How can I bring the essence of these photos into mine?

Qbx wrote in post #11901463
Gallery 3 #4,5,6,10,12 ... and more .... snapshots that could have been taken by anyone at the wedding party.

I think you are looking at technicalities and fail to appreciate the image.
If you refer to #4 as a "snapshot", you're missing how the ribbon just frames her face, the facial expression, the mood in general.
Same goes for #6. Yes, the style is snapshot: Not posed. But saying anyone could have taken them is quite something else. The timing and expression is very good. In this image, one could say focus might have been better on the face. Not sure, but again, mood makes this one a keeper for me.
I could repeat the above comments for most of the other images you chose. (Except for 5: don't like that one either )

On the "disposable cameras": Seen that more then once. And 99% of the time the quality was bad. Both technical and image wise. It takes more then a camera to be photographer.

There's (a lot) more to an image then for instance sharpness.
IMO, having "a good eye" and timing is way more important then capturing a sharp yet boring shot. IMO, this guy has a good eye.

I guess you've heard of "the decisive moment"?

You are more a fan of "posed" images maybe? (sincerely curious)

ncjohn wrote in post #11912032
I've looked in the rules, and I can't find anything that says, "Don't say you don't like it unless you can do better."
But I do find, "we do not condone personal attacks on members" and "attacks on a personal level are unacceptable".

Which is why I asked to "play nice". Twice.

Qbx...you'll have to excuse my 'internet typing' you're = your, etc

I've got a clearer picture where you're coming from. I've heard of that being done ages ago...handing out disposables to the guests.

However that doesn't translate into equating that this photographers photo's as being the equivalent of snapshots. I'm keenly aware, even as a pro in a different photo field, how extremely difficult it is to get composition, lighting and facial expression and emotion to all come together in one photo, as well as this guy having to produce this for all his clients on a consistent basis....not happy accidents.

I'm sorry but you came off as very arrogant in dismissing the work as snapshots, to which I objected to, because anyone with any decent sense of the medium at all would know that that's simply not true.

Looked at his site. Like a highly skilled sports shooter, his work is about paying attention, anticipating what's happening and getting the good shot. Technically, nothing over the top. Processing is nice but again, nothing over the top. What I'm seeing is really nice attention to detail and a great sense of when a shot will happen, or finding the 'interesting' where not much is going on. Not much of what I saw on his site was 'staged' or obviously posed.

Nice work. Liked it a lot!

dave

snyderman wrote in post #11912159
Technically, nothing over the top. Processing is nice but again, nothing over the top.

And you know what...in this digital age of over the top over processing to the point of clown-ishness is quite a compliment!

Those photo's are traditionally exquisite.

sheesh, that guy better throw me twenty bucks or something

lookingforaname wrote in post #11898941
The grimy fingernails I thought was a beautiful juxtaposition that elevated it from a normal picture to a "statement" photo - grimy fingernails against an exquisite dress.

Exactly what I thought!!! This guy thinks outside the box and sees things other people just wouldn't see, and makes it art.

GtrPlyr wrote in post #11911548
I am rarely a fan of the whole 'put up or shut up' thing. I see this on musicians forums as well. Even though I am guilty of saying that here, it was born of sheer frustration.
I don't necessarily believe one needs to be a working artist, photographer, musician or whatever yourself in order to have a valid critique and make value judgments.

However, what you DO need is to have much experience, whether it be education or simply 'the school of hard knocks'...IOW, the life experience of being immersed in the subject to which you're talking about.

By all thats holy and all the gods in heaven and earth and to all that is known in the universe...if that photographers photo's are merely snapshots, then I'll have sex with a ten ton elephant in Macy's window in New York City in the middle of lunch hour on a beautiful spring day.

Well, a good many people who post here have that much experience -- but the point is that the (uneducated) CLIENT must like work or he/she won't hire him. It's just a matter of taste. I really hate the dirty hand photo, but there were other shots that I would agree are like snapshots (which doesn't necessarily bother me, but didn't do anything for me either.) Then there were some that are excellent.

Ballen Photo wrote in post #11911831
Mr Craig seems to have captured the emotion of those wedding well.

REALLY? I like the contrast of those dirty fingers against the back of her pristine wedding dress. That photo makes a statement, and I'll bet that if it weren't for the man with those dirty fingers that wedding may not have been possible.
I'm also betting that the image with the dirty fingers was one of that couple's favorites.
-Bruce

Honestly, I'd be surprised that was their favorite. I can't see many women liking that -- it's just gross to look at. That's my opinion. I will say that my husband DID work in a shop when we got married and had hands very similar to those and we did everything we could to avoid having them in the photos. We did not do a "ring" shot because of it.

YankeeMom wrote in post #11912338
Well, a good many people who post here have that much experience -- but the point is that the (uneducated) CLIENT must like work or he/she won't hire him. It's just a matter of taste. I really hate the dirty hand photo, but there were other shots that I would agree are like snapshots (which doesn't necessarily bother me, but didn't do anything for me either.) Then there were some that are excellent.

As with anything, some clients understand and appreciate the value and pay gladly for it and some are satisfied with the proverbial 'GWC' that'll do it for a hundred bucks.
Some, while recognizing quality, may pass because that's not the particular style they're looking for. But the operative thing here is that without a doubt, they'd recognize the quality nonetheless.

Others, on the other hand, are absolutely immune to the perception.

From the photographers "About Me" Page:

I think this describes his style quite well. I think that those of you who are critics, saying that they are snapshotty, are coming from a photographic philosophy that is more controlled. You like flash, you like things that look more staged. What I see in his shots - including the specific ones that Qbx references - Gallery 3 #4,5,6,10,12 - is a skill in capturing real rather than contrived emotion, and beauty that comes in more forms than formulaic, generic shots.

This is a very odd thread.

YankeeMom wrote in post #11912364
Honestly, I'd be surprised that was their favorite. I can't see many women liking that -- it's just gross to look at.

Some women on the other hand don't mind someone whose hands are dirty because of their trade.

You are certainly entitled to it.

It almost sounds like you were ashamed of what he did for a living?

I'm sorry to hear that.
-Bruce

Ballen Photo wrote in post #11914406
It almost sounds like you were ashamed of what he did for a living?

-Bruce

No -- he's still in the business. His one-income provides for soon-to-be-11 kids. I just don't find grease-stained hands and dirty, cracked nails to be showcase worthy. (Yuck.) I guess I also don't like the message that it sends either (that he's dirty. He wasn't.)

BTW, though his business, I got my T2i for FREE. Nice perks.

YankeeMom wrote in post #11914530
No -- he's still in the business. His one-income provides for soon-to-be-11 kids.

Congratulations! And GOOD LUCK.

YankeeMom wrote:
BTW, though his business, I got my T2i for FREE. Nice perks.

Free cameras are always nice.
-Bruce

Thanks!

René Damkot wrote in post #11912105
I think you are looking at technicalities and fail to appreciate the image.
If you refer to #4 as a "snapshot", you're missing how the ribbon just frames her face, the facial expression, the mood in general.
Same goes for #6. Yes, the style is snapshot: Not posed. But saying anyone could have taken them is quite something else. The timing and expression is very good. In this image, one could say focus might have been better on the face. Not sure, but again, mood makes this one a keeper for me.
I could repeat the above comments for most of the other images you chose. (Except for 5: don't like that one either )

Here are my takes on the first 15 shots in gallery 15. I didn't go any further because of time constraints but a perusal of the other galleries leads me to believe they would be about the same.

#1 Nicely done
#2 Snapshot Dead flower, funny shadows under the arm, red marks on the arm, making a fist, There might be a message here but it's probably known only to the insiders. I wouldn't put it online.
#3 Nice as a b&w but nothing in this picture says wedding to me.
#4 Snapshot. It's tilted (way overdone by amateurs), subject is too far away, distracting elements in the foreground that obscure the brides shoulders and part of the right side of her face, her expression is not flattering
#5 Snapshot. We agree. white balance off, dark, bad crop, bad lighting, needs blemish removal.
#6 Snapshot. Oof on the left. But a little fill flash directed left would have helped light the guy on the left and maybe put some light into the subject's eyes.
#7 Nicely done
#8 Nicely done, maybe could have cropped a little tighter
#9 Snapshot. As mentioned before, oof guy, raccoon eyes, unhappy face, bad crop, & wild hair across brides face doesn't add to the shot.
#10 Snapshot. A Nice candid snapshot that could be fixed. I'd clone out the hand between their faces, fix white balance & brighten a bit to balance the bride & grooms facial light. Here a fill flash and a vertical crop or just a tight crop would have worked wonders; no need to show bridesmaids unless you can get them all in the shot - go vertical and concentrate on the subject.
#11 Borderline. Too much ground in this shot. Lower and closer at a different angle would have the castle in the background but have the subjects more prominent in the frame.
#12 Snapshot. Tilted.
#13 Cool. Well done.
#14 Interesting, not a snap; but I think the bride should be in focus, or let's see the whole dog.
#15 Snapshot. Could have been great with some fill flash.
#16 Nicely done.

René Damkot wrote in post #11912105
On the "disposable cameras": Seen that more then once. And 99% of the time the quality was bad. Both technical and image wise. It takes more then a camera to be photographer.

I think you overstate the reject rate unless you mean "pro quality" in which case I agree. Actually from these better-quality disposable cameras about 40% reasonably good snapshots can be expected and 10% very good snapshots - about the same ratio as found in the galleries under discussion about 50% snapshot quality.

René Damkot wrote in post #11912105
There's (a lot) more to an image then for instance sharpness.
IMO, having "a good eye" and timing is way more important then capturing a sharp yet boring shot. IMO, this guy has a good eye.

I submit that a snapshot is a photo that does not appear to have been taken by a professional due to it lacking some combination (or all) of the ingredients of a well done shot:
1. a clear identifiable subject
2. proper focus
3. no major distracting elements including unintentional tilt
4. favorable lighting of the subject vs background
5. separation of the subject from the background
5. proper exposure
6. proper light balance
7. good composition (rule of thirds etc. although I'm not a big fan of rules)
8. proper staging if it is not a candid shot
9. compelling subject expression (an engaged look is more interesting than a bored expression, some sparkle in the eyes, a flattering image of a bride is better than one showing her flaws, etc.)

I think some snapshots can be brought up to pro-level by post processing on computer; some can't obviously. I found quite a few in the galleries that certainly could be improved.

I believe an amateur can on occasion take a pro-level shot and pros can certainly take snapshots (but they rarely put them on display). To say that a picture is a snapshot does not mean that it cannot be appreciated by a lay person; however it would certainly be much more appreciated if the same shot were pro-level.

As to whether this guy has a good eye or not - that is about him and not his photos. He may have a very fast (10 fps) camera and a 64 gb memory card for all we know.

René Damkot wrote in post #11912105
I guess you've heard of "the decisive moment"?

No I haven't, but I'm sure you will enlighten me.

René Damkot wrote in post #11912105
You are more a fan of "posed" images maybe? (sincerely curious)

Yes I do prefer portraits nowadays.


Now the original poster in this thread is looking for inspiration. I did a quick search for wedding photographers in PA and here is the first one I found. Everyone please have a look here and tell me that the photos and presentation of his or her work isn't far superior to what we are discussing. If you truly want inspiration have a look at this
http://bellofiorephoto​graphy.com/

This second photographer seems better to me. He definitely showcases better photos that have plenty of emotion/intimacy in them, IMO. The only one that made me go "Ew" is the one with the groom's hand way up the bride's dress. Um, I'd remove that.