|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 14th, 2006, 06:47 AM
|
#31 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Georgia
Posts: 65
|
For those who read this and saw it changed... I removed this post because it was pointless and written when I was upset.
-Michael
__________________
May the best days of your past be the worst day of your future. |
|
|
|
June 14th, 2006, 02:25 PM
|
#32 | |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
|
Quote:
With all due respect to truly professional photographers, it's become an unseemly profession the way it's being practiced by many. I'm starting to get calls from people who are having their friends do the photography and just want a good video, which makes sense to me give how easy it is to do competent photography with today's equipment. But few amateurs have the equipment or know-how to make a decent video, and that isn't likely to change soon from what I've seen. |
|
|
|
|
|
June 14th, 2006, 08:18 PM
|
#33 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fort Myers, FL
Posts: 263
|
is this common?
I'm a rube in this business, but I'm learning first hand about Kevin's comments concerning unprofessional still photogs. Here's a tiny clip from an April wedding I did--does this crap happen often with the rest of you? I'm only on my 3rd wedding, so I'm hoping this is the exception. Didn't have nearly the trouble with the 2nd one...
http://www.firsttakestudios.com/demo...dthephotog.wmv Thanks-Vin |
|
|
|
|
June 14th, 2006, 08:53 PM
|
#34 | |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Denver, Colorado USA
Posts: 654
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 14th, 2006, 09:13 PM
|
#35 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fort Myers, FL
Posts: 263
|
The still photogs autofocus laser continuously lighting the b & g...I guess it's just something I'll have to deal with. Any way to clean it up in post? The one shooting the second wedding didn't have it going off nearly as continously...
|
|
|
|
|
June 14th, 2006, 09:54 PM
|
#36 | |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 419
|
Vincent....that photog. wasn't being unprofessional....and yes, that red light periodically is common. that has nothing to do with the photog being unprofessional. no need to worry to much about that one.....perhaps be more carefull with your editing.....ie. edit bits out like that when you can which maybe you already do.
dont sweat it too much. Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 14th, 2006, 10:30 PM
|
#37 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Aus
Posts: 3,884
|
As for teh red gridding, sure it may be running a focus assist, but like us, they need this to get a decent focussed shot in low light. In our case, we run continuous lighting, in their case red grids with a flash following suite. This is usually dependant on the lens used on teh camera, or if shooting stills a combination of lens and film speeds
If thats what happened on the day, so be it, u cant change it and i wouldnt bother trying to change it.... either on the day or after the fact. Its an element thats beyond ur control and i no longer worry about those kinda things if i dont have to. As for your own video, i would definately consider dithching the mentality of "i dont need a light" Even a 25w spotty woud have made your vidoeo 100times better.. Im not being critical, so dont take it personally, but the Photogs red eye reduction and speedlight assisted grid auto focus is not something you should worry about, in this case, this particualr clip is in sore need of colour enhancement and noise reduction as to my eye, its a misaligned WB red wash out. The Photogs incessant red spotting is not a concern when looking at the whole picture you have here. The couple wont be looking at the red spotting, theyll be looking at your overall image quality. I would be worried about THAT more than spend my energy worrying about something beyond my control |
|
|
|
|
June 14th, 2006, 10:44 PM
|
#38 | |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Aus
Posts: 3,884
|
Quote:
In addition to what youve written here, with teh DSLRs of today, the shutter sound CAN be turned off.. but the photogs DONT do this coz they need an audible way of knowing theyve taken the shot.. god knows why they cant look in the EVF.... anyways... as for video, here in aus, only 15% of the wedding market actually hires one, while 80% of weddings have a pro video.. these figures suck the big one. Ive done ceremonis where photogs have actually STOPPED the ceremony to get a shot of the rings being put on the couples hands.. hell i can tell u some horror stories of photogs assistants deliberatly walking into my shots, following me like a bad smell due to their lack of experience, or taking credit for compositions i have done for video.... I give the photog a chance to get some stills while im setting up certain "candid" shots. And usually its these photos which are blown up and put on a wall... I dont let that worry me, as plagiuarism is rampant in this industry. In the end though, it just lets me know exactly who the true professional is... There ARE ways to do both jobs in a nondescript, unobtrusive manner. People however (general public) expect the photog to BE obtrusive and in most cases, running a video light is not as obtrusive as a demanding photographer whos trying to build a portfolio simply coz the bride is a porn star an the groom is an adonis. You'll find that those wanting to create portfolios for themselves will go out of their way to get a stupid number of shots if teh couple "look" good.. For a plain jane, they wont get this treatment. I can tell u that 90% of weddings i have done, this has been the case.. for those already established its not as profound or obvious, but when the couple is on a budget, most of teh time, theyre young and paying their own way. This means theyre probably hiring newbies, in turn, thesenewbies take the opportunity to milk the gig for what they can... |
|
|
|
|
|
June 15th, 2006, 04:26 AM
|
#39 | |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 99
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 17th, 2006, 03:54 PM
|
#40 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 2,488
|
The million dollar question in all of this is, once you're offering both photography and videography, what can you do to minimize the impacts of either one on the other? In an ideal world video cameras would offer good enough frame grab results to negate the need for a still camera any time a video camera is running, and then photography would only be needed for formal posed shots. Since that's not quite the case yet there's going to be an ongoing need/desire to have the photographer try to get the same shots the videographer is trying to get, and that's going to cause problems even when they're actively working together.
|
|
|
|
|
June 17th, 2006, 08:35 PM
|
#41 | |
|
Still Motion
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,186
|
Quote:
We offer both and usually bring a crew of 4 to most weddings for photo and video combined. With 4-5 video cameras, and 3 being stationary, we can usually avoid having the crew in the photo or video and still can get the shots. There are also some shots where I think having the crew in the shot can add to it. The photosession would be the obvious example, but there are other times throughout the day I think you can use the crew within the work to make it better. |
|
|
|
|
|
June 17th, 2006, 09:52 PM
|
#42 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fort Myers, FL
Posts: 263
|
Peter-
This is not processed footage, but raw footage taken by my 2nd cameraman who had gone with manual settings and had the fstop too high and, you guessed it, didn't white balance. It was our first wedding, we didn't charge anything, and I would never pass footage like that to anyone. I only posted it due to the autofocus laser grid from the photog- You're right about using lights--the b&g had wanted no extra lights, and the reception was very dark. That, combined with the wrong settings created the crappy quality footage you saw. Thanks for the advice, though. |
|
|
|
|
June 18th, 2006, 08:16 AM
|
#43 | |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Aus
Posts: 3,884
|
Quote:
in this game, in this day and age, most are using 20d's and D70's. Every 5th photographer is using a 1ds and im yet to meet someone whos using a Hassel digital back... on the most common DSLRs in the wedding industry the shutter sound CAN be turned off... which is why i dont understrand what your reference to "proper" dslrs is all about.. im not talking about DSLRs in general, im talking about the DSLRs in use in todays wedding market... |
|
|
|
|
|
June 18th, 2006, 08:24 AM
|
#44 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Aus
Posts: 3,884
|
Vince,
Misaligned cameras happens to the best of us on occasion, the trisk is to set 2 seperate WB's for lights on and off.. with regard to client requesting no lights, i dont give them an option, unless they make it an issue PRIOR to signing the contract. In that case, i disavow all liability to the image quality upon reference to the clients request.. In the end, they usually dont worry about lights and let me use my discretion. I wouldnt be taking on 60 weddings a year if i didnt know what i was doing... As for darkened rooms, im usually good with alot of the venues here in sydney so i know most of the Matre'd and MC's by name, but that still doesnt mean anythign unless i approach them... i usualy ask them to up the ambience a bit.. even 1 or 2 stops can make a huge difference. While theyre diong it, i stand there with the camera so they can see what im doing. Once they understand that your not really asking for much, and they can see for themseles the difference it makes, the more helpful they wil become. U have to remember, that these venues rely on you to represent the clients recpetion as best you can, this way THEY look good to the client.. If its too dark, people will more likely comment on the dark environment as opposed to your dark footage. Dont be afraid to ask to get the lights raised if it means saving you from running a light. |
|
|
|
|
June 18th, 2006, 01:15 PM
|
#45 | |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Charleston, IL
Posts: 231
|
Quote:
The 20D is louder than the older 10D. I've heard varying opinions as to whether or not the 5D is louder than the 20D. Believe me ... if there was anyway to turn off the sound we would. It is not an option. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
