You just got to wonder

form wrote in post #12859811
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.

Relax Joe. It was just an observation on my part. I assure you it was a real wedding party. There was a limo at the end of the bridge, common deal for the area.

Now, go outside with your 5d2, put someone against the full afternoon sun in F/16 or F/18 light, with a 50mm lens, put it in the green box and tell me what your going to get.

How'd you figure they were shooting at f/16?

Either way, the EXACT details of this situation isn't really the OP's point. And his point isn't really dependent on whether or not THESE photographers were hacks or geniuses. His point is that there are an awful lot of "photographers" who really have no clue what they are doing. And they are getting paid.

I would only add to that "yep, that's the way it is..." and an additional "someone has to serve the (generally) worst potential clients on the planet". Lots of times these people are shooting for 12 hours and giving blurb books, or whatever for $700. And, as far as I see it, that's a fair trade. What in the world should a couple get for $700 exactly? That's not something that full-timers can live off of, so they definitely can't deserve a full-time pro for that...

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. 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...

digital paradise wrote in post #12860380
That was my thought.

Sort of...I was more or less referring to comments like the one below. Mike just seems to be making a bigger deal out of the fact that flashes weren't used...and I am just saying that flashes wouldn't always be necessary in that situation.

Regardless, I think we have all beat this horse enough.

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.

you wouldn't have liked me on Saturday when I was shooting out in the sun with a family at 11a.m. However, I was fidgeting with settings all the time and mostly shooting on the shadow side and picking +1, +2 EC to blow out things behind them. At a glance someone might think, "What are they doing in full sun", but I've come to enjoy shooting in full sun without a flash. http://www.facebook.co​m …18336.121788136​255&type=1

Yeah, it's sort of a sidenote, but I always shoot into the sun when it's out -- and I never use fill flash. I use flash for other things -- but I generally dislike fill flash as much as I dislike selective coloring. It's SOMETIMES done well -- but often it looks the same as nearly every other fill flash image. And by that I mean something the local photography teacher at the nearest college would do if he were to shoot an engagement or a wedding. It just looks cheesy.

No offense intended, of course. I'm not picking on anyone. As I said, there are SOME people who can do a great job at it. But, more often than not, it doesn't look good, imo.

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?

That makes no sense at all.

the good thing about people like these ( the green box shooters) is that allow us to charge our clients what good photography is worth, not everyone has the money to afford a good photographer and many times they go to these budget photographers and they get what they pay for, but the next time they need good memories capture, they will think twice before wasting their money on a green box shooter.

Numenorean wrote in post #12864149
That makes no sense at all.

Simple. The person that started this thread knows what they are talking about and they don't have to see the results to know how the picture will turn out. They know what a dslr can and can't do. Shooting directly into the sun in full program mode without assistance from flash, reflectors or some other form of lighting will result in a sillouhuette at best.

So, since they were kind enough to pass on what they saw, they have given everyone an opportunity to learn from their experience and perhaps prevent this from happening in the future with someone who might be asked to shoot a wedding before they are ready.

Now, there seem to be those who insist on defending the photographers who are either taking advantage of this couple by claiming to be photographers who know what they are doing or they are friends or relatives who are not charging the couple to capture one of the most important events in their lives. For those who continue to defend this technique, please feel free to conduct your own experiment with these specific settings so you observe yourself what every professional photographer already knows.

One day many years from now when you have 3,000 posts on this forum and you have taken many, many shots into the sun with the assistants of off camera flash and you come across a post similar to this one, you can reflect back on this day and understand what this post was all about.

Mike,

Were you out there Saturday or Sunday? I was out there on Sunday, about 10:30 am.

zerovision wrote in post #12864677
Simple. The person that started this thread knows what they are talking about and they don't have to see the results to know how the picture will turn out. They know what a dslr can and can't do. Shooting directly into the sun in full program mode without assistance from flash, reflectors or some other form of lighting will result in a sillouhuette at best.

So, since they were kind enough to pass on what they saw, they have given everyone an opportunity to learn from their experience and perhaps prevent this from happening in the future with someone who might be asked to shoot a wedding before they are ready.

Now, there seem to be those who insist on defending the photographers who are either taking advantage of this couple by claiming to be photographers who know what they are doing or they are friends or relatives who are not charging the couple to capture one of the most important events in their lives. For those who continue to defend this technique, please feel free to conduct your own experiment with these specific settings so you observe yourself what every professional photographer already knows.

One day many years from now when you have 3,000 posts on this forum and you have taken many, many shots into the sun with the assistants of off camera flash and you come across a post similar to this one, you can reflect back on this day and understand what this post was all about.

I understand what the OP is talking about - but the guy who started talking about TV's and power outages is making no sense.

I realize that the results may not be the best possible in the given situation - however, without seeing the final shot there is nothing to suggest that the shots they got are not acceptable. Will they be award winning? Certainly not. Will they be utter trash? Possibly, but not necessarily.

Numenorean wrote in post #12869756
I understand what the OP is talking about - but the guy who started talking about TV's and power outages is making no sense.

I realize that the results may not be the best possible in the given situation - however, without seeing the final shot there is nothing to suggest that the shots they got are not acceptable. Will they be award winning? Certainly not. Will they be utter trash? Possibly, but not necessarily.

So what your saying is that all the pros should stop spending thousands of dollars on lighting and flash units because no matter what angle you shoot from, as long as you have sun light its possible you might get an acceptable shot.

If you hired someone to take pictures of you, do you want acceptable photos?

zerovision wrote in post #12869886
So what your saying is that all the pros should stop spending thousands of dollars on lighting and flash units because no matter what angle you shoot from, as long as you have sun light its possible you might get an acceptable shot.

If you hired someone to take pictures of you, do you want acceptable photos?

Of course not. I'm saying that there is no need to disparage someone else without seeing the results just because you think you're better than them.

Depending on the amount paid, acceptable photos could be fine. If the couple paid $5000 for wedding photos, then perhaps they may have something to complain about. If they paid $300, then they probably don't.

Insulting someone without seeing the finished product is fine with you?

So putting gaffer's tape over the Canon logo and the model badge isn't enough any more? I need to tape up the mode dial as well, so you can't see when I'm shooting in a mode you don't like?

Numenorean wrote in post #12869921
Of course not. I'm saying that there is no need to disparage someone else without seeing the results just because you think you're better than them.

Depending on the amount paid, acceptable photos could be fine. If the couple paid $5000 for wedding photos, then perhaps they may have something to complain about. If they paid $300, then they probably don't.

Insulting someone without seeing the finished product is fine with you?

You seem to understand some of what this post is about, but your assuming too much as well. I did not see anything, in this post, where the photographers were insulted. The OP saw what they were doing and knows, without having to see the pictures, that the in camera shot will not be a good shot. Its not an opinion, but a fact. He is not saying that he is better than they are, he was simply stating a fact.

If the photographers took the shots from a different angle and allowed the sun to light the subjects from the side, then I might agree with you, in part, that the shot should be viewed before any opinions were made.

I agree that you should get better pictures if you are paying $5k compared to $300, but even $300 deserves better than putting a dslr in program mode and shooting away. If your going to do that, then do it for free. A $100 p&s or even an iPhone can do almost as good.

zerovision wrote in post #12870737
If the photographers took the shots from a different angle and allowed the sun to light the subjects from the side, then I might agree with you, in part, that the shot should be viewed before any opinions were made.

This would have been worse IMO, having the sun coming from the side would create a two-faced look on each of the subjects faces because one side would be in the shadows and the other sunlit...which isn't a flattering look.

Backlighting them with the sun from behind ensures that all of their faces will be evenly in the shadows and that they aren't squinting into the sun.

I said it before...this horse has been beat to death...I don't think this photographer did anything wrong other than shooting on full auto in a situation like this...I don't see any issues in the way the subjects were positioned or the fact that flash wasn't used. My only gripe is the fact that they weren't shooting manually to ensure that they were properly exposing for the shadows instead of letting the camera decide the exposure...and the photos STILL may have turned out fine by luck...we just don't know.