Bride went from loving her wedding pics to "not up to my standards"

[FarrahJ]

I say that there are more good shots than there are bad.

No offense...but that's mostly because you're also a beginner and don't have very high standards yet. I'd love to hear your opinion a year from now.

 

[kkamin]

I say that there are more good shots than there are bad.

No offense...but that's mostly because you're also a beginner and don't have very high standards yet. I'd love to hear your opinion a year from now.

I don't understand your insistence on being so blunt? I honestly think you have good points and are insightful, but for some reason it goes in tandem with making people feel bad--and personally I think that takes away from the good things you are saying.

I'm trying to understand your approach the best I can. Maybe you believe people will take the "tough love" advice, give it some deep thought, and allow it to shake up their self-view and how they see photography, and allow themselves to grow. Rather, I think it just upsets people.

My screenwriting professor in art school said something that has stayed with me. "Truth can be used to enlighten, and truth can be a sword." He was speaking in the context of critiques. Probably things would be different if we were all face to face in a crit, rather than on a message forum with relative anonymity--but there is still someone on the other end.

Another maxim I like is that "One who is good with a hammer tends to think everything is a nail." Just because a blunt, in-your-face critiquing style might work with one person, doesn't mean it works with everyone. And in my opinion it is probably the least appreciated. There is a non-offensive and constructive way to say almost anything. I think your intent is to impart your opinion and wisdom, and there are countless delivery options, with varying degrees of success, it depends on the person you are talking to.

If it sounds like I'm talking down to you, then I guess this reply is like a metaphorical mirror.

:thumbup:

 

[epp_b]

No fake B&Ws

And, how, pray-tell, would you make a B&W digital photo that isn't "fake"? I'm not aware of any current digital camera on the market without a colour filter over the sensor.

There's nothing wrong with B&W. B&W can often bring attention to a spot in a particular photo where colour might distract away from it.

 

[FarrahJ]

If it sounds like I'm talking down to you, then I guess this reply is like a metaphorical mirror.

I didn't get that at all, but I rarely feel people are talking down to me. If that was your intent...perhaps you should have been more blunt.

Look...I get what you're saying and I'm sorry if you think that being blunt=being hurtful. I don't have a lot of patience and I don't like to waste my time. If I didn't have the intention of helping someone, then I wouldn't post at all. My intent is not to be hurtful, but truthful...and probably that also means being truthful in as few words as possible. I belong to a few other photo forums in which being blunt is standard and you just learn to put on your big girl panties and take cc as the way it's intended. I guess I see it in this way...If you get 10 "great job" comments and 1 "your photos are under-exposed and your WB is off"...the next time you shoot, which is the comment you'll remember and do something to improve?

As for the statement you quoted, there was nothing in that at all that was hurtful. I took the time to look at her recent post, give CC on it, and make the observation that she is indeed a beginner. I don't understand what you find offensive in that?

 

[ClickyPicky]

I'm assuming she viewed the photos on her own computer initially (when she loved them)?

Try to talk to her and let you look at the slideshow on HER computer screen - to get an idea of what she was seeing and what her expectations were so you can make the necessary corrections.

 

[clickchick_23]

If it sounds like I'm talking down to you, then I guess this reply is like a metaphorical mirror.

I didn't get that at all, but I rarely feel people are talking down to me. If that was your intent...perhaps you should have been more blunt.

Look...I get what you're saying and I'm sorry if you think that being blunt=being hurtful. I don't have a lot of patience and I don't like to waste my time. If I didn't have the intention of helping someone, then I wouldn't post at all. My intent is not to be hurtful, but truthful...and probably that also means being truthful in as few words as possible. I belong to a few other photo forums in which being blunt is standard and you just learn to put on your big girl panties and take cc as the way it's intended. I guess I see it in this way...If you get 10 "great job" comments and 1 "your photos are under-exposed and your WB is off"...the next time you shoot, which is the comment you'll remember and do something to improve?

As for the statement you quoted, there was nothing in that at all that was hurtful. I took the time to look at her recent post, give CC on it, and make the observation that she is indeed a beginner. I don't understand what you find offensive in that?

Your intent may have been to be truthful, but you came off as extremely rude. I find your manner very inappropriate, and not at all "helpful". If you truly intend to help a person improve, cutting them down is not the way to go. It will just be met with resentment and disgust. Just curious....if you are so impatient, and don't like to waste your time....why do you continuously come back to this thread?

 

[newrmdmike]

more processing doesn't mean better photos. . . but better processing does.

MANY of those photos could be corrected and be much more presentable. i saw exposure, and white balance issues. if the bride saw your other work and was okay with it, and the wedding photos are on par with the other photos you showed her before hand then point it out to her.

 

[newrmdmike]

also, i would follow farrahj's advice of not being a single shooter at weddings until you know more.

the bottom line is that if you are the photographer then people will expect that expertise from you . . . ESPECIALLY if your taking money, regardless of how little. i can relate, i had an unhappy wedding client once, and it was one of the worst things i ever experienced. BUT i also took a lot of knowledge away from the experience. (screen your clients for mental disorders )

 

[flea77]

No fake B&Ws

And, how, pray-tell, would you make a B&W digital photo that isn't "fake"? I'm not aware of any current digital camera on the market without a colour filter over the sensor.

One word, FILM. Which is why even when I go to shoot digital, there is always a film camera (35mm, MF, LF) right there with me.

There's nothing wrong with B&W. B&W can often bring attention to a spot in a particular photo where colour might distract away from it.

No, there is nothing wrong with B&W, never said there was. The vast majority of digital B&W I see looks like junk, fake. There are some people who take the time and effort to really make it look good, but those are very few and far between. Most of the B&W digital I have seen in wedding photos look like the photographer said "well this shot looks like garbage, wonder what it would look like in B&W?".

Allan

 

[epp_b]

One word, FILM. Which is why even when I go to shoot digital, there is always a film camera (35mm, MF, LF) right there with me.

The reason I don't shoot film (often) is because I can't afford the time or money to process it in the same way I process digital.

The vast majority of digital B&W I see looks like junk, fake. There are some people who take the time and effort to really make it look good, but those are very few and far between. Most of the B&W digital I have seen in wedding photos look like the photographer said "well this shot looks like garbage, wonder what it would look like in B&W?".

I only convert to B&W when I feel it will have a greater impact on the viewer and I never just desaturate it, I always make further adjustments bespoke the photo as a B&W.

 

[flea77]

One word, FILM. Which is why even when I go to shoot digital, there is always a film camera (35mm, MF, LF) right there with me.

The reason I don't shoot film (often) is because I can't afford the time or money to process it in the same way I process digital.

I understand. I can process all three formats in about 15 minutes in my bathroom for around a couple dollars a pop. A "good" conversion from color digital in photoshop to B&W takes at least 15 minutes PER IMAGE (I develop two 36 exposure rolls at a time, 15 minutes, 72 frames, that is 12.5 seconds per image). I am by no means wealthy, but to me at least, that seems fast and cheap. You may of course see things differently.

I only convert to B&W when I feel it will have a greater impact on the viewer and I never just desaturate it, I always make further adjustments bespoke the photo as a B&W.

A large amount of the "junk" I see is not simple desaturation. Not that I am saying that yours are junk, just that 99.999999999% of the people who's "junk" I have seen also think they did a fantastic job at it and that it really looks as good as film. Very rarely does it. The latitude isnt there, the graduation isnt there, the grain (if there is any) looks contrived, and the contrast is overdone. But that is just me, again, YMMV.

Allan

 

[epp_b]

I understand. I can process all three formats in about 15 minutes in my bathroom for around a couple dollars a pop. A "good" conversion from color digital in photoshop to B&W takes at least 15 minutes PER IMAGE (I develop two 36 exposure rolls at a time, 15 minutes, 72 frames, that is 12.5 seconds per image). I am by no means wealthy, but to me at least, that seems fast and cheap. You may of course see things differently.

I'm also talking about the work that goes into printing and the various requirements for adding effects and processing for them.

 

[flea77]

I'm also talking about the work that goes into printing and the various requirements for adding effects and processing for them.

Well that is why I said YMMV. I do not tend to add effects to my B&W most of the time, printing takes the same for me either color or B&W so that is a wash. When I need to do some processing on the computer I just scan them in, takes another couple of minutes, no big deal.

Allan

 

[clickchick_23]

also, i would follow farrahj's advice of not being a single shooter at weddings until you know more.

the bottom line is that if you are the photographer then people will expect that expertise from you . . . ESPECIALLY if your taking money, regardless of how little. i can relate, i had an unhappy wedding client once, and it was one of the worst things i ever experienced. BUT i also took a lot of knowledge away from the experience. (screen your clients for mental disorders )

Ha ha! Thanks!! I probably should have known when her parents told me what a spoiled brat she was and that she stomps her foot to get her way. I believe the term "bridezilla" was used on multiple occasions!

 

[zerofourtwo]

@ Clickchick

At least you can learn from this experience and work towards becoming a better photographer, granted you do not want to earn your experience at anyone's expense (literally and figuratively) but, nonetheless you do need to learn and you will only get that from shooting. Farrahj does make some very strong points, in that you really do need to be on your game if your going to shoot a wedding, especially alone. My personal advice would be to make friends with a photographer in town that has a lot of experience shooting weddings and or shoots full time and request to tag along in order to learn more, the worst they can say is no. As for the problems with the wedding shoot, incorrect WB, OOF, lack of fill flash, these are all really basic mistakes i won't argue that, but they are issues that are easily prevented, and some easily corrected. I say learn from this and continue to evolve.