Re: Black Macaque


J. Prescott
 

I don't know if I have ever felt like I could actually contribute to a
thread in this forum, but I have certainly gleaned a lot from frequenting
the posts. However, I feel I can add something to this discussion as it
pertains to the wedding photographer (photographY)



Wedding photography is an entirely different breed from other forms of
photography. Landscape & studio work is all about getting everything
perfect - pose, composition, exposure, light(ing) just to name a few of the
obvious. If you tried to apply the same matrices to wedding photography,
you would entirely convert the affair to being all about YOU, the
photographer. & I don't say that lightly. But that isn't what a wedding is
all about, is it? & so it is that wedding PHOTOGRAPHY isn't about having
all perfect pictures. Sure, you are going to wind up with images that would
make many of you cringe - it would be an exercise altogether unfair to pick
out all the flaws. But you have to keep in mind what the objective, &
therefore, the expectations are.



As a wedding photographer, (particularly photojournalistic wedding
photographers) our objective is to capture as much of the EMOTION in each of
the 'events' of the day as possible. Spontaneous expressions & interactions
don't allow one to 'set it up' before the shutter is triggered. & a whole
day of the flash going off is going to get pretty monotonous after a while -
suddenly everyone would be wishing you'd just go away when you 'appeared',
or they'd start acting differently in some form or fashion. Not what you
want - & at the end of the day (pardon the pun), not what the wedding couple
really wants to see, either.



Talk to most photographers that shoot family portraits & see if the
client(s) generally pick out the picture(s) THEY would have selected. In
many instances, the client isn't looking at all the technical aspects when
making their selections. So if not for technical discernment, what is left
for the client to use in making their selections? It has to be factors that
we as photographers typically COULDN'T draw on, because we don't know the
people in the pictures. They see subtlties in the facial expressions or
body language that we miss entirely. & so it is with wedding photography -
& I believe exponentially, given the height of emotions on that day.



So in a nutshell, there you have it, from my perspective. I hope I have
added something of value for you to consider.



jp

Joseph Prescott



www.jprescottphoto.com <http://www.jprescottphoto.com/>



_____

From: colortheory@... [mailto:colortheory@...] On
Behalf Of Paul Lawrence
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 9:31 AM
To: colortheory@...
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Black Macaque





On 07/07/2011 20:13, Ron Kelly wrote:
In my own defence, however, I do feel that blasting away with ambient
light only, not much thought of formally posing
or detailed examination of the composition (these included the "formal"
portraits at the wedding after all) is
perilously close to letting the camera take the picture, something any
monkey could do.
Ron I do agree completely with you there, and sadly for too many couples
I fear the Black Macaque might do a better job...
There's no doubt that ambient light photography can be beautiful, and does
definitely seem more spontaneous and
hence, "natural." It's also a lot easier for the photographer,
coincidentally.
you miss my point about quality of light, it is usually more difficult
to find available light that will provide good lighting (without heavy
shadows under hats and in eye sockets). It is the difference between
good photography and bad photography, just as after I have the RAW files
in Lightoom/Photoshop I start from what I learnt in the darkroom and
follow similar principals, though with vastly greater speed, accuracy
and ease.
My guess is that this is a trend based on new technology, and eventually
the pendulum will swing back. The aesthetic
of noise in skin tone will not last.
IF it isn't a pendulum it is a circle, but always nudged on by
technology, (too) heavy retouching is back in fashion, higher capture
resolutions mean in portraits you can often see every pore and hair on a
face IF it has been well lit and correctly exposed - at that wedding did
you hear the photographer's camera shooting like a machine gun? I have
heard that some modern wedding photographers bracket everything at 6 or
8 frames a second - I seem to remember reading that Ansel Adams may only
take 6 or 8 plates on a hike lasting several days when photographing
Yosemite.
Ansel Adams and Yousef Karsh may have burned and dodged every one of their
prints, and I don't doubt that they
did, but I would wager that they would agree that effort in creating the
"perfect" original is far better than all the post production you can bring
to bear.
Again I agree and I strive for that perfect original, but I will use use
all the skills I have learn't from Dan's books and many contributors to
this list and will compromise knowing as I press the shutter what I
expect to do in Photoshop to achieve the result I can 'see' as I compose
a shot.

best regards
Paul

Paul Lawrence T:01903 216621 M:07711 185478

Join colortheory@groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.