Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/05/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On the other side of that coin, a friend's son got married recently. Their pictures too were all b&w, 35mm, mostly available light, PJ-style, not posed or cliched. They were also poorly composed, out-of-focus, badly exposed, and and gave very little sense of the event. All of this while using AF cameras, zoom lenses and TTL flash, too! Of 12 36-exposure rolls shot by the husband-and-wife team, the couple had a problem choosing 18 shots for an album. The could have used a few more posed, cliched photos for their $8,000... To add insult to injury, the photogs simply gave the couple the exposed, unprocessed film and said see you later. I guess they weren't too concerned with copyright issues, what with getting payment like that for the quality they delivered. As an ex-wedding photographer, performance like this infuriates me more than I can say. Good wedding photographers have my undying respect - it takes a very particular sort of person to do that kind of photography well, week after week after week. They are indeed a rare breed. Paul Chefurka >-----Original Message----- >From: Disfromage@aol.com [mailto:Disfromage@aol.com] >Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 11:56 AM >To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >Subject: Re: [Leica] generations about "photographers" > > > >In a message dated 5/15/00 8:25:56 PM, you wrote: > ><<1 in 100 Wedding photographers. Darn hard to find the good >ones! They are >mainly >> an insult to photographers and photography. But the good >ones are out >there! If >> you are lucky and live in a larger town.>> > >I agree about most wedding photographers...but. A friend of >mine recently >was showing me photos of her daughter's wedding. They were >all black and >white, available light and PJ style-not posed and not cliched. I was >impressed, both with the photographer, and my friend and her >family for >wanting that kind of record of the wedding. It really was >refreshing to see. > > >Richard Wasserman >