Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/11/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Jim McIntyre wrote: > > Mark, > > To clarify, my post was making a somewhat OT & tongue-in-cheek reference to > the latest entry in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. I wasn't the one who > made the reference to wedding photographers being better off working at > mcdonalds. I've shot weddings, and have colleagues who paid their mortgage > shooting weddings. But I think the point being made is not about the > shooting of weddings but rather the money after expenses issue that results > in renumeration that does not fully compensate the skill and work required. > If that's "stupidity", then I'll have to review the MW dictionary again. > > BTW, I've done the civil war wedding shoots too.... as for knowing more than > what f8 and focusing is, I think I qualify. > ><Snip> I do react against the term "McJob" to wedding photography. I know a photographer who shot weddings for a wedding studio while he as getting his commercial footing. That worked out fine for him. He was taught their way of doing things. I never knew college kids majoring in Economics or whatever who did weddings as a way to get themselves through school but I'll take your word for it. I think here in Portland we dont have that or I'd no about it. It would be much easier I'm sure to do so working for an established studio doing thier system of doing things but of course there would be much less money in it. But also I think the mind-set of people who hire people who are working their way through college doing weddings to shoot their wedding is not the same kind of people who are up for outlaying a ton of money for the wedding. The fact is a wedding is a key time for people to spend a huge amount of money. They WANT to spent it. It is really amazing. They save for it. They take out loans for it. NO other "one shot" event compares except sending the kid to college which is not one shot event or that big retirement trip to Paris with the wife which is. If you hired me to shoot your wedding in 1977 and want a print of your long dead dad for your Steinway I still have the neg and would do it for you. Maybe digitally to take the crossover out. I may be an extreme example of someone who does not take his weddings lightly. Plenty of pretty good pros might have shreaded those by now. Or just thrown them out. When i do a wedding what people are paying for is the fact that THEY KNOW IT'S GOING TO COME OUT. I've never blown a wedding. My proofs never got all scratched up in the machine or lost. Or my shutter on my Hasselblad lens didn't sync. I'm not going to test out my new flash on them. Or film. I have backup gear and backups for my backups. I'm testing NOTHING at the wedding. I use no piece of equipment that I've not had plenty of feedback with. And if it goes out on me I'm more than covered. So I can't relate to the casual wedding photographers who put their self their college because they make more money doing weddings than working at McDonalds!!!??? Do they have a second body if their main body gives out? Do they know how many friends the fries machine can make during a rush? Or did their wedding clients figure they are not paying them enough to care anyway? I've never met one I guess I charged enough so they were not my competition. This one's got me scratching my head. Mark Rabiner Portland, Oregon USA http://www.rabinergroup.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html