Another So-Called Professional Photographer

Status
Not open for further replies.

sonicbuffalo_RIP

Senior Member
On our trip up here to Syracuse, my wife informed me we would be getting our pictures taken by a 'professional photographer'. My wife said I could also shoot my images, but that 'Jeanne' was a professional. Well....after watching the 'professional' shoot yesterday...and she was kind enough to take a few pictures of my wife and I with my camera...I asked her whether she shot in Raw or .jpg. She responded ".jpg", and said it's because she didn't have time to edit all the shooting she does in Lightroom. She casually told how she uses Lightroom, Photoshop, and several other programs to edit her pictures.

Now, to make a long story shorter....the lens she shot with was a Canon prime 105 mm 'Macro'. For family portraits no less. I hope she isn't planning on getting paid.
 

480sparky

Senior Member
So what does she do that prevents her from being a 'professional'?

Shoots jpg? Uses a 105mm macro?

Neither one of those will preclude one from taking sellable images.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Knowing nothing other than what you've told me, I will say this in her defense...


  1. For event photography, and even weddings, it's not unheard of to shoot JPEG. My brother, the 20 year pro news photographer, shoots only JPEG for work because, as this woman stated, to screw around with editing all of these pictures would leave him no time to do his job. In his words, "If you know how to set your camera and get a good white balance, you don't need to shoot RAW and you can get pretty damn good shots straight out of the camera."
  2. 105mm is right in the center of the 70-200mm range that I know many folks use when doing studio work, particularly with live models (as opposed to "sitting"). It's not an uncommon focal length for portraits at all, particularly if you're shooting full frame, and it has none of the potential face distorting problems that can come at wider than 85mm. The fact that "macro" is stamped on the lens means nothing until you focus close - it's just a 105mm.

That said, the proof is always in the results. Until you show me crap coming from her camera I'm more inclined to label you as a so-called photography snob than I am to label her as anything other than professional. Not that I would actually do that. ;)
 

sonicbuffalo_RIP

Senior Member
Knowing nothing other than what you've told me, I will say this in her defense...


  1. For event photography, and even weddings, it's not unheard of to shoot JPEG. My brother, the 20 year pro news photographer, shoots only JPEG for work because, as this woman stated, to screw around with editing all of these pictures would leave him no time to do his job. In his words, "If you know how to set your camera and get a good white balance, you don't need to shoot RAW and you can get pretty damn good shots straight out of the camera."
  2. 105mm is right in the center of the 70-200mm range that I know many folks use when doing studio work, particularly with live models (as opposed to "sitting"). It's not an uncommon focal length for portraits at all, particularly if you're shooting full frame, and it has none of the potential face distorting problems that can come at wider than 85mm. The fact that "macro" is stamped on the lens means nothing until you focus close - it's just a 105mm.

That said, the proof is always in the results. Until you show me crap coming from her camera I'm more inclined to label you as a so-called photography snob than I am to label her as anything other than professional. Not that I would actually do that. ;)

Thanks for keeping it real. You're probably right. But she did have a 70-200 mm f/2.8 just sitting at her table that she could have used for better bokeh. She never used that lens or her 50 mm f/1.8. Plus, we were shooting in a heavily shaded and wooded area. To each their own. She also announced to everyone that she never does weddings where they pay $5000 because she doesn't want to deal with 'bride-zillas', and mother-zillas'.
 

480sparky

Senior Member
Who cares what equipment she uses? Who cares what image format she uses? Who cares what lens she uses? Who cares how much time she spends in post?

As long as she gets the results she wants and her clients are happy with the results.

THAT is what is important.
 

Just-Clayton

Senior Member
I don't always use my 50mm in portraits. My last shoot I used my 75-300 Spectrum 7/ f4.5-5.6. It depends on the effect I was looking for. As for JPG or raw. I have leaned more to JPG. I do my HDR in raw. Around 50% of the photographers I know shoot JPG. It really depends on the photographer and what works for them.
 

sonicbuffalo_RIP

Senior Member
Okay....Father forgive me for I have sinned. I get the picture.....and I'm glad I no longer have to worry about whether I shoot in jpg or raw....and that it's the image that matters. But....if you saw the picture that she took in the livingroom right behind me, you would start to question her abilities. One face in her portrait is totally blown out. I wouldn't have let that picture out to anyone. It's a very poor quality picture. I definitely wouldn't have let anyone frame it. It wasn't from yesterday. Maybe I am going overboard, but I keep seeing 'that' picture in my head when talking about her. You'd have to see it.
 
Last edited:

RON_RIP

Senior Member
I have to agree... It's not the tools, it's the craftsman.

....
That is the absolute truth. But that being said, the craftsman will always pick the best tool for the job at hand. And if you think photographers are fussy about their equipment, you should listen to cabinetmakers argue about the best chisels. And do not even get them started on hand planes or power equipment.
 

sonicbuffalo_RIP

Senior Member
How bout some pics of her work, or a link to her website?

Well.....I know I've overspoken on this subject and got way over my head...but she doesn't have a website that I'm aware of, and short of going to her apartment and begging for some samples, I don't have access right now to any of her shots. By the way, I'm sure 'most' of her images are fine. But that one lingering photo just makes me wonder why? I wish I could scan the picture but I am visiting my Mother in Law and don't have a scanner available so you'll just have to take my word for it. It's the only picture that has been repeatedly framed (Sister in Law has the same photo) and put on display. It sticks out like a sore thumb.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
But she did have a 70-200 mm f/2.8 just sitting at her table that she could have used for better bokeh.

Huh? The 105mm macro was probably an f/2.8 as well so I don't know how much more bokeh you'd get from a 70-200mm f/2.8. Granted, the longer tele end would offer a little more bokeh, but it is also a narrower field of view which wouldn't work as well for group shots compared with something wider. For individual portraits, 85mm to 105mm is a standard range for portraits and is much easier to handhold than the 70-200mm.

I'm sure the Canon lens is just as good as a Nikon lens...it has more to do with the person using it. ;)
 

sonicbuffalo_RIP

Senior Member
Huh? The 105mm macro was probably an f/2.8 as well so I don't know how much more bokeh you'd get from a 70-200mm f/2.8. Granted, the longer tele end would offer a little more bokeh, but it is also a narrower field of view which wouldn't work as well for group shots compared with something wider. For individual portraits, 85mm to 105mm is a standard range for portraits and is much easier to handhold than the 70-200mm.

I'm sure the Canon lens is just as good as a Nikon lens...it has more to do with the person using it. ;)

Right! From my point of view....she has every right to use whatever she wants. The photoshoot was first a group shot of 6 people, then another of 10 people, then individual couples shots....I would have thought that shooting 10 people, she would have preferred the 50 mm lens, and she did mention the lens, but she preferred to stand about 50 feet back, and almost fell over into flower gardens, into trees, etc. She was very clumsy when using a fixed lens like the 105. I mean I shot the same scenes with my 24-70 and got excellent results, and that was working off her poses as she was shooting. She also had her camera set up to fire rapid bursts, which I wasn't sure she really needed. I have read where more photos isn't always the answer. Shooting in a wooded area and her standing back almost 50 feet back of the subjects seemed a little off. We were told these were photos 'from the waist up', so I would have thought a 'pro' would have used a different lens. She ended up stumbling over more than one object in the backyard.

Also....she didn't have an off camera flash, so evidently in a heavily forested dark area...no fill in flash as I would have expected from a 'pro'.
 
Last edited:

Just-Clayton

Senior Member
Now not using a flash, I can't understand. If shots inside then yes a flash. I also have seen other "pros" work. The pictures were way too bright in some areas. You just want to ask "why"?! I actually had to step in at a small wedding. The girl that was supposed to take the pictures was bragging this and that. When the ceremony started she shot one or two pics. I had shot off close to fifty. By the time the reception came she was tapping the keg and not shooting. I told the bride who is like a daughter that this will be my gift. As I was leaving the mothers and friends all thanked me.
 

rocketman122

Senior Member
On our trip up here to Syracuse, my wife informed me we would be getting our pictures taken by a 'professional photographer'. My wife said I could also shoot my images, but that 'Jeanne' was a professional. Well....after watching the 'professional' shoot yesterday...and she was kind enough to take a few pictures of my wife and I with my camera...I asked her whether she shot in Raw or .jpg. She responded ".jpg", and said it's because she didn't have time to edit all the shooting she does in Lightroom. She casually told how she uses Lightroom, Photoshop, and several other programs to edit her pictures.

Now, to make a long story shorter....the lens she shot with was a Canon prime 105 mm 'Macro'. For family portraits no less. I hope she isn't planning on getting paid.

Thanks for keeping it real. You're probably right. But she did have a 70-200 mm f/2.8 just sitting at her table that she could have used for better bokeh. She never used that lens or her 50 mm f/1.8. Plus, we were shooting in a heavily shaded and wooded area. To each their own. She also announced to everyone that she never does weddings where they pay $5000 because she doesn't want to deal with 'bride-zillas', and mother-zillas'.


I wrote and rewrote my post. didnt know if I should, but here we go. whats up Sonic. We shoot only in jpeg for weddings. some protogs I know do only the ceremony or formals or BG photo shoot in raw(canon or nikon) most through only shoot jpeg. we shoot between 1700-2300 pics a wedding-each. I run through them all in acdsee pro. tweak exposure, contrast, turn doubles to BW and so forth. I filter hard to get the best. we always work hard on getting the image, to, or as close as correct as we can in the camera. you really dont need to adjust much for the bulk of the images. table shots, dancing and here and there pics. we invest a bit more time with the ceremony and the family pics. but my exposure is pretty much 90% to what I want. formals and ceremony bottom line is the most critical of all the photos. jpeg is very good even for a double page spread album print. it looks great. customers are happy, they get great pictures, great quality and everyone is happy. when I did my comeback, I too thought "WHAT!? NO NEF! BUT JPEG SUCKS!" and it simply isnt so. it isnt so. the amount of quality you achieve with using nef is so little after outputting to jpeg, it simply isnt worth all the extra time to edit. joeg with FF and L/FINE with pro glass is very high quality.

when I shoot family formals, and unlike the majority of protogs who hate family formals, im in the zone when I shoot formals. its one of my strong features as a protog. I would go for the primes (85 1.8d and 105VR) always if a, I had the space to work, and b, if I had enough time as I usually have to shoot a lot of pictures of different amount of people and usually in different orientations (depneding whos standing). face horizontal, face vertical, half body vertical/horizontal, full body vertical/horizontal. and I have at times went with the primes.

I prefer the 70-200 VR1 only because I need versatility and speed so I can adjust on the fly. you will never see me standing in the same place for two pics. even though I have a zoom, my mindset is to go back and zoom in for better compression, isolation, shallower DOF and better perspective aesthetically. So I will put the mm I want on the lens and move myself to adjust the composition. full body, 70-135mm, half body 135-200, face 135-200mm. so I will at times shoot 10 people, standing side by side, full body at 100mm! thats far back. I could shoot at 50mm but the IQ just has a better look. 100mm is just great for family formals.
dont stress she went for the 100mm. its a killer lens and very sharp. you know that you can also get in closer with our 105mm vs the 70-200's. so thats a plus as well.

till you dont see all the images, dont be quick to judge buddy. I dont know what settings you were in. was it a studio, was it in a location and what lighting did she use. I dont know if you can see a protog work and see what level he is. but I can most definitely watch a protog work for 5-10 minutes see what he does without seeing a picture or even looking at his gear and I can see what level he is. when you say certain things about the image thats locked in your mind, I dont know if what you say is what id see. understand me? meaning it might seem much worse or less that what youre explaining. stay calm, wait for the images, come back and let us know how they were. see how the family liked it first. dont brain wash them beforehand though. I know a photogs mind. youll try to brainwash them and get them worried. be neutral. dont mentally psych them up before you get the pics and tell them, man I saw how she worked and she sucked***. wait quitely and patiently and then judge. then after, when the pics do suck***, you can say "I told you she sucked ***" with a big smirk on your face hahaha. cheers buddy.
 

rocketman122

Senior Member
He cares because
1-its his family
2-he understands photography _dont know what level though.
3-too many self proclaimed "artists" and "pros" who are shams. are all paka paka and dont deliver.

heres an example of a wedding shot about a month ago. this is not the group with BG but still. I shot at around 100mm. everyone is flat and straight and look taller than they are. 50 would not give this.
I know many will nitpick at anything. light hitting their face is harsh. yes, thats outdoor location formals. you deal with what you have. so zip it.
NKT_1609 copy copy.JPG

also notice it how they have a more relaxed feel in the picture. people arent bunched up one next to the other like soldiers. they have an easy casual "as you are" formal thats nice but not "square" like we all know. its a much nicer casual family picture and they are relaxed because im not in their face. If I could, I would have gone back further. ill take group full body shots at 70mm+ any day.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top