Harsh?

Jim Michael · June 20th, 2016, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Harding

Photogs always amuse me when they are taking more pics than they will ever even edit! I have had 2 of them standing either side of my tripod during speeches shooting as fast as the flash could handle it ...During the fairly short speech each must have exposed at least 200 frames. Yep, seems like the more you give the bride the better you are rated. 5000 shots at the reception means you are a killer photographer!

lol. Spray and pray. Years ago I handled logistics for a staff of 30 wedding photographers. They got 10 rolls of 35mm film, except for the occasional large Mexican wedding or quince where they may have been given 15. Our hand loads had about 38 exposures. They usually turned in a few unused rolls.

Chris Harding · June 20th, 2016, 05:52 PM

Hi Jim

That brings back memories ...yep ...10 rolls was about average in the later years of still shooting on film ..before that and using 220 roll film and a 6x9 format camera we used to be able to squeeze 16 shots per roll and quite often would take a little as 50 exposures on the Mamiya but it was almost extravagant when you also took the 35mm cameras out and really go crazy with over 100 frames exposed. We almost had instant preview too ..I used to leave my assistant at the reception and go back to the lab, develop and print the important stuff so guests could order prints before the wedding was even over ..Ah, the good ole days!

Steven Digges · June 21st, 2016, 01:12 PM

Guys, As a former media still shooter I can chime in and help you understand the speeches being overshot. Believe it or not getting a flattering still photo of someone talking into a mic is a very hard shot to get. No one looks good with their pie hole wide open and their tongue showing and of course that is exactly what they are doing. In this digital world with no cost per frame the inexperienced will spray and pray. That is not the right way to get the shot but that is what their doing. Of course they are not going to deliver fifty frames, they are hoping for one or two good ones. The proper way of doing it is to read the speakers "style and body language", that will teach you when you can anticipate the moment when you will be able to get the shot. With video our brains are forgiving of someone speaking because it is a natural thing we do. When you freeze the act of speaking into a single frame the result can be funny, unflattering, or downright disturbing.

And no, that shot is not going to end up in a frame on the wall. But keep in mind it is the job of every "good" photographer to deliver the story of the day. They do it without the benefit of audio. They must get the shot that speaks a thousand words.

On a side note not related to weddings I could always tell a professional presenter, politician, or celebrity. When I would show up squatting in front of the front row a professional would purposely "give me the shot" so I could get the hell out of there. They would pause for a few seconds while looking out at the audience, then look at me in case I wanted eye contact and then continue on. Bam, I would be out of there. The amateur would ignore me and keep on talking non stop so I had no choise but to stay until I thought I had a decent shot. It is not an easy one to get.

As far as a private photo shoot goes I don't think it is wrong if that is what he wants. But in this case his approach to it was harsh and wrong. If I was Peter I would have walked into the situation expecting in advance that the photog was going to be a PIA. That is not the right attitude to go in with, but Peter is a better man than me ;-)

I'm glad it turned out OK for him.

Steve

Steven Digges · June 21st, 2016, 01:21 PM

Hey Chris,

My 220 roll film camera was a Pentax 645. That motorized shutter was like a garage door opening and closing inside the camera!!! But what a thrill it was to lay a transparency that big down on my color balanced light table. Oh yea, the good old days......I would not want to go back to them for anything!!!

Steve

June 20th, 2016, 05:52 PM	#62
Chris Harding Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 8,441	Re: Harsh? Hi Jim That brings back memories ...yep ...10 rolls was about average in the later years of still shooting on film ..before that and using 220 roll film and a 6x9 format camera we used to be able to squeeze 16 shots per roll and quite often would take a little as 50 exposures on the Mamiya but it was almost extravagant when you also took the 35mm cameras out and really go crazy with over 100 frames exposed. We almost had instant preview too ..I used to leave my assistant at the reception and go back to the lab, develop and print the important stuff so guests could order prints before the wedding was even over ..Ah, the good ole days!

June 21st, 2016, 01:12 PM	#63
Steven Digges Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 1,828	Re: Harsh? Guys, As a former media still shooter I can chime in and help you understand the speeches being overshot. Believe it or not getting a flattering still photo of someone talking into a mic is a very hard shot to get. No one looks good with their pie hole wide open and their tongue showing and of course that is exactly what they are doing. In this digital world with no cost per frame the inexperienced will spray and pray. That is not the right way to get the shot but that is what their doing. Of course they are not going to deliver fifty frames, they are hoping for one or two good ones. The proper way of doing it is to read the speakers "style and body language", that will teach you when you can anticipate the moment when you will be able to get the shot. With video our brains are forgiving of someone speaking because it is a natural thing we do. When you freeze the act of speaking into a single frame the result can be funny, unflattering, or downright disturbing. And no, that shot is not going to end up in a frame on the wall. But keep in mind it is the job of every "good" photographer to deliver the story of the day. They do it without the benefit of audio. They must get the shot that speaks a thousand words. On a side note not related to weddings I could always tell a professional presenter, politician, or celebrity. When I would show up squatting in front of the front row a professional would purposely "give me the shot" so I could get the hell out of there. They would pause for a few seconds while looking out at the audience, then look at me in case I wanted eye contact and then continue on. Bam, I would be out of there. The amateur would ignore me and keep on talking non stop so I had no choise but to stay until I thought I had a decent shot. It is not an easy one to get. As far as a private photo shoot goes I don't think it is wrong if that is what he wants. But in this case his approach to it was harsh and wrong. If I was Peter I would have walked into the situation expecting in advance that the photog was going to be a PIA. That is not the right attitude to go in with, but Peter is a better man than me ;-) I'm glad it turned out OK for him. Steve __________________ www.CorporateShow.com Been at this so long I'm rounding my years of experience down...not up!

June 21st, 2016, 01:21 PM	#64
Steven Digges Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 1,828	Re: Harsh? Hey Chris, My 220 roll film camera was a Pentax 645. That motorized shutter was like a garage door opening and closing inside the camera!!! But what a thrill it was to lay a transparency that big down on my color balanced light table. Oh yea, the good old days......I would not want to go back to them for anything!!! Steve __________________ www.CorporateShow.com Been at this so long I'm rounding my years of experience down...not up!