# Shooting a wedding



## Robin Usagani (Apr 3, 2012)

Someone on the board said that they would not hire a wedding photographer who does not have 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8.  What are your thoughts?


Survey I did on a forum full of wedding photographers:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1101077


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 3, 2012)

If a photographer prefers not to use zooms, only primes... that is fine. But it is the quality of thier work that would be my final determining factor. I do prefer zooms myself, but it is just that.. a preference.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 3, 2012)

I can understand where they're coming from, but on the same token anyone can buy expensive gear. It's not like it's only reserved for professional photogs.

But honestly I'd much rather take my chances of someone with expensive gear than someone who shows up with an 18-55 and a 75-300.

And I agree that the photogs who prefer primes shouldn't be discriminated against


----------



## IgsEMT (Apr 3, 2012)

> [h=2]Shooting a wedding[/h] 				   						 							 							 						 						 				 					 						Someone on the board said that they would not hire a wedding photographer who does not have 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8.  What are your thoughts? 						​



(an Imaginary wall and my head hitting it  )

About a year ago, I got a call from a potential client, after introducing her self yadayada, she asked me if I shoot full frame and followed that her husband to be says that full frame is *THE ONLY* way to go. I knew that this was going to be _one of those calls_ so I replied that I shoot medium format and followed up that latest Canon flagship camera that recently came out isn't a full frame. Few hours later fiance called me and after telling me who he was began arguing w/me that full frame is the best way to go, he never heard of medium format film and: "I'm going to tell of my friends not to even bother calling since you shoot this medium film, not even large or digital".

:lmao:


----------



## MReid (Apr 3, 2012)

Look at the work they produce, not their tools.


----------



## jaomul (Apr 3, 2012)

Your portfolio should speak for itself. I would not imagine your tools being mentioned to a customer unless they asked what you use. I can imagine that those 2 lenses are very popular and have even seen statements about how "no self respecting wedding photogr......blah blah", but those in the know realise that gear is often down to a persons style and if they are hiring you chances are they like your style, not your gear


----------



## tirediron (Apr 3, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Someone on the board said that they would not hire a wedding photographer who does not have 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. What are your thoughts?


I wouldn't hire you just 'cause you're Schwetty! :greenpbl:


Seriously, I understand (I think) their intent.  For me, I wouldn't consider shooting a wedding (or much else) without my two workhorses in my bag, but as long as you know what you're doing and your portfolio backs that up...  good enough.  I do agree that quality of gear _can_ be a measure of the photographer, but not always.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 3, 2012)

There are other good quality lenses that are not 24-70 and 70-200.  I never said anything about not having quality gear.  



tirediron said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > Someone on the board said that they would not hire a wedding photographer who does not have 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. What are your thoughts?
> ...


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 3, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> There are other good quality lenses that are not 24-70 and 70-200.  I never said anything about not having quality gear.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Clearly the 24-70 and 70-200 are the only good lenses. All other lenses should not be considered when shooting a wedding.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 3, 2012)

Lemme rephrase:  I wouldn't consider shooting a wedding without those two lenses (1) Because I have them and I know them, and (2) because I'm lazy.  Having those two lenses, both mounted means I have to do a lot less thinking in any given scenario, and that's good, 'cause thinking isn't something I do very well.  You can shoot a great wedding with almost any lens(es).  I'm certainly not for a second saying that those two are the only two wedding lenses, far from it.  

What I understood the person who originally made that statement was that they used those as a benchmark meaning that if a person has invested in glass to that extent, then the rest of their kit was likely good quality.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 3, 2012)

Schwettylens, is that like only hiring a studio photographer with primes vs zoomers, and Octoboxes vs. soft boxes!? Just sayn'


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 3, 2012)

24-70 & 70-200 is a good combo.  I used that combo.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 3, 2012)

Let me put it this way. Okay. Can your short lens go from a wide-angle view, to a medium shot, to a close-cropped portrait image, all within the span of five seconds? Can your short lens capture the bride and groom standing at the cake-cutting, full length, then can you zoom in to get a close-up of their hands on the ceremonial knife as they cut the first piece of cake, and then after that, can you zoom in even closer  to fill the frame with just the two of them as they feed one another the first bite, and can you THEN zoom BACK, and show that first bite FULL-LENGTH? Can you then swing over to the left, and zoom in for a tight close-up on the bride's mother, as a tear rolls down her cheek? If you have a quality wide-angle to telephoto zoom, which is what a 24-70mm lens actually *is on full-frame*, then you can capture ALL of these critical wedding scenes and shots within seconds. Because these shots all occur within SECONDS of one another.

Using nothing but a wide-angle prime and telephoto prime means that the photographer has only TWO angles of view, and is poorly suited to even make a good picture in many situations, and that one lens is basically USELESS half of the time. Using just two prime lenses is a cutesy approach that might resonate with younger shooters who seem to think prime lenses have some magical properties, when in fact, no such magical properties exist for the vast,vast,vast majority of primes. If you want to see two of the world's premier wedding photographers, go to this web site, and see how it is done, and done RIGHT. He and his daughter are what I consider to be two of the absolute finest wedding shooters in Europe, and they use Nikon D3-series cameras, and the 14-24,24-70,and 70-200 Nikkor zooms for the majority of all their wedding shots. Look at the variety of angles, and the variety of visual impression possible when one happens to have the absolute BEST FOCAL LENGTH available for each and every shot...and not stuck with just a 35mm and a 135mm.

Menin


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 3, 2012)

I have a 24-70 and a 2.8 70-200 but that doesn't mean I'm now required to shoot weddings because you can't make me.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 3, 2012)

Survey I did on a forum full of wedding photographers:
What two money lenses do you use for weddings? - FM Forums


----------



## analog.universe (Apr 3, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Survey I did on a forum full of wedding photographers:
> What two money lenses do you use for weddings? - FM Forums



I think I need to start hanging out at FM...


----------



## LuckySe7en (Apr 3, 2012)

I don't care what gear they have-well let me rephrase that.  As long as they don't show up with a cheap slr and a pop up flash, we're good.  What I care about are the results.  
I don't think you HAVE to have the mentioned lenses to be considered for a wedding.  I agree that you have to have adequate gear but more importantly, I want you to deliver good photos.


----------



## Tee (Apr 3, 2012)

C'mon, man. You really need validation, eh?  What's the score between you two?  This is getting old. You single out every one of his posts and ignore others that are more questionable. Those who've witnessed this Hatfield vs. McCoy feud can see the intent of this thread. It's time to let it go. You got your groove on and you're really churning out some good work.  Isn't that enough?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 3, 2012)

> Robin Usagani wrote:
> Thanks people.  The reason I asked this question is because someone from  another forum said that he would not hire anyone shooting his wedding  if he/she does not have 24-70 and 70-200.  While I think 24-70 and  70-200 is a good combo, I thought his statement was a little ridiculous.
> 
> Inku Yo wrote:
> Sure is ridiculous. *Stay off those forums, Robin. You know which ones I'm talking about*.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 3, 2012)

analog.universe said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > Survey I did on a forum full of wedding photographers:
> ...



Emily is there.  More reason to do so 
Sarah and Tifa - FM Forums


----------



## gsgary (Apr 3, 2012)

I wouldn't hire you  only kidding, the kit does not matter, i'm shooting a wedding in September with only a Mamiya C330 because they only want film


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 3, 2012)

Tee said:


> C'mon, man. You really need validation, eh?  What's the score between you two?  This is getting old. You single out every one of his posts and ignore others that are more questionable. Those who've witnessed this Hatfield vs. McCoy feud can see the intent of this thread. It's time to let it go. You got your groove on and you're really churning out some good work.  Isn't that enough?



Single out?  Point me where I singled him out.  I singled out one guy who said he wouldnt hire anyone without 24-70 and 70-200 which I thought was a stupid comment.


----------



## Tee (Apr 3, 2012)

C'mon man.  You had to resort to another forum to validate your reply...which the last time I checked over 50% replied they have 1 zoom in their arsenal and then come back to post your link.  It's smug.  I suppose those weren't the real wedding shooters, though.  And I'm in no way defending kerb by any means but if you re-read his post he mentions the value of primes and also the standard 2.8 zooms.  So...going by your coveted FM poll, he's no more right than you are since it's an even split down the middle.  

BTW, I'm on my way to pick up a friend who left (albeit late due to snow) Denver this morning.  I'm jealous of you.  I'd be outside making snow angels right now if I were you.


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 3, 2012)

Tee said:


> C'mon man.  You had to resort to another forum to validate your reply...which the last time I checked over 50% replied they have 1 zoom in their arsenal and then come back to post your link.  It's smug.  I suppose those weren't the real wedding shooters, though.  And I'm in no way defending kerb by any means but if you re-read his post he mentions the value of primes and also the standard 2.8 zooms.  So...going by your coveted FM poll, he's no more right than you are since it's an even split down the middle.
> 
> BTW, I'm on my way to pick up a friend who left (albeit late due to snow) Denver this morning.  I'm jealous of you.  I'd be outside making snow angels right now if I were you.




There is not that much snow... just enough to be nasty!    It sucks actually!


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 3, 2012)

Kinda useless to make the survey on TPF.  How many wedding photographers we got?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 3, 2012)

gsgary said:


> I wouldn't hire you  only kidding, the kit does not matter, i'm shooting a wedding in September with only a Mamiya C330 because they only want film



You cant hire me if you cant find someone to marry Gary LOL


----------



## Derrel (Apr 3, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Survey I did on a forum full of wedding photographers:
> What two money lenses do you use for weddings? - FM Forums



Yes...no surprise...professional-grade, f/2.8 camera-maker ZOOM lenses like the 24-70, 17-35,17-35,and 70-200 are the DOMINANT answers...

Fact is, in today's higher-end photography market, a shooter equipped with just ONE wide-angle focal length and just ONE, far-too-long telephoto lens is going to turn out work that is not as good,or as varied,nor as visually interesting, as what an open-minded, accomplished photographer will be able to create with more focal lengths available to him. The 135mm focal length is far,far too narrow for most indoor events at distances of under 30 feet--unless all you want are tight close-ups.

Kerbouchard said he wouldn't hire you because you don't have a 24-70 and a 70-200; I would not hire you because you don't seem to fully understand or appreciate how valuable it is to be able to select the *most-appropriate focal length *for each shot. Instead, you are trying to force fit everything into the limitations of your skimpy outfit, and trying to make the subject matter and the scenes fit **your equipment's limited angles of view**. Why don't you "get that"? Isn't it supposed to be about being able to get the shot? Or is it all about validating your equipment choices? Why deliberately limit yourself to one wide-angle, and a telephoto lens that is simply far too long for most indoor work on people?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 3, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > Survey I did on a forum full of wedding photographers:
> ...



You know derrel.. you are one of the guys that makes me consider to just stop posting here.  Maybe I should listen to that one guy from FM and stop posting here.  You sure talk a whole lot but you dont post any photos.  You are completely different person when I talked to you on the phone.  Do you have wedding photos to share?  I dont even know if you are a good shooter.  I have never seen your work.  You sure sound like you know about camera equipment though.  Do you understand how hard it is to listen to anything you say?  Your avatar is the only proof that you actually own a camera.

Of course 24-70 and 70-200 will be a popular combo.  I used that combo too.  I liked it.  I had trouble with the size and feel the primes are better suited for me.  But I am not narrow minded.  I am not validating anything.  There are a bunch of photographers who use that combo, hybrid, or primes only.  All that matters to me is the end result.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 3, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't hire you  only kidding, the kit does not matter, i'm shooting a wedding in September with only a Mamiya C330 because they only want film
> ...



Been there done that and it is overated, been happily unmarried to Jane now for 13 years


----------



## OscarWilde (Apr 3, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Schwettylens said:
> ...



Nothing against you Derrel; but Schwetty has a point... Sometimes tech talk is just over the top... Maybe without a certain type of lens you couldn't get ALL of the photos you mentioned earlier all in a few seconds, but maybe you don't have to? If the bride and groom hired you, then they know your style. And if they know your style then they have seen the end result of the lenses YOU CHOOSE to use. And at the end of the day; it is THEIR happiness that matters. Not the tech mumbo, not the average f stop you used, not the amount of light entering your lens, not the focal length for each shot.

At the end of the day, the photographer is chosen because the couple want a certain style for their shots. And if the photographer gets that style using the bloody 50mm kit lens that came with their camera... then that is what they use. 

What ever happened to passion? Demonstrating your quality based on your ability. NOT your equipment. 

Your judging a book by the pressure used to press the pages. the quality of the binding. the cover. the font. the light/dark qualities of the ink used in different lighting conditions. But your forgetting that the most important part of a book is the CONTENT. 

And the if the bride and groom like the content of the book. Then forget the rest. People can make their career using what ever lens/gear they want; and if the succeed then good for them, and if they fail. At least they tried. But that success is NOT based on the technology they used...

/rant

<3 Schwetty


----------



## tirediron (Apr 3, 2012)

OscarWilde said:


> ... But that success is NOT based on the technology they used...


Ehhh...  too a point.  It certainly is more about the artist than the brush, BUT (and nowhere, IMO, is this more true than with weddings) there are times when, without a certain style of brush, you simply could not do the job.  Why do most wedding photographers tote a bag of fast glass?  Because in the dim light of a church or hall, that can make the difference between getting and missing the shot.  If someone has a 200mm lens with a max aperture of f5.6, let's assume at their highest usable ISO, they can only acheive a shutter speed of 1/15; that's going to allow potentially significant motion blur.  With my 200mm 2.8, I can at the same ISO use a speed of 1/60 which will definitely render a much sharper image.

Granted there are many more factors, but there are times when equipment does matter.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 3, 2012)

Well Schwetty, you were told yesterday, in another thread by Kerbouchard ( by George) that he would not consider hiring you because you do not have a 24-70 and a 70-200. You got all butt-hurt in that thread. And today you posted An all- NEW THREAD to try and get some validation for your own personal decision to get rid of two industry-syandard wedding lenses, and to try shooting weddings with just two prime lenses. YOU HAVE ABOUT 26 months of photography experience. I have about 39 years. I grew up shooting newspaper assignments with an 18-poiund bag of prime lenses from 24 to 300mm, and two bodies. I remember when zoom lenses were not very good, whehn they got better, and now today, they are simply ASTOUNDING! 

I recognize your inexperience and your fascination with prime lenses, BUT, as the Fred Miranda poll your started PROVED, the majority of the wedding shooters want to have at least one ZOOM LENS in their wedding kit...and your two-lens prime kit is very,very limiting. If you ever want to get better at your craft, you will need to learn to recognize good advice from those who know far more than you do, and stop acting like a guy who has been taking photos for decades when you have been "in the game" only a couple of years. You act as if you're a long-time professional, but you are in fact, an apprentice-level shooter. Those are facts.

I don't need to post photos to back up my abilities, or my knowledge. I have forgotten more about photography than you've even learned in your two years in the field. I have 3,500 photos posted on my web space. I've been shooting "seriously" since 1982,and involved in the hobby since 1973... I've made my living *full-time,by actually photographing* people--something you have never done. You are a new, weekend warrior. I have been published in newspapers and magazines printed in the USA and Canada. If you think you are a capable wedding shooter with ONLY a Canon 35mm and 135mm lenses, well....like George said--I would not hire you either. You are still too inexperienced to be able to recognize good advice when it bites you in the face. I know Kerbouchard hurt your feelings in that wedding thread by stating he would not hire you to shoot a wedding because you are under-equipped,and frankly, I feel the same way. If your goal is to try and shoehorn every single indoor shot into what a 35mm lens can show, then you are providing sub-par coverage compared to what a photographer who has the skill and knowledge to use THE RIGHT FOCAL LENGTH for each shot can provide. Pretty simple. You are in a business sense, severely under-capitalized, as are many weekend warriors. You simply do not have enough equipment to do the job.

I told you this in a phone conversation  months ago: DO NOT SELL LENSES to raise cash. Keep the lenses you acquire, and build an equipment set. Never sell a lens you actually NEED in order to finance a lens you want or want to try out. But---you did not listen. You let two top zooms get away,and replaced them with two LESS-versatile primes. Not smart.

Wedding photography is about getting the best photos. Not demonstrating "your" two-prime-lens concept at the expense of being able to best document the events as they happen. What kind of mechanic brags about having only two tools to work with? What kind of fisherman brags that he owns only TWO lures? What kind of chef brags that he can make only TWO dishes? What kind of painter brags that he uses only TWO brushes?

Pretty simple. The top pros in the wedding field told you--they WANT A ZOOM LENS in their set-up. But you're too arrogant to accept what better-qualified, and more-experienced people tell you. And so, you want to quit posting here because you do not like the advice you are given, or you cannot accept the opinions of other people? Well, if that's the way you want to act, then feel free. Stop posting here.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Apr 3, 2012)

Woohoo, a thread all about me.  Yay!

I looked at the FM poll.  It did seem to be split pretty much 50/50, but then again, you also worded it differently than I did and I believe that may have skewed the results.

From my understanding, you are a second or third shooter, correct?  I'm also an assistant, so not trying to call you out on anything.  Either way, my point is, you are part of a team.  If you want to shoot with a prime and get artsy stuff, go for it.  Heck, I do it, too.  Sometimes, I know I don't need the bread and butter stuff so I go after something different knowing the rest of the team will get the shot.   I mentioned in that thread that some shoot with zooms and some shoot with primes.

With a team, it's easy.  Everyone can have different vantage points, angles, lenses, etc.  My point was, if I was hiring a single photographer, where he was going to be the only one there, to photograph a wedding, I would be very nervous to hire somebody without a 24-70/70-200.   I made that point very clear.  You chose to take a small part of what I said and make an internet debate out of it in two separate forums.

Sure, you can put together a great portfolio shooting as an assistant with only primes.  It's a lot more difficult to tell the complete story at a wedding when you are doing it on your own where you are depending on just two focal lengths.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 3, 2012)

This is so ridiculous.  The sad thing is, this forum could have had SO MANY good wedding photographer members!  What happened to them?  Well.. because **** like this.

Sam Hurd was a member here.  All he heard was people criticizing about stupid **** about his work.
Washington DC Wedding Photographer Sam Hurd

Same thing with Pasha Belman.  You always see were stupid comments toward his posts.
Pasha Belman | Myrtle Beach Wedding Photographer / Senior Portraits / Family Beach Photos

I am sure there many more out there.   Even our beloved erose stopped posting here and start posting on FM instead.

Now we are left with derrel.  Seriously, why are you even here?  What so enjoyable about being on the internet forum and you dont participate sharing photos?  Tell me...  You talk highly about Nikon, yet your avatar is you with a Canon camera.  Do you even shoot with a Nikon?  I have never seen you post a photo indicating you have a Nikon?  That is all you do?  You go to websites read about gadget stuff?

Then we have kerbouchard who claims he has 2nd shot 50 times yet his wedding photos stink.  Even with the 24-70 & 70-200 that are so versatile, his framing still sucks.  

Then there is me.  I am so confused whether it is worth my time posting here anymore.  I make friends but I also hate bunch of people here.  Why do I even bother contributing on this forum?


----------



## Kerbouchard (Apr 3, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> This is so ridiculous.  The sad thing is, this forum could have had SO MANY good wedding photographer members!  What happened to them?  Well.. because **** like this.
> 
> Sam Hurd was a member here.  All he heard was people criticizing about stupid **** about his work.
> Washington DC Wedding Photographer Sam Hurd
> ...


There are more...you ran them off, too.


> Now we are left with derrel.  Seriously, why are you even here?  What so enjoyable about being on the internet forum and you dont participate sharing photos?  Tell me...  You talk highly about Nikon, yet your avatar is you with a Canon camera.  Do you even shoot with a Nikon?  I have never seen you post a photo indicating you have a Nikon?  That is all you do?  You go to websites read about gadget stuff?
> 
> Then we have kerbouchard who claims he has 2nd shot 50 times yet his wedding photos stink.  Even with the 24-70 & 70-200 that are so versatile, his framing still sucks.


Obviously, we have a difference of opinion here.  For instance, I don't personally like your wedding shots.  In any case, that doesn't seem to be what matters.  Obviously, our clients and our bosses like us enough to keep us around.  Until you are paying me or I am paying you, it doesn't much matter what we think of each others' work.


> Then there is me.  I am so confused whether it is worth my time posting here anymore.  I make friends but I also hate bunch of people here.  Why do I even bother contributing on this forum?


It's not.  You are far too good for this forum.

Seriously, FM has clouded your judgement.  You seem to think that anybody who doesn't pay to be a member of a forum isn't worthwhile.  Personally, if you stopped posting to this forum, I would consider it a late Christmas Gift.

Heck, your entire argument was based on the 'fact' that with digital, you could take your limited focal lengths and crop to what you need in post processing.  You stated that in film, it was more important to have varying focal lengths to properly capture the image at the time because images couldn't be cropped/rotated with film.



Schwettylens said:


> I dont shoot with a prime.  I shoot with 2 primes.  The reason I say maybe back in film days is because you want to get the framing right on film.  On digital, you can crop and rotate.



Anytime somebody points out how you are completely wrong, you get all hurt about it.  For instance, in the thread that you referenced, Helen, who is probably the best Film Photographer on this forum told you that you were wrong, I told you that you were wrong, Derrel told you that you were wrong...so what did you do?  You took your little spat to another forum.  Then you skewed the question to get the result you wanted and still didn't get it.

Good Riddance.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 3, 2012)

Merry Christmas!


----------



## Kerbouchard (Apr 3, 2012)

Woohoo!  :smileys:


----------



## Tee (Apr 3, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> This is so ridiculous.  The sad thing is, this forum could have had SO MANY good wedding photographer members!  What happened to them?  Well.. because **** like this.



Indirectly.  TPF decided to become the top of the search engine for photography forums.  TPF is the catch all for beginning photographers.  This is a good thing, actually.  You see, this keeps genre specific photography sites from being inundated by "I just bought a $4,000 camera...what lens should I use?" and the daily first time wedding shoots with variable lenses and no flash.  What brought on a mass exodus when I was lurking and then joined was the closing of the glamour/ nudity forum.  You have a complaint about the lack of wedding photographers, the same goes for me with glamour and fashion.  So...you join forums that cater to specific genres.  I find it laughable that the powers that be on TPF think it's too hard to create more subsections and genre forums when three other forums I'm a member of have 15-20 with two to three times more traffic.  Yet, everyone stays in their own genres and learns.  Maybe that's the issue at hand- too many broad forums that try to handle too many things?  So, there's no need to leave.  It's a matter of knowing which site to post in.

P.S.  I knew one had to take this site with a grain of salt when Mark McCall got skewered on here.  He offers a lot to photography and could've been a valuable asset.


----------



## e.rose (Apr 3, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> This is so ridiculous.  The sad thing is, this forum could have had SO MANY good wedding photographer members!  What happened to them?  Well.. because **** like this.
> 
> Sam Hurd was a member here.  All he heard was people criticizing about stupid **** about his work.
> Washington DC Wedding Photographer Sam Hurd
> ...



I love Sam AND Pasha's work!  I'm FB friends now with Sam, so I get to still see his updates :sillysmi:  Are they both on FM?  I don't hang out in the wedding forum so I don't know... but I'm pretty sure I've seen some of Sam's stuff in the people forum before.



Schwettylens said:


> I am sure there many more out there.   Even our beloved erose stopped posting here and start posting on FM instead.



Awwww, I'm beloved?!

I do a lot more lurking on FM than anything else.  Everyone's level of work, as a whole, is really good and so there really isn't much for me to say at the moment.  I just read, learn, take it all in.  If I have a question, I'll ask it, and surprisingly I get HELPFUL and informative responses... and multiple ones at that.

When I have some work, I'll post for C&C and get useful feedback.

The whole, "Hey let's be silly and playful" element isn't there like it used to be here... but then again... it's not really here anymore either, so there really isn't much for me to say on FM unless it's directly related to critique I'm getting or a question I have about someone else's work, or a technical question.

This place helped me SO MUCH in the beginning.  I honestly don't think I could have gotten to the point where I'm at (which still leaves MUCH room for improvement, don't get me wrong...) without the helpfulness of some of the members here... but most of those members have since moved on.

Now when I come back it's just petty bull**** pissing contests and pompous responses.

I asked a question here a while back and got a bunch of unhelpful, sarcastic responses... and then I posted the same question, verbatim on FM and got MULTIPLE, helpful, informative responses.

Since then I stuck to asking my questions there.

When this place stopped being a place of learning for me, I stuck around because it was a fun place to hang out with my cyber friends... but now that THEY'VE all moved on and I can be connected to them via FB, there's not really any reason for me to want to come by often.  If I can't get help, and I can't learn, and I can't have fun... I might as well go to FM where, yes, it's more serious and all business, but I can continue learn and get the help I need.

I never thought I'd be "that person" that ever thought this place had gone downhill... but it's happened.  ::shrugs::

I stop in from time to time to see what's going on, but the only thing I ever get out of it is a headache, and sorrow for the newbs that are getting their asses whooped (and not constructively) for no reason.  Maybe I don't stick around long enough to see the "good" posts, but that's because they're becoming too few and far between.

I dunno.

I'll probably always stop by once every few weeks, for sentimental reasons, but for the most part, yes Schwetty, I lurk at FM.


----------



## bigtwinky (Apr 4, 2012)

I used to post on many photo forums.  Then i decided to stop as generally, other than the complete newcomer, they are just pissing matches.So i stopped.  My photography has increased exponentially since.  Went from wondering what if to just frakin doing it.  And wow...it worked.These places are time fillers.  Which is ok.  But if you want to do anything tangible, for every post you read here, go shoot for at least an hour.  With whatever camera and whatever lens.Ive had similar debates (in person, with pros, and beer) with show photography and zooms vs primes. Low light, fast action, capturing a moment that is gone in a second.  You cant get every shot all the time.  Not alone.  So aim to capture the ones you can the best way you can.


----------



## Mike_E (Apr 4, 2012)

This thread is pretty funny in a sad sort of way.

I don't shoot a lot of weddings but the ones I definitely Don't shoot are the ones where the B &/or G are hung up on the glitz rather than the glamour.  I don't have to put up with birdezillas because the Brides are shown what they'll get and understand that to get what they want we have to communicate what they want to happen at the beginning of the process and I'll help them to achieve it. 

After that point I go from being a photographer to being one of the main consultants and things tend to smooth out after that.

Whatever gear I use is secondary to the talents I bring and the results I get but the fact is that I can't do my job with two fingers on the shutter button so I don't even try.



obtw:  No, I don't post photos here in the main because no one really seems to appreciate anyone's photos here except as a chance to show everybody else how much they know by telling everyone what's wrong with them, or simply saying, "Oh, that's nice.". 

Neither do I expect anyone to take me as an expert nor should they.  As it turns out practically anyone can post in an internet forum.

What I do expect if I offer a piece of advice is for the interested parties to take it as a starting point for their own research.

If someone wants the answers to their questions wrapped up in a nice bow, I heartily suggest that they visit Ken Rockwell's website.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Apr 4, 2012)

IgsEMT said:


> > [h=2]Shooting a wedding[/h]                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Someone on the board said that they would not hire a wedding photographer who does not have 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8.  What are your thoughts?                         ​
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They would take this statement back if they ever saw what a 1d mark iv could do.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Apr 4, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Let me put it this way. Okay. Can your short lens go from a wide-angle view, to a medium shot, to a close-cropped portrait image, all within the span of five seconds? Can your short lens capture the bride and groom standing at the cake-cutting, full length, then can you zoom in to get a close-up of their hands on the ceremonial knife as they cut the first piece of cake, and then after that, can you zoom in even closer  to fill the frame with just the two of them as they feed one another the first bite, and can you THEN zoom BACK, and show that first bite FULL-LENGTH? Can you then swing over to the left, and zoom in for a tight close-up on the bride's mother, as a tear rolls down her cheek? If you have a quality wide-angle to telephoto zoom, which is what a 24-70mm lens actually *is on full-frame*, then you can capture ALL of these critical wedding scenes and shots within seconds. Because these shots all occur within SECONDS of one another.
> 
> Using nothing but a wide-angle prime and telephoto prime means that the photographer has only TWO angles of view, and is poorly suited to even make a good picture in many situations, and that one lens is basically USELESS half of the time. Using just two prime lenses is a cutesy approach that might resonate with younger shooters who seem to think prime lenses have some magical properties, when in fact, no such magical properties exist for the vast,vast,vast majority of primes. If you want to see two of the world's premier wedding photographers, go to this web site, and see how it is done, and done RIGHT. He and his daughter are what I consider to be two of the absolute finest wedding shooters in Europe, and they use Nikon D3-series cameras, and the 14-24,24-70,and 70-200 Nikkor zooms for the majority of all their wedding shots. Look at the variety of angles, and the variety of visual impression possible when one happens to have the absolute BEST FOCAL LENGTH available for each and every shot...and not stuck with just a 35mm and a 135mm.
> 
> Menin



The only people I know that use prime lenses exclusively do not shoot weddings. They do landscape and panoramic work which you can take your time with.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Apr 4, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Kinda useless to make the survey on TPF.  How many wedding photographers we got?



I'm a half ass wedding photographer. Does that count?


----------



## Mike_E (Apr 4, 2012)

DiskoJoe said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > Kinda useless to make the survey on TPF.  How many wedding photographers we got?
> ...



Sure, there are a lot of half-asses getting married these days.  :lmao:


----------



## Overread (Apr 4, 2012)

And I think we are through here.

I would remind people that we also have a private messaging system - darn it you can use it to talk to people with. You might, some of you regulars, consider actually using it to sort out these petty squabbles instead of airing your dirty laundry all over the site.


----------

