MarkH wrote:
I'm assuming these were shot and offered by a hired "Pro"?
Judy Cronin wrote:
these were so bad...felt sorry for my niece...i would have never paid for....not sure if she did :cry:
Yes, she had to pay for them. I hate the look, but it seems like a growing trend, but in my opinion, bad photography. They are still making money though. I would sure hate to have them as wedding photos that can't be redone.
Jeannine wrote:
I've been seeing some pictures like this, lately. I think it is part of the whole old feel for photographs. Sometimes they work. This one doesn't really work - for me, at least. Maybe your daughter likes it?
No, she thinks they are awful. It was supposed to be about them as a couple. They had dated for a couple of years and married in the backyard of a friends house 4 years ago, so she wanted "good" pictures. It took this many years for him to be convinced to take them and only because I finally asked him to please do it for her. He does a lot for her all of the time, I don't know why pictures were such a big deal.....LOL!
Judy Cronin wrote:
these were so bad...felt sorry for my niece...i would have never paid for....not sure if she did :cry:
The blown highlights and out of focus shots are certainly easier to achieve vs a good one, so I guess more people can be photographers. Oh well. Thanks everyone for the comments!
This kind of thing is like when I would hear the news media saying th a a "Sportsman" shot the young deer in the park and left it there. No "Sportsman" would do that. So if someone wants to call themselves "Professional", it doesn't take long to see the fruits of their labor. And the irony is, we can't change that. We can discuss it til the cows some home, til pigs fly, whatever, they will still dilute the public image of a porfessional photographer.
Copenhagen, snuff said!
MWAC
Loc: Somewhere East Of Crazy
there is a huge difference between a wellplaced sunflare or great black lighting and what has been posted here as an example a new "trend". Blown out highlights (important highlights, the young man's face!) are never something a professional photographer should be going for.
*** read my siggy line below, if I have offended anyone ****
You get what you pay for. If these so called pros with a cannon rebel had to use a 35mm camera, they would not not be able to pawn themselves into thinking they are a pro.
This is kind of the new trend in photography--purposely searching for backlighting and sun flares. It is a matter of personal taste. If you don't like it, don't pay for it. You should check out a photographers portfolio before you hire them.
RayT wrote:
This guy is NOT a "Pro". He is a wannabee!
He is the exact problem with professional photography today. and one of the reasons I closed my studio last year.
Ray,
I am right with you my friend, a pro can produce sun flaire and still maintain the correct exposure, useing a filter would help. Sick of the so called BS Pros.
This is no PRO I'd be willing to bet that the camera is still set on automatic, as I say A is for amateur.
This photo was not taken by a Pro, shame that someone
paid for this. I would never have shown it had I for what
ever reason pulled the trigger on this one.
If they do that and try to get their photos published, their not professional photographers
i am getting all this conversation, but i haven't seen the photo. would someone attach 1 so i could c 2 ? frank bruce
mykelmas wrote:
If they do that and try to get their photos published, their not professional photographers
what everyone is thinking: "oink, oink".
well ive seen better shots, but cant make a silk purse, etc
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.