# Entire Wedding on X100



## DScience (Apr 20, 2012)

I belong to a Fuji X100 flickr group, and this guy on there has posted some great X100 vacation photos in the past. He has a pretty unique editing style, and he recently shot a wedding ALL on the X100. I personally think he did an amazing job! No, it's not technically perfect, and it's NOT what you can obtain if you had the traditional wedding 'kit'. However IMO he created a very unique group of photos that are truly filled with emotion. 
Wedding Photography - Fuji X100 - Brian Kraft Photography


----------



## Opher (Apr 20, 2012)

a bunch of them give me the feeling of the wedding i shot with ilford 400 B&W pushed to 1600.  I love the look.
but i didn't have an option digital dont work so good with no power DUH...  Luckily i was not the actual photographer for that


----------



## LungFish (Apr 22, 2012)

Seems like the value of the experiment was lost by shooting only in B&W with no flash. It's definitely a different set of wedding pics, but that had very little to do with the choice of camera.


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 22, 2012)

There are _a few _good shots in there. However most of them are underexposed and blurry with no detail left in the shadows. Too dark and moody for a wedding IMHO.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 22, 2012)

Interesting...


----------



## murklemark (Apr 22, 2012)

I saw this the other day, a friend who's doing a 365 project with his x100 told me I had to view it. I have to agree with the above, it's a very unique narrative view of the wedding, i like the b&w style but I still can't get past the blurry and under exposed photos.


----------



## OscarWilde (Apr 22, 2012)

I really like them  Honestly I'd rather have these than half of the people who shoot with  a ridiculous kit 

Sometimes the "voyeuristic" quality seems a bit over done (I felt like a serial killer just looking at some of them ) but for the most part I liked it!

They are somewhat dark and moody, but I think that depends how you look at them. Because there is a fine line between "dark and moody" and "nostalgic" when shooting B & W; and these photos fall on both sides of that line I think


----------



## DScience (Apr 22, 2012)

Interesting to see the comments, although I am surprised how many of them are positive. Shooting with the X100 is such a pain in the a$$! LOL Which is one of the main reasons I like this series, because it is just so limited. The biggest drawback to using this particular camera for a wedding is it's horrible focus. So considering that he did a good job.

About the "under exposure" people are talking about, I think that's mainly his processing style.


----------



## bhop (Apr 22, 2012)

I'm a member of that group too and saw that last week.  I personally like them _*because*_ of how dark and moody they look.  Wedding photography is my second least favorite form of photography (baby/kid photos being #1), but these are wedding photos I actually want to look at.

It should be noted that he mentioned he wasn't the main photographer, just tagging along with a friend that was the main apparently..


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 22, 2012)

DScience said:


> About the "under exposure" people are talking about, I think that's mainly his processing style.



I don't care if it's his "processing style." It's unfitting for wedding photography.


----------



## DScience (Apr 22, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> DScience said:
> 
> 
> > About the "under exposure" people are talking about, I think that's mainly his processing style.
> ...



That's your opinion, and you know what they say about opinions. 

Also, I think its quite sad that many people such as yourself feel the need to confine photography and put boundaries on how it's produced. "Wedding photography" is like any other form, it's a type of artistic self expression. Yes it's not the cheesy wedding photography that may appeal to you, but others want a more artistic rendition.


----------



## CCericola (Apr 22, 2012)

I love my x100. to use it at a wedding as a tag along photog must have been so fun. As for it being "unfitting". It is in the eye of the beholder I guess. I bet there is a couple out there that wants exactly what he produces.


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 22, 2012)

DScience said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > DScience said:
> ...



Yeah, I suppose if the client wanted stripped images devoid of shadow detail and lack of subject matter. They're great in that aspect. As wedding photographs, very few of them shine.

I think it's ironic that people such as yourself find photographs of such a gloomy nature fitting for a joyous day for the majority of those getting married. It's actually disappointing. Very disappointing.


----------



## OscarWilde (Apr 22, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> DScience said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...



As I said; there is a fine line between "gloomy" and nostalgic. The dark and grainy quality makes them appear to be from a "ye olde time"  

So what you see as gloomy, isn't necessarily gloomy to everyone. 

Your narrow mindedness is disappointing; very disappointing.


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 22, 2012)

It would be gloomy to 90%+ of brides/grooms looking at the images. I've shot a few weddings in my day, and looked at images from hundreds of weddings. Clients aren't looking for "dark" and "underexposed" shots on their most memorable day.


----------



## bhop (Apr 22, 2012)

Most brides/grooms are sheep when it comes to what they want in photos.  (disclamer: that's my opinion)


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 22, 2012)

OscarWilde said:


> Your narrow mindedness is disappointing; very disappointing.



By the same token, your openmindedness towards bad wedding photography makes me laugh. It works both ways! See?!


----------



## bhop (Apr 22, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> OscarWilde said:
> 
> 
> > Your narrow mindedness is disappointing; very disappointing.
> ...



That's not really the same.. that's just your same narrow mindedness thinking that these photos are bad.  Which is an opinion you're entitled to of course.  Just as our opinion that they're not bad is one that we're entitled to.


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 22, 2012)

bhop said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > OscarWilde said:
> ...



So why am I characterized by seeing these wedding photos as "not great?" Should I think that all wedding photos are great and not be chastised for so? That's stupid. 

If you're allowed to think that they're acceptable wedding photos, I am allowed to deem them "unacceptable" by my standards with no repercussions.


----------



## bhop (Apr 22, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> So why am I characterized by seeing these wedding photos as "not great?" Should I think that all wedding photos are great and not be chastised for so? That's stupid.
> 
> If you're allowed to think that they're acceptable wedding photos, I am allowed to deem them "unacceptable" by my standards with no repercussions.



I agree with your last sentence.  I think it's fine if you don't like them.  I think the problem comes from your comments that make it seem like it's an irrefutable 'fact' that they're bad, and not just your opinion, which isn't the case.  Photography is a creative outlet, it's art.  Not everything has to fit a certain mold to be considered 'good'.


----------



## TimGilbertson (Apr 22, 2012)

I liked those a lot more than I thought I would. To each his own. I just know that having one slow camera with only one focal length would drive me bananas.


----------



## OscarWilde (Apr 23, 2012)

Let me correct that for you:



o hey tyler said:


> It would be gloomy to 90%+ of brides/grooms looking at the images. I've shot a few weddings in my day, and looked at images from hundreds of weddings. *&#8203;MOST *Clients aren't looking for "dark" and "underexposed" shots on their most memorable day.


----------



## CCericola (Apr 23, 2012)




----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 23, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> There are _a few _good shots in there. However most of them are underexposed and blurry with no detail left in the shadows. Too dark and moody for a wedding *IMHO*.


 


bhop said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > So why am I characterized by seeing these wedding photos as "not great?" Should I think that all wedding photos are great and not be chastised for so? That's stupid.
> ...



Oh, however in my first post I stated it was my opinion. Even humbly.


----------



## OscarWilde (Apr 23, 2012)

This is a strange "argument" considering its completely one sided. There are two people telling you that you are allowed to have an opinion and that it isn't wrong; but stop telling us ours is wrong. And then there is you trying to convince us were wrong!

I'm not even sure if you realize how NOT serious i'm being  I agree with you! I really do; I'm not trying, in any way, to say your wrong! I'm just saying there is two sides to every fence! And you aren't being a very good neighbor


----------



## Derrel (Apr 23, 2012)

Entire wedding under-exposed and then converted to muddy, sickly gray-and-whitish look.


----------



## GnipGnop (Apr 23, 2012)

Surprising how many people call themselves photographers on her, yet have such a narrow creative outlook. 
"The _tradition_ of all dead generations weighs like a _nightmare_ on the brain of the living"

:Joker:


----------



## Derrel (Apr 23, 2012)

I think half-assing BOTH the exposures and  THEN making weak,sickly, gray-ish "black and white" conversions that will print like crap is the height of new faux cool. Perhaps somebody misunderstood my brief comment above? Old traditions like semi-decent technique are sooo old-school,so passe and soooo boring!!! Doing chit right is such an oppressive nightmare. Especially when one can achieve technical perfection so easily...I mean, why try and get it right when it saves a second or two per frame to just go ahead and half-ass things?. I mean, sheesh....all those old dead people who came before and who established simple concepts like getting things right--they were all idiots! Half-assing things is the new way to go! Definitely. Nobody cares about quality these days. Being an "individual" is more important than one's skill at the craft.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 23, 2012)

Comic books are the new "graphic novels".


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 23, 2012)

Damnit! I have tried on 3 different computers and iPad, and the page loads, I can see it, and then gives me a 404 not found error page.
I wanna see what all the hoopla is about!


----------



## DiskoJoe (Apr 23, 2012)

A lot of the shots were really good. Definitely something to keep in mind for a back up camera.


----------



## bhop (Apr 23, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > There are _a few _good shots in there. However most of them are underexposed and blurry with no detail left in the shadows. Too dark and moody for a wedding *IMHO*.
> ...



My bad, I missed that.  Consider my previous posts irrelevant.


----------



## OscarWilde (Apr 23, 2012)

Derrel said:


> I think half-assing BOTH the exposures and  THEN making weak,sickly, gray-ish "black and white" conversions that will print like crap is the height of new faux cool. Perhaps somebody misunderstood my brief comment above? Old traditions like semi-decent technique are sooo old-school,so passe and soooo boring!!! Doing chit right is such an oppressive nightmare. Especially when one can achieve technical perfection so easily...I mean, why try and get it right when it saves a second or two per frame to just go ahead and half-ass things?. I mean, sheesh....all those old dead people who came before and who established simple concepts like getting things right--they were all idiots! Half-assing things is the new way to go! Definitely. Nobody cares about quality these days. Being an "individual" is more important than one's skill at the craft.



Wow... ignorance really is bliss. Again. Let me post this. NO ONE IS SAYING THESE ARE THE GREATEST PICTURES EVER TAKEN. ALL WE ARE SAYING IS THIS IS ANOTHER WAY TO TAKE WEDDING PICTURES. 

Its "half-assed" because its not the way YOU'D do it? Well good for you tech master derrel. Its ANOTHER way. I'm sure your pictures would be amazing! I'm sure there are people better even than you. But all I'm saying is; in their own right; And NOT WHEN COMPARED TO OTHER STYLES. These are good too.

Seriously, for a photography website there are some ridiculously closed minded people. 

Did you learn photography from a textbook? Because as great as all your "getting things right" crap is; you seem to have forgotten that EMOTION and CONTENT plays JUST AS BIG A ROLE as technique. Sure these photos are more biased towards the emotional and content side than the technique side. But that the way this photographer takes pictures.

And this is nothing against you; you are JUST as entitled to an opinion as I am, but for the love of whatever all powerful deity you believe or don't believe in stop being so closed minded! And realize there is another way to take pictures! That your opinion isn't the ONLY ONE! And that your way isn't the ONLY WAY!


----------



## lauraxlovegood (Apr 23, 2012)

I personally like the photos.  They have a different feel than all the other wedding pictures I have seen all over the internet.


----------



## DScience (Apr 23, 2012)

Derrel said:


> I think half-assing BOTH the exposures and  THEN making weak,sickly, gray-ish "black and white" conversions that will print like crap is the height of new faux cool. Perhaps somebody misunderstood my brief comment above? Old traditions like semi-decent technique are sooo old-school,so passe and soooo boring!!! Doing chit right is such an oppressive nightmare. Especially when one can achieve technical perfection so easily...I mean, why try and get it right when it saves a second or two per frame to just go ahead and half-ass things?. I mean, sheesh....all those old dead people who came before and who established simple concepts like getting things right--they were all idiots! Half-assing things is the new way to go! Definitely. Nobody cares about quality these days. Being an "individual" is more important than one's skill at the craft.



I love you Derrel, but this just shows your age. The older generation resists change and novelty. You guys want to keep photography nice an tidy where it's been since it's advent. NOT POSSIBLE. Photography is indefinitely intertwined with technology and society. Trends are going to happen with photographic/artistic style, and it's not surprising that people such as yourself don't like it.

BTW, I am not sure why you are so flustered about this. If you go look at this guys post, he just kinda did this as a little experiment. It's not like he's trying to start a new trend.


----------



## GnipGnop (Apr 24, 2012)

Derrel, your post made me laugh out loud. Your underwear seems to be tightly knotted, and for what? Some experimental wedding pictures someone took at a wedding?

Sounds like you need to let some light shine in. I suggest metaphorically loosening your "lower aperture". Your post sounds like you've been squeezing your undergarments at f32 all day. Lighten up.


----------



## jake337 (Apr 24, 2012)

OscarWilde said:


> I really like them  Honestly I'd rather have these than half of the people who shoot with  a ridiculous kit Sometimes the "voyeuristic" quality seems a bit over done (I felt like a serial killer just looking at some of them ) but for the most part I liked it!They are somewhat dark and moody, but I think that depends how you look at them. Because there is a fine line between "dark and moody" and "nostalgic" when shooting B & W; and these photos fall on both sides of that line I think


 I think most of the stuff you've seen shot with "ridiculous kits" were shot by people who bought said kit in the same year or less.....


----------



## analog.universe (Apr 24, 2012)

Wow, this is an intense thread... somehow... :er:

I'll give my opinion though, since so many people are defending these photos..   This dude's processing style looks BAD on a wedding.  Weddings are supposed to be cheerful, and celebratory, these images are not.  I couldn't even look at the whole set, everything was gloomy and redundant, and I lost interest halfway through.  Most of them lacked contrast and appropriate light so you really had to look for the subjects.  After a few minutes on the page, everything felt like a grey wash.

It's a cool artistic style, yes.  It's different than a lot of stuff that you see, yes.  It just really does not translate to wedding for me, it's just dark and muddled, and thoughts like love and happiness are not what these photos communicate to me...  You may see them differently...


----------



## jake337 (Apr 24, 2012)

analog.universe said:


> Wow, this is an intense thread... somehow... :er:I'll give my opinion though, since so many people are defending these photos..   This dude's processing style looks BAD on a wedding.  Weddings are supposed to be cheerful, and celebratory, these images are not.  I couldn't even look at the whole set, everything was gloomy and redundant, and I lost interest halfway through.  Most of them lacked contrast and appropriate light so you really had to look for the subjects.  After a few minutes on the page, everything felt like a grey wa****'s a cool artistic style, yes.  It's different than a lot of stuff that you see, yes.  It just really does not translate to wedding for me, it's just dark and muddled, and thoughts like love and happiness are not what these photos communicate to me...  You may see them differently...


I agree.  If this was the mood they wanted then so be it.  But. One could have created the same mood, with better quality, had they had the right equipment.


----------



## 1000_Islander (Apr 24, 2012)

The Fuji X100 is a superb camera.
The clients are likely very pleased with the creative non-traditional quality images this capable photographer produced for them.
Period


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 24, 2012)

1000_Islander said:


> The Fuji X100 is a superb camera.
> The clients are likely very pleased with the creative non-traditional *quality images* this capable photographer produced for them.
> Period



Man wow some people have different standards and definitions of "quality"


----------



## 1000_Islander (Apr 24, 2012)

"Man wow some people have different standards and definitions of "quality".........."

Exactly.
Been to a gallery lately? Looked at a few National Geographics to see what may be considered photographic 'errors' by some?
Looked at some magazine ads, especially for 'fashion'?
It's not all about the current demanding criteria of 'pixel-peeping'.

Quality is subjective, and indeed in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 24, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> 1000_Islander said:
> 
> 
> > The Fuji X100 is a superb camera.
> ...



Many people have no experience with being able to achieve technical sufficiency--let alone technical excellence. We need to remember--as a million maggots will attest, the best food in the world is $hi+_.

Many, many young people today see $hi_+ quality technical values, and pronounce it "good"; they simply do not understand what "quality technical values" consists of. They've never had to produce any tecnhically high-quality work. Never sold any. Never will. They are of course, mightily impressed by the $hi+ they see shot with cellphones on Facebook...etc,etc,.etc.. WalMart has made billons of dollars by selling cheap crap made in China. Some people are happy with sub-par anything.

The original photos were 1) underexposed and 2) piss-poor conversions to mushy gray-and-white...

The standards are simple...the camera's histogram can determine if the shot is underexposed or properly exposed. The final range of tones in the images determines if they images look like Black and White, or if they have a sickly, weak, imitation film look that looks like crap to somebody who has taste, and who knows what quality work actually looks like. Aesthetically, the compositions are clever in some cases, and his points of view are interesting, but his exposure decisions and processing decisions are very poor. My guess? He edited these--the majority of them, on a laptop. There are a handful that show WILDLY different gamma in there...showing either uncertainty, or again, weak technical ability on something called "exposure" and a second little thing called "post processing". Again, the aesthetic choices he made are kind of cutesy in most cases...but the technical failings are quite pronounced. Why are 8 of 10 gray and white, and then the remaining ones salt-and-pepper, and equally bad???

Remember--a million maggots cannot be wrong! Feces is the ultimate food!!! Eat it up!!

Simply poor craftsmanship. No respect for the craft. That never changes. Underexposed in 1868 is the same as underexposed in 2012...that never changes...never will...


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 24, 2012)

Derrel said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > 1000_Islander said:
> ...



Well put, Derrel!


----------



## OscarWilde (Apr 24, 2012)

Derrel said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > 1000_Islander said:
> ...








*IT ISN'T WRONG BECAUSE ITS DIFFERENT!
**Es ist nicht falsch, weil die verschiedenen! 
NON È SBAGLIATO PERCHÉ LE SUE DIVERSE! 
**NÃO É errado, porque suas diferentes! 
Není to &#353;patné proto&#382;e její r&#367;zné ! 

Pick any language you like! *


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 24, 2012)

I finally saw these, and will throw my two cents out there.

If it were the only wedding photos for this couple, I'd say, no.

But given that this was a an experiment, aside the primary shooters (who's work we don't see, could be crap too, LOL).
I think there are quite a few really creative, outside the box, shots that really upended the "rules". To me, I think it shows that the shooter knows how to work with composition, and how to throw it to the wind, not randomly, or casually, but KNOWINGLY. 

There are too many that *are* underexposed, and they just don't work for me either. I think I see exactly what Derrel is complaining about. They are not "dark" or "moody", they are simply bad. 

So yeah, I have mixed feelings across the whole set. That's expected, no?

I loved some of the motion blurred ones. Not all, but some work very well.

Kudos to the guy for really pushing the norm. I think there are some really great images there, as well as some that should have been binned.


----------



## OscarWilde (Apr 24, 2012)

Lets further my point. 

Did you know the frisbee was invented by kids at yale playing with pizza trays after they finished eating the pizza? They decided to throw them to each other...

Derrel: "Hey you kids, don't do anything fun! You are supposed to eat with those trays and then give them back!"

Or the chocolate chip cookie? It was invented by a woman who ran out of bakers chocolate and decided to put in regular chocolate broken into pieces. She thought they would melt and make the chocolate cookies she was trying to make, but instead they just stayed as chunks!

Derrel: "Hey you kids, don't put chocolate in those cookies that isn't in the recipe!  It would RUIN THEM!
If the world was made up of people like you derrel we would still be beating each other with clubs and banging stones together...

Thank goodness it isn't!

Edit: Thank god for Bitter... <3 At least he can acknowledge both sides!


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 24, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Remember--a million maggots cannot be wrong! Feces is the ultimate food!!! Eat it up!!



I'm not disagreeing with you in the least, but I think that a million maggots may be an understatement by an order of magnitude.


----------



## DScience (Apr 24, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Many people have no experience with being able to achieve technical sufficiency--let alone technical excellence. We need to remember--as a million maggots will attest, the best food in the world is $hi+_.



You know you're right. But I would argue that MUCH less know how to achieve artistic sufficiency--let alone artistic excellence.


----------



## 1000_Islander (Apr 25, 2012)

The vast majority of people in the world are kind, courteous and 'nice' folks. It is so sad that when the folks who set up this free PHOTOGRAPHY forum are left vulnerable to postings by the minority who feel some comfort in posting personal attacks and vitriolic messages.
Please grow up.

Thank you DScience for your original posting, and I'm sorry it has dissolved due to the input from some.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 25, 2012)

Don't discount "Instagram" wedding photography either. Some stunning photos, they may very well compete with the X100. Very creative, technical, high quality photos shot with minimal gear 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Instagram Wedding Photography &#8211; My Best Friend&#8217;s Wedding « Babb Photo Blog


----------



## jake337 (Apr 25, 2012)

Never mind, this iPad is pissing me off!!  Done posting with this P.O.S.


Also, Keith, did you slam on the individuals for posting photos that are not their own on this thread like you did me?  I would hope so.


----------



## BrianKraftPhoto (Apr 25, 2012)

Derrel said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > 1000_Islander said:
> ...



Interesting discussion. Everyone is, of course, allowed their opinion. Afterall, this is art we're talking about-- completely subjective. There really is no right or wrong. Having a solid technical base to then go off in a controlled way, in whatever direction you desire, is certainly wise. Not everyone is going to like what everyone produces-- especially if it's outside of the norm. I created these photos for myself, not for anyone else. If someone doesn't like the way they were done-- no worries from me-- I like them and I'm the only one that matters here.

You may think the exposures were too dark, processing too muddy. Think what you will. Everything I did was intentional. And if you think I put myself in that situation because of a lack of know-how or "pronounced technical failings" (or because you think I was editing on a laptop), I'd say you're quite wrong. It was all intentional-- in camera and in post. All the images were edited on a well-calibrated high-end Dell monitor. I wanted a dark mood and achieved it, despite it being a (happy) wedding. If you're not sure if I am capable of "getting things right", feel free to have a look at a collection of my "regular" work that I do for myself, but more importantly, for the clients that have hired me to do what they've seen from me in the past-- a sample of some of my favorites from last year- http://www.briankraft.com/Blog/weddings/my-favorite-wedding-photos-of-2011/

And since we're openly sharing critiques of each other's work, I will say, Derrel-- I find your work to be incredibly mundane. No amount of technical knowledge, gear, or years of experience, such as you have, are going to breathe life and emotion into the photos I've seen of yours. It doesn't matter how technically perfect they are (I'm not saying they are)-- it's not going to get me to want to look at them with any level of interest. Just my opinion, of course.

Cheers!

Brian


----------



## bhop (Apr 25, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> Man wow some people have different standards and definitions of "quality"



well.. yeah, that's what the whole argument in this thread's been about.. duh


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 25, 2012)




----------



## tirediron (Apr 25, 2012)

Since a good photograph is one which is acknowledged to provoke thought, discussion and emotion, these must be truly excellent!


----------



## BrianKraftPhoto (May 9, 2012)

I've been curious as to what the lead photog got at this wedding, as have other folks that have mentioned it. He finally made a blog post with his images. Have a look if you're interested- (link intentionally broken):

h ttp://www.rebophotography.com/blog/links/1550


----------

