Grahame Loc: Fiji

Brides and their Mothers have access to the internet, copious amounts of advice with respect to choosing a photographer for their wedding. They have access to the work and portfolios of a very wide range of photographers.

Do you really consider a picture such as you have posted is of any use whatsoever to giving some assurance to a bride that she should consider using you?

autofocus Loc: North Central Connecticut

This is exactly what I was saying before about name dropping, who cares what he used Eric, and what the equipment was, that's not the point, and you're not Karsh and I'm sure he produced a beautiful image with it, but your image above is soft, and not sharp where it has to be, face and eyes! And, sorry to say Eric, if this image is an example of your portrait work it would not make a bride happy. I cannot soft sell this and say it's acceptable.

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

I hate to turn rude and call you both idiots!--(Vince and Graham!!!) But I told you I have no portrait portfolio----but after being egged on I put up one from my HD at only 60kb fiile size---then Vince claims it is soft----DAH! And Graham----who insisted on touting that equipment was all important and i showed that Karsh used 8x10 as did Adams and he remarked they would do better with a modern camera---and I asked---just which---with no reply. You guys just want to pick fights---Is this just a site of prima-donnas?--well I can toss it back just as fast as you can pitch out the ______!-----Eric

autofocus Loc: North Central Connecticut

not claimed Eric, IT IS SOFT, and I think you're delusional. No, we're not here to pick fights, I did my best to help you, and offer suggestions, and like all others who did that you simply countered with a "you know better attitude." Do you want honest answers, or do you just want to be stroked? And if it's the latter, I'm afraid you came to the wrong place! Be sure to let us idiots know how you make out on your first wedding job.

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

Vince, you gave helpful suggestions about the wedding biz. And they match veteran Steve Stin's three books on the topic. But this entire thread was asking the nature of change in the business with the increased do-it-yourself publishing of wedding prints and phone cameras over what the books say--which are a few years old--yet also in the digital modern metro age. What you have said is that the business has not changed at all from earlier books' description of each step and marketing. It is expected that super expensive weddings will avoid--do it yourself--including just buying the copyrights and going on line for the prints and books. A photographer should have enough of an "eye" to not need1300 snaps to choose from---but obviously if the market still calls for1300 proofs--that is the product. I am sure Karsh could do each worthy scene in three shots. But this has never been about my entry into the wedding field. I have no concerns about my own talents and did not ask for a critique. I only put up examples to illustrate points in our discussions along the way in the topic thread..---ew

Grahame Loc: Fiji

I don't consider anyone commenting on this thread "wanting to pick fights", they have simply asked pertinent questions and made pertinent comments/suggestions with regard to what you have been saying. You don't get to choose what you only want to hear.

Your arrogance, sarcasm, rudeness, evasive and superfluous waffle may be 'qualities' you use when discussing/debating/investigating something on a forum, maybe you will need them for dealing with a Bride?

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

Dear Grahame:------Although you must enjoy the last word?-----Years ago, a lawyer once told me to "never have a pissing contest with a skunk." And lawyers should know?------ew

Grahame Loc: Fiji

Well it certainly upset you being asked what experience you have in the type of photographic work that you'd be expected to produce at a wedding.

Idiots and now skunk, I wonder what's coming next?

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

It is also calling you a last-word wiseguy. I have said through this--the thread is about the evolution of the profession under point and shoots and phones. It has nothing to do with me. As for my product--should I enter the wedding racket--it would be what the customer wants and similar in appearance to the illustrations in the dozen "wedding photo books." And as for your demand for a portrait (twice) I posted in low res(60kb) and then you assailed that as "soft"---DUH. So---go back to your cave.-----ew

Grahame Loc: Fiji

"Demand", really?

and then we have ......................

Quote - "I posted in low res(60kb) and then you assailed that as "soft"---DUH"

You got that wrong as well, I never made any comment on the 'softness' of that image you posted, that was someone else that made the very valid observation.

......................................................

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

"Very valid comment"---both of you attacked me as one---and here you repeat that. WHEN YOU LOOK IN THE MIRROR-----"Do you see an Ugly Hedgehog or do you see a WOOD KITTY?"--------

autofocus Loc: North Central Connecticut

yep, that was me....

autofocus Loc: North Central Connecticut

"attacked" is such a harsh word, especially against the people who offered to help you Eric. And I assure you, Grahame knows quality, I've seen his work. And I can't understand why you'd put up a portrait photo knowing it doesn't represent your best work, and I know it's a small file, but I'd bet the original full size image was also soft. And is name calling necessary?

Dannj

I agree and I think the differences in the final product become apparent in enlargements.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Yes not everyone uses them but the vast majority do. The number that don't is dwindling. The top end phones have all the controls of a dedicated camera, if you choose skill is not critical. History is an indication, technology always wins.