On Apr 27, 1:10 pm, "AKA gray asphalt" <benvh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> As far as I can see, the photography business is just that ...
> a business with a bunch of ratinalizations for charging a
> bunch of money for illusory benefits that the customer and
> probably 101% of other people can't see.
"Beholder", etc.
> Maybe there are
> some really dedicated wedding photographers out there but
> the ones I've seen and interacted with at a limited number
> of weddings are pretty poor and provided nothing special.
Ditto.
> Video is different, imo opinion because they have to deal
> with sound which is complicated and very important.
Generally, according to my limited experience and observations,
wedding audio production suffers. Sometimes due to incompetence,
others due to apathy and/or the sheer practical impossibility of
getting a good source because of environmental conditions.
> But
> to talk about the art of having two people smile in their
> wedding gear is about as much art the mass produced oil
> paintings on sale on weekends at the flea market.
It takes people skills, and an eye for flattering angles. People who
are photographed a lot know they have "good" and "bad" sides. A
skilled and experienced 'ographer can often detect these at a glance
and can see which poses will be most flattering or the face and body.
Professional models go to school to learn the basics of posing, if you
examine "good" (or at least expensive) professional fashion
photography you might notice many poses are similar, i.e., hips are
rarely shown full frontal, fingers are usually extended and joined.
> Now lighting is an art and I'm sure there are a bunch of
> subtleties and I don't know if I ever will know as much as
> you guys may and a friend of mine who is a real photographer
> can take better and more flattering photos than I ever will
> be able to but most of the so called wedding and portrait
> photographers are a sham.
There's a market for wedding 'ography at almost every price point, and
good and bad practitioners of every discipline, and I'm sure a lot of
wedding 'ography is less than optimal, but I think you are painting
with too wide a brush.
Lighting surely is an art, some people make livings doing little else,
and the casual 'ographer who intends to make a living needs to have
had some practice on shoots of no consequence.
Generally, I think, many people, maybe most, can look at a photograph
and see that it's good, or bad, without knowing why. When you can
detect the why, you may have the skills to go pro.
Describing the difficulties of event 'ography is beyond my writing
skills, but IME it is one of those things where Murphy's Law applies
as often as not, sometimes to every damn aspect of the shoot.
If you think you can do better than those you see, give it a shot.
But I would recommend doing a shitload of reading, and practice, and
mastering the Zone System until it is second nature, then looking at
your work with as jaundiced an eye as you can muster before you take
on a shoot.
The acquisition of at least one pair of iron underpants is also a good
idea to prevent having your ass chewed off by those with no monetary
interest in your final production but you still can't tell to fuck
off.
-----
- gpsman
|
