My last complaint in this thread!

Again, whenever there is a thread regarding wedding photograhy there are always several posts alluding to the notion that "the pro did an OK job but guests with disposable cameras got the really authentic shots". Or worse, "the pro did a lousy job and good thing I was there with my camera". Or even worse than that "the pro was rude, unobtrusive and/or incompetent"!

My questions are, where are these "photographers" coming from and what is wrong with them! And what' wrong with clients- do the not shop and choose the wedding photographer discriminately- if the want spontaneous and authentic imagery, can the not find a professional who knows how to do that.

Now, I am not making excuses for bad photographers but how LAZY or unobservant are some of these shooters. Of course, the pro photographer, if he or she is not a family member does not know, except for the couple and their bridal party, who's who and what they do. How is the pro to know that Uncle Oscar brings his saxophone pr bagpipe and sits in with the band or Aunt Natasha does a Russian Kossak Dance, or Cousin Sheldon tell dirty jokes at table #11 and everyone cracks up or WHATEVER? Do theses shooters call themselves photojournalists? A good shooter has an eye for the action and can anticipate happenings and be on the spot.

In my own case, at a planning session long before the wedding a day, I discuss all of this with the couple. Besides the routine elements of the ceremony and the reception, I inquire about the family dynamics and I then know what to expect. Who' s gonna get emotional and cry- whos' the life of the party, any special event within the main event. Along with the contract I fill in a WHO'S-WHO to make certain that all the principals and family VIPs- are included in the formal groups and candid shots. During the ceremony, if there is time, I look for " \faces in the pews" and shoot reaction shots with a long lens. At the party, I work the dance floor, stalk the couple as they mingle, and stay on the lookout for emotional interaction.

So...if folks still wanna have their wedding resemble a camera club outing- well they don't have cardboard digital cameras yet but everybody has a cellphone- that's OK by me. I think the family and guests should enjoy the occasion, eat, drink and celebrate and leave the photograhy to the professionals- that what they pay for!

I knock myself and my crew out at every wedding to get the job done thoroughly and inconspicuously- we try hard to get all the shots without becoming intrusive and yet there is the cell-phone Paparazzi rushing the altar at the church, darting around at the reception- it's OBNOXIOUS! It doesn't happen all the time but we put up with it, work around it, and try not to trip over them or kill anyone! It comes with the territory!

Can't agree. For example, if a customer decides to print "a good transparency" coldset with coldset paper, I guarantee the photographer would be appalled. You can also ruin a good transparency with lower quality paper, i.e, where the ink soaks in like a sponge instead of sitting up on top of a nice bright white coated surface. To me that would be "the worst possible printing method". I have dealt with situations where the customer supplied their own paper and sneaks a bunch of very old, brittle, yellowing stock into the mix. Quality goes to hell very quickly, not to mention an exponential increase in web breaks. As far a "make certain compensations", yes, many publishers put in methods to collect a few samples every so often, say, every 10,000 thousand copies mailed. They check the quality against the signed off proof and if there is significant variation, then it's time to negotiate "make goods".

Yes, if you choose the right printing technique, fine enough screen, high end ink and paper, and use a quality printer, you can do a photo justice, but I emphasize, the printing process has a smaller color space both in reproducible colors and dynamic range than the camera captures so there are almost always compromises somewhere. Most of the time the publisher chooses to get the ads as close to perfect as possible and the memory colors like flesh tones of their own editorial content, and sacrifices highlight or shadow detail. Don't even get me started on trying to reproduce metallics like gold and silver on anything other than bright white coated (meaning $$$) stocks ...

Yes, I remember being disappointed with coarse screens on newsprint but I knew how to make prints that would survive.

Back in the film days, I guess I was fortunate that most of my clients used top-quality 4-color process lithography, top-quality stock, and techniques like spot varnishing. Of course, a reflection print or a printed page does not have the dynamic range of transparency viewed by transmitted light but again I suppled transparencies that fit the process and oftentimes supplied shadow or highlights masks to retain detail.If the original print, transparency or digital files is poorly crafted, seriosl under or over exposed or completely out of color balance, the is no printng process that can restor detai or informatio that is not there.

I had a personal experience with this five years ago. I remarried, and when the proofs came back from the professional wedding photographer we hired, the photos all looked overexposed! When I initially interviewed her and she showed me her portfolio, the photos looked fine.

I asked her why our photos were overexposed? Her answer “oh, I shoot weddings now where the photos have an ‘ethereal’ look!” That was never discussed with us, nor acceptable.

Needless to say we had her fix what she could of photos we selected from her proofs, and luckily we had a cousin of ours who also took about 2,000 photos that day of the wedding, alongside the wedding photographer, who approved it beforehand. Ironically, we were somewhat annoyed that she was doing that, but as it turned out we selected about twenty photos that our cousin took to be included in the wedding album from the wedding photographer.

The wedding photographer at first didn’t want to include them, but I told her that she had never discussed with us the “ethereal” nature of her photos now, which were unacceptable to us. I reminded her that we were the customer, and if she wanted to get paid, she needed to include them.

Guess what? She included them.

Yet another wedding photograhy horror story and- guests and amateurs to the rescue! So I have a questio for you- you are into photograhy! Did you not scrutinize the pro-photographers work- portfolio- before you hired her? Did you not discuss, with her, waht you expect in terms of properly exposed, well crafted, sharp traditional photograhs and you didn't want the entire coveage to be a "SPECIAL EFFECT". Soft and fuzzy etherial imges are nice- but not the whole job!

I can understad that you pro-shooter fashions herself as an artiste and wanted to create for you, HER artistic impression but this should have been worked out in advance and presented to you as an option. Either that, or she just screwed up her exposures and wants to pass ofs "blown-out" images as "art"- that happens!

Also, as I have previously mentioned many times on this forum, etherial, hight-key, "airy", misty images are not the product of overexposure or washed out detail. The are carefully crafted images- properly exposed with selected use of the brighter end of the dynamic range or properly softened with the use of a specialized soft focus lens or high quality diffusion filter. Certan softeng effects can be added in post-processing but they are not as effective.

As a part of a total coverage, such imagery can be emotional and impactful is used sparingly. These will "stand out" if you will, from the sharp detailed images, If the entir job is soft and/or washed our, viewers will be constantly looking for focus and detail- it hard on the eyes and the brain- VIEWER FATIGUE!

Yet another wedding photograhy horror story and- guests and amateurs to the rescue! So I have a questio for you- you are into photograhy! Did you not scrutinize the pro-photographers work- portfolio- before you hired her? Did you not discuss, with her, waht you expect in terms of properly exposed, well crafted, sharp traditional photograhs and you didn't want the entire coveage to be a "SPECIAL EFFECT". Soft and fuzzy etherial imges are nice- but not the whole job!

I can understad that you pro-shooter fashions herself as an artiste and wanted to create for you, HER artistic impression but this should have been worked out in advance and presented to you as an option. Either that, or she just screwed up her exposures and wants to pass ofs "blown-out" images as "art"- that happens!

Also, as I have previously mentioned many times on this forum, etherial, hight-key, "airy", misty images are not the product of overexposure or washed out detail. The are carefully crafted images- properly exposed with selected use of the brighter end of the dynamic range or properly softened with the use of a specialized soft focus lens or high quality diffusion filter. Certan softeng effects can be added in post-processing but they are not as effective.

As a part of a total coverage, such imagery can be emotional and impactful is used sparingly. These will "stand out" if you will, from the sharp detailed images, If the entir job is soft and/or washed our, viewers will be constantly looking for focus and detail- it hard on the eyes and the brain- VIEWER FATIGUE!