I would be concerned about a photographer taking an engagement that they weren't comfortable with, regardless of the context. How do you do good work if you are constantly dealing with a negative reaction to what you see, unless you are documenting it for some reason that you do believe in? Negative reactions tend to influence the way you make photographs in my opinion.

Would you be happy being a photographer at a wedding for a different racial or religious group? Native American? Mexican? Jewish? Southern Baptist? Mormon? Pagan? Serbian Orthodox? African American? Hindu? Muslim? Interracial or inter-cultural?

I personally think it isn't appropriate to bring your own baggage into somebody else's celebration.

In this context I think there are some important questions to consider about what the nature of relationships and marriage really mean. That's really what this debate is about.

My wife and I will be a party next month with some good friends. We'll probably both be taking pictures. They call it a 60-40-60 party.

Two gay guys that are both turning sixty and have been together as a faithful couple for forty years. It will not be a "gay" event, just a community and family event with all types of people and all ages. They just happen to be two gay guys that have demonstrated a much stronger commitment to a quality relationship than most people manage.

Personally I struggle to see what is wrong with that when I see the hypocrisy demonstrated by the self-righteousness of so many people with strongly held beliefs of some religious or other affiliation.

Something about: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" King James Bible, Matthew 7:4 ( I think)

I like Gene's approach and here is why: First, a new student has already seen thousands of images made by other people, boring. Second, they simply don't have anything to relate to the language of photography. ISO, aperture or f/stops, shutter speed, white balance, depth of field, view point and so forth. Send them on a project to make a story (first lesson on composition without them knowing it). Build from there with images they have made themselves. Start by building their "new language" and by critiquing what they have done and what and why they did or did not succeed. In their mind, they don't see what you see. All they want to start off with is making a sharp image. When you start off teaching them that the aperture lets in more light with small numbers and less with large and that all changes with shutter speed, frankly, they will look at you with doe eyes. What many of you teach is basically correct but it should be at a time when they start to grasp "the language" of photography. I know a lot of people who have taken photography courses and can say the words relating to exposure but they don't really, really understand. The only way they can understand is when it relates to them and what they have produced. We live in an instant gratification world today and we have great technology to help us toward our goals. All this being said, I think one of the "greatest" benefits of Gene's technique is that I am sure it helps him see how he can help each student.

Where does instant gratification come into it? I think you would tend to find a group of people disappointed with their first attempts. Which then leads to asking the question why are they so bad and how to do it better.

Typically focus will be in the wrong place exposure will be all over the place and the first lesson learned will be that the camera doesn't do it all for you. Then you can start to teach how to control the camera, it's limitations then you have progression, accomplishment.

There is no need to make a subject dry and boring, it is much easier to learn, when you can see the application and how something is useful to know and use.

Agree with points one and two, but those should probably be true for any professional engagement. Deliver the goods with minimal intrusion, don't be an influence just an observer, and follow the engagement guidelines.

Third point, I disagree. My family and friends are celebrities - OK minor celebrities - in my world, and having the record brings back good memories. It is, I am sure a personal choice, but the video my wife took of my brother's funeral is the very last tangible connection I have with him. That is priceless to me.

Each to his or her own, I guess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl5vi9ir49g

I have a record of the end, and for that I am grateful.

Anyone have any comments, experience etc. regarding the Tamron 28-300 MM F3.5 - 6.3 DI VC PZD?

Never have been a proponent of one lens doing everything but
"one never knows"

Traveling to Europe in Sept and do not want to "lug" my Canon gear (24-70 and 70-200 5D Mark 3)
Weight
Theft

Can this lens "really do the job?
Clear tack sharp images across the range of the lens

Or...for a few hundred more, purchase the Panasonic FZ1000
(1 inch sensor) and be done with it

Thanks for any feedback

Pete

I've used Nikon's a lot longer than I care to admit. Only other cameras I've had in 35mm were one Minolta (totally manual) and a Voighlander. Never owned a Canon. I doubt getting a Canon would make me a better photographer and if I'd never used a Nikon, I doubt getting one would make me a better photographer. I believe that I could go out and buy any DSLR and no one would ever be able to tell which camera I took the photo's with. This is nothing more that the Ford/Chevy debate. Looking for the brand of camera to make better photo's with is just not that good an idea. Buy the camera that feels good in your hands or, one you already have lenses for or, that you can afford. If you simply like the sound of one name over the other, get it! A camera in the end is simply a tool, it'll only do what you can do with it, no more!

Mdorn, I'm not sure I can help a lot, as I'm not convinced that "natural" or "realistic" are attributes that can be pinned down with any objective certainty. The closest I have been able to come in my own mind is that if upon viewing the image one has the feeling the scene could exist as presented, it is "believable", then it would meet that criteria. The irony, of course, is that believability can be accomplished even in the presence of significant amounts of PP.

Personal anecdote: I recently entered one of my landscape images in a PSA chapter national competition in the Nature category. The competition stated quite clearly that PP was allowed, but in bold, contrasting color text, it was stated that "all adjustments must appear natural". (At the risk of a little self promotion) my image received a Judges Choice Award. What is interesting is that this particular image is one of my most highly processed images! It is two exposures, four stops apart, hand blended into a single image. Any photographer with a medium amount of experience would know that no camera could have captured the shot in a single exposure, and is therefore not "natural" or "realistic". Yet, it passed the test of "believability" in the eyes of the judging panel.

Ultimately, I see this all as a non-issue. All that really matters is that one strives to create images that have aesthetic and/or emotional impact. Beyond that, what does it matter?

Don't get me wrong, most of them are beautiful - some I don't particularly care for - but they are not what was shot.

To each his own...you like PP and I, as a general rule, don't. I can see it's uses and there are some on here who do it extremely well, and there are others that overdo it, IMHO.

And when I post images to show what my brand new camera can do...it's going to be what my brand new camera can do, I'm showing off the camera, not my PP skills.

If you don't like them, my avatar is distinctive, in the future simply skip my posts.