emraphoto
Veteran
arrgh! for the record i know it's (wedding photography) a hard job and you need to know your stuff. the problem is i just have zero interest in doing it. i usually take that as a hint insert smily face here
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
I agree with you, john.
Faintandfuzzy
Well-known
Because they are crass, vulgar, stereotype-reinforcing, superficial pictures that tell us nothing about the subjects but that pander to an esthetic convention –"ABC Bachelorette era"– constructed by media and industry to be self-serving.
Oh, never mind, they are not that bad and the clients are surely happy because they buy in to the whole esthetic. The images are just fodder, visual swill, infinitely forgettable.
Since you asked, that is my opinion, and yes, it was easy to say. I hope you find it interesting and I fully expect not all will agree, which is perfectly fine.
Anyway, the post was about the camera. I'd have to agree they look "sharply focused" and they have "smooth tonalities."
Maybe you could grace us all with some examples of your work...so we all know how it should be done.
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
... they are superior to the vast majority of wedding photos, which are ...
Those are prenuptuals and not wedding photos!
Craig F
Newbie
These photos are very much Damian's style and if you love or loath them won't worry him at all. (He is a very experienced wedding and portrait photographer who now makes a good income teaching people around the world.)
I really think that photographers these days have forgotten the purpose of a camera. If you look through a lot of HCB's work you'll find sharpness quite lacking but it really didn't matter because he was capturing moments than meant something. He was also stuck with one film speed (once he loaded the film anyway), while easy his menu system was lacking a lot of options, the AF system on his cameras was crap, the AE was rudimentary at best and his photoshop work was seriously unimpressive.
As ever virtually every camera can take great images if the trained eye is pointing it in the right direction with understanding of the subject, light, aperture and shutter speeds and the shutter is released at the right time. All the arguments over what a given camera can't do or how the menus are set up seem to me to be a cover for a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of the art of photography.
Rant over.
Cheers,
Craig.
I really think that photographers these days have forgotten the purpose of a camera. If you look through a lot of HCB's work you'll find sharpness quite lacking but it really didn't matter because he was capturing moments than meant something. He was also stuck with one film speed (once he loaded the film anyway), while easy his menu system was lacking a lot of options, the AF system on his cameras was crap, the AE was rudimentary at best and his photoshop work was seriously unimpressive.
As ever virtually every camera can take great images if the trained eye is pointing it in the right direction with understanding of the subject, light, aperture and shutter speeds and the shutter is released at the right time. All the arguments over what a given camera can't do or how the menus are set up seem to me to be a cover for a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of the art of photography.
Rant over.
Cheers,
Craig.
Stuart John
Well-known
Yep sharpness is not always the most important thing.

Share: