

and here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=414088

and here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=53846

[MomTo2]

I did all my homework! Those were good reads...
The one about lenses was kind of confusing, but in general they were a great refresher for me!
I need to find one about RAW shooting. I was wondering though, isn't it better to get a good image to start with than to have to spend time fixing and converting it in photoshop? I hate using photoshop (maybe 'cause I don't really know what I'm doing in it other than basic editing) it takes so much time! I'd rather just load up my pics and leave as is than to spend time editing. SO, why shoot in RAW? Maybe when I can see what it does, I'll understand. Does anyone have any example pics of RAW before and RAW after they got it all fixed up?

[Kendoway]

I hate using photoshop (maybe 'cause I don't really know what I'm doing in it other than basic editing) it takes so much time!

Most of us are pretty happy with what comes out of the camera (I am at least half the time anyways), and PS simply helps push a it little bit further.

As for RAW, there are a lot of folks that shoot jpg, and that's ok too.

You WILL need to learn Photoshop. It's your friend, really :)

[Atlandis]

Light room is for photo editing

Photoshop is for editing and reattaching photos (change it completely). You can feel that very much with cs3-cs4 and I still remember how things changed since layers added to Photoshop. Can’t remember which version as I used Photoshop since.. 96? or so... So if you just buy Photoshop for just some color corrections, it is a mistake.

[DStanic]

Agreed... LR is all you really need nowdays for most uses. I'm sure LR3 will add more clone/stamp features that will make me use CS4/elements even less then i currently do.

[Veemac]

I did all my homework! Those were good reads...
The one about lenses was kind of confusing, but in general they were a great refresher for me!
I need to find one about RAW shooting. I was wondering though, isn't it better to get a good image to start with than to have to spend time fixing and converting it in photoshop? I hate using photoshop (maybe 'cause I don't really know what I'm doing in it other than basic editing) it takes so much time! I'd rather just load up my pics and leave as is than to spend time editing. SO, why shoot in RAW? Maybe when I can see what it does, I'll understand. Does anyone have any example pics of RAW before and RAW after they got it all fixed up?
Plenty of threads about "why shoot RAW" here - many in the RAW and Post-Processing sub-forum. Here's a few:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=699393

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=719005

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=718316

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=720578

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=713351



Here's a thread with a lot of "before and after" RAW shots:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=684360

[Digital_zen]

I dig my REBEL!

[griptape]

I was wondering though, isn't it better to get a good image to start with than to have to spend time fixing and converting it in photoshop? I hate using photoshop (maybe 'cause I don't really know what I'm doing in it other than basic editing) it takes so much time! I'd rather just load up my pics and leave as is than to spend time editing. SO, why shoot in RAW?
Shooting in RAW is the equivalent of processing your own negatives for film. It's also like shooting negatives instead of relying on your prints to come out and having only your print copies and the developer keeping your negatives (which should never happen, but you get my point I hope). You can also change your white balance after you've shot, which is a big deal in some cases, and you lose less quality making adjustments to a RAW file than you do to a jpeg.

When you shoot jpeg in your camera, your camera captures a RAW file and converts it to jpeg based on what it thinks the picture should look like. When you tell the camera to save the RAW file, you tell the file exactly what it should look like. It's similar to why you would shoot in manual mode versus auto mode on the camera.

[Kendoway]

Here's a thread with a lot of "before and after" RAW shots:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=684360

Thanks for that link Mac. I just subscribed :)

[yogestee]

I was hanging out with an Austrailian girl that evening....I was paying more attention to her........:p

Aussie girls will do that to you!! :p

[DennisW1]

I will be working a wedding this weekend and there I will be shotting Video and then dj'ing the dance.
At the rehersal at the church I met the wedding photographer and she is using a canon digital rebel and what looks like the 18-55 lens.
she also has 5 screw on lenses that she says will use at the church that will add fisheye, zoom,wide angle,more zoom and a macro ....

now I shoot video with my crusty set of GL2's and sure they are old but I rarely shoot wedding video anymore and try to dj as much as possible.
I also have alot of new camera gear and shoot with a 40d and a wack of good glass L included !

What gets me is that i want to shoot wedding photos but have so much to learn and hell even after you know it all that is only half the battle as you still have to pose and create magic.

OR do I????????

looks like an old dslr and a business card will do.

I will wait till I have time to spend with my pro photog friends on gigs befor make any plans on weddings.

any of you guys scratch your head when you meet a photog shooting with old gear and no idea what raw is??

I scratch my head when I read a post that criticizes another photographer because of their gear selection. :confused:

Until you've seen their work, you really have no idea what they're capable of. I've seen wedding photographers using some of the most unlikely equipment, and their results were outstanding.

It's so much more the person behind the camera than just what model of DSLR they are using, what lens selection they like, and how they create their effects.

I shot weddings for years using medium format cameras and had a set of Tiffen close-up filters for the "rings and invitation" shot I used to do. Used carefully they worked just fine. A macro lens for a Mamiya 645 was simply out of my budget for one shot per wedding. If you're familiar with medium format film cameras you might also know that my 645's were NOT anywhere near the top of the line in that camera type. Hasselblad was the "gold standard" and priced accordingly. For me it was a decision to not spend every penny I would make for the next couple of years just to have a "name". Funny, the studio I shot for still has a 30x40 of a bridal party taken with my "cheap" 645 hanging on their wall as an example of their work, and it's damn sharp.

Please, try to rid yourself of some of your gear snobbery and judge on the work you see. That's the real measure of a photographer.

[Bullfrog142]

I scratch my head when I read a post that criticizes another photographer because of their gear selection. :confused:

Until you've seen their work, you really have no idea what they're capable of. ....
Please, try to rid yourself of some of your gear snobbery and judge on the work you see. That's the real measure of a photographer.

+100

[Roy Mathers]

...and another 100%

[Karl Johnston]

The only tools you need to create good photos (sans a camera)

Light

Lack of Light

;)

[MomTo2]

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=2175141&l=36e34e8c06&id=625119999

Okay, so I'm shooting in RAW now and playing around with it in photoshop... got a good one I think, but why does my little girl's skin look like a waffle?

Did this with my Reble XT, and natural window light combined with 420EX bounce flash. Was underexposed because bounce batteries are dying and didn't recylce fast enough.

[MomTo2]

Hey, where's my pic?

[bsaber]

Hey, where's my pic?

How are you attaching it?