You just got to wonder

JakAHearts wrote in post #12858527
For me, the thing is, there have to be Macdonlds photographers and there have to be Ruths Chris photographers. They both have burgers but the quality is better at one of them. Not everyone can go to Ruths Chris but they doesnt mean they shouldnt have a burger. Once Macdonlds burgers become better and more expensive, they move on to TGIFridays, Five Guys and then, finally, Ruths Chris. Meanwhile, there still needs to be a Macdonlds. You have to ask yourself, would you have shot that wedding for 300 dollars and handed over a CD of 600 images? No, probably not. But they couldnt afford Ruths Chris so they got what they could afford. Youd probably be equally as mad if someone with equal skill/equipment was underselling themselves so bad and stealing a lot of your business. Its a two edged sword really.

Bingo.

To add to that, as crazy as it may seem, there are some people who just don't even care for Ruth's Chris! All they see is the price tag and think "I can go to the Olive Garden like five times for that..."

Those people will NEVER be my clients. But I still think they deserve photography -- just like people who scoff at Lambo's still deserve to buy a Camry or people who scoff at Ruth's Chris deserve a cheap burger joint.

So it really isn't the photographer's fault. These clients exist. Therefore there will be someone to fill in the market for them -- that's the beauty of capitalism

I should have wrote that post using crabby patties. HAHAHA

bnlearle wrote in post #12858588
Bingo.

To add to that, as crazy as it may seem, there are some people who just don't even care for Ruth's Chris! All they see is the price tag and think "I can go to the Olive Garden like five times for that..."

Those people will NEVER be my clients. But I still think they deserve photography -- just like people who scoff at Lambo's still deserve to buy a Camry or people who scoff at Ruth's Chris deserve a cheap burger joint.

So it really isn't the photographer's fault. These clients exist. Therefore there will be someone to fill in the market for them -- that's the beauty of capitalism

Pretty sure were not McDonalds and very sure were not Ruths. But great analogy. Im someplace in the middle and im ok with that. I want to get to ruths one day, but ive got a ways to go.

Guess the point i was making is that its a shame that unsuspecting people hire photographers who dont know what the basics are and how to get it close. I didnt need to look at the images before i commented. I knew what would come off the camera in this circumstance. I spent enough money on film to know i could not do that.

I suppose you could use shadow highlight, turn it to B&W and call it art but jeeze, before i got out of my photography 101 class in High school in 1973, we at least knew you had to have a flash if we were going to photograph a person who was backlit by the sky.

Sometimes, not very often, i wish we still had to shoot film. At least the wedding guys knew what they were doing back when film was the norm.

But carrying the food analogy a little bit further, if the burgers you bought at McDonalds were rotten and you couldn't eat them, or way undercooked, or way overcooked, was buying the hamburger really worth it?

IMHO, if the "food" is that bad, then you must have got corrupted files from your card, not just bad photos.

I'm just saying that there is a point where quality can be so bad, that it isn't worth it at any price, even free. I'm willing to bet there are $300 wedding photographers out there who can actually crank out some decent work, but for whatever reason: they are shooting to build a portfolio, they have no confidence and consequently undervalue their work, etc. Judging from the sounds of the photographers we are discussing, they probably aren't one of them. OR, they might be. It could be that they take great pictures when the light is good and conditions are perfect, but in challenging light like this, they are clueless. A good wedding photographer should be able to meet all the challenging conditions, whether it is low light or extreme harsh light and backlighting, but not all can.

suecassidy wrote in post #12858972
I'm just saying that there is a point where quality can be so bad, that it isn't worth it at any price, even free. I'm willing to bet there are $300 wedding photographers out there who can actually crank out some decent work, but for whatever reason: they are shooting to build a portfolio, they have no confidence and consequently undervalue their work, etc. Judging from the sounds of the photographers we are discussing, they probably aren't one of them. OR, they might be. It could be that they take great pictures when the light is good and conditions are perfect, but in challenging light like this, they are clueless. A good wedding photographer should be able to meet all the challenging conditions, whether it is low light or extreme harsh light and backlighting, but not all can.

Very true

I spend a bunch of $$$$ to have good equipment and great lighting. I might not of tried the shots she was taking with 2 580's going off, let alone Nothing. We take studio strobes out for situations like she was in and im at full power with an AB1600 to get the shot. Plus she had a group of 10. I would have used 2 1600's for that shot. At least 3 580's at full power.

Anyway. at least i know were on the right track. Forums like this are a big help. My conscious is the other big factor. I would not dare think about it if i knew i could not do the job right. Sad that others wont think this way.

Numenorean wrote in post #12858418
I'm assuming you saw the results before you berated these people?

If the power went out in your neighborhood, would you try to turn on the TV to check the news?

zerovision wrote in post #12859048
If the power went out in your neighborhood, would you try to turn on the TV to check the news?

Sadly, I do usually try to turn on a light before I remember....

umphotography wrote in post #12859045
Very true

I spend a bunch of $$$$ to have good equipment and great lighting. I might not of tried the shots she was taking with 2 580's going off, let alone Nothing. We take studio strobes out for situations like she was in and im at full power with an AB1600 to get the shot. Plus she had a group of 10. I would have used 2 1600's for that shot. At least 3 580's at full power.

Anyway. at least i know were on the right track. Forums like this are a big help. My conscious is the other big factor. I would not dare think about it if i knew i could not do the job right. Sad that others wont think this way.

I don't see the big issue with shooting into the sun without flashes...I do that all the time and do it wide open at 1.4 or 1.2. If you know what you are doing, some amazing images can be created that way. The big problem for me is that they were on full auto in a situation like that...that certainly isn't going to work.

helloagain36 wrote in post #12859647
I don't see the big issue with shooting into the sun without flashes...I do that all the time and do it wide open at 1.4 or 1.2. If you know what you are doing, some amazing images can be created that way. The big problem for me is that they were on full auto in a situation like that...that certainly isn't going to work.

Totally agree - I was thinking the exact same thing.

helloagain36 wrote in post #12859647
I don't see the big issue with shooting into the sun without flashes...I do that all the time and do it wide open at 1.4 or 1.2. If you know what you are doing, some amazing images can be created that way. The big problem for me is that they were on full auto in a situation like that...that certainly isn't going to work.

But isn't that the gist of the whole discussion? That all their cameras were on green box mode, so there was zero chance of the aperture being opened up wider than the auto meter would dictate, or for the necessary + exposure compensation needed. The OP was merely making an observation, a correct one (that those particular shots are NOT going to work out) and how sad that was given that these were wedding professionals who should know better. It could be that the rest of the shots done in less challenging conditions were better, but when you don't have enough basic knowledge to to KNOW what they were doing on the bridge was purely a waste of time...

Looking for facts proving the 100% guarantee in the essence of your posts that the photographers 1. didn't know what they were doing and 2. could never have produced any good photos with such camera setting.

Absence of any facts, only basis of smugness as associated with "well I don't use the full automatic feature because it's for noobs!" perception. Sorry, I need an evidence-based reason to support your theory. Majority does not mean universality. Just because most using the green box don't know what they are doing does not mean all don't know what they are doing. I also would like evidence proving that this was not a planned wedding-model shoot for practice and training.

suecassidy wrote in post #12859730
But isn't that the gist of the whole discussion? That all their cameras were on green box mode, so there was zero chance of the aperture being opened up wider than the auto meter would dictate, or for the necessary + exposure compensation needed.

That was my thought.

The funny thing is, I get asked by other photographers with their brand new kit lens Rebels why I "need" a lens this big (70-200 f/4 or my Sigma 85mm), and why I'm making it harder for myself by putting it on Av instead of Full Auto.

"The camera should be able to do the work. That's why its this expensive."
-- random dslr-carrying photographer --