what are professional photographers for?

[Marg0]

I mean it's not like the old days when photography was difficult....700 quid gets you an amazing digital camera that does all the biz for you. If you are having a wedding should you not just buy an expensive camera and get one of your mates to do it? I was at a wedding just there and it dawned on me after a while that the 'pro' was just a dude with a nice cam, and Nikkon were doing all the work. Actually, the bits he were meant to do, like framing shots, posing subjects, and saying cheese, he got mostly wrong.........My pal (an excellent amateur photographer) said he would be embarassed by the shots. What gives?
(In a roundabout way I'm kind of asking 'can I buy an amazing camera and make it do amazing shots for me without having to work out F stops n stuff'.)

[Fay Mousse]

The wedding you recently attended was a poor reflection of professional photographers.

Most are artists inasmuch as they know how to take a very good picture - the camera is really a small part of it.

I am quite hopeless, no matter how many books I read, or how good a camera I have. I just don't have an artistic eye.

Sure, I can take an okay photo of somebody, and I can touch it up - to a point. These days professional photographers are a whizz with PaintShop Pro, or similar, and will take the time to make sure all the photos look good - evening out the bride's skin tone, getting rid of under eye shadows, adjusting light and dark and so on.

There are some excellent amateur photographers out there - but you can't do it overnight.

[Chickadee]

The photographer at the wedding you attended gives professional's a bad name. My brother is a professional photographer and even he gets embarrassed at some of his compatriots. He went to college, uni, worked on a local paper and has worked really really hard to get where he is. He really has the eye for it and does a lot of PR work and some of the ideas he has are so clever.
Unfortunately, the artistic gene in our family completely skipped over me and he got it!!

[jno]

es, you can. Automatic modes on even quite cheap cameras will do almost everything for you except framing the actual picture. You need neve wonder what an F-stop is (I certainly don't know.) But for a single wedding, wouldn't a pro photographer be cheaper than a whizbang Nikon? The trouble with your wedding was you got a bad photographer. It's worth asking to look at a portfolio before you hire one. If a plumber screws up, you can call another plumber. If wedding photos screw up you can't hold another wedding, so it's worth making sure you get a good one.

(I don't know much about video cameras as opposed to still ones but the same comments generally apply.)

[andy-hughes]

I am a freelance writer, and I work with a lot of photographers. In this line of work, positioning, and lighting are everything - hence the photographer's art. You could give me their equipment, and I woouldn't have a clue what to do!

A wedding is slightly different. Yes, with modern cameras, the law of averages says that anyone with even a vague idea can get a good collection of shots on the day. It depends entirely on what you want - and what your budget allows.

If you want a properly shot album with all the lighting and poses done correctly, get a professional, and check their references first - i suspect the guy at your recent wedding was just not that good.

However, you get what you pay for - or you do if you check first anyway - and if all you want is some reasonable snaps as a momento, then rope in a few friends, and take your pick from what they give you.

So, to anwer your question - does your �700 camera make you a photographer? No, it makes you someone with �700 camera. It's like giving you a Formula One car and expecting you to win Grand Prix in it - it's just not that simple.

With practise and experience, if you have a degree of skill, you could become a good photographer, but don;t expect the camera to do all the work for you.

It's like writing - anyone thinks they can do it - it's not as easy as it looks - trust me!

[jno]

andy's quite right, positioning and lighting are the trickiest things. For wedding photos there are stock poses - cutting the cake, the wedding party etc etc - which anyone can arrange; taking off-the-cuff shots may be more difficult unless you have a good eye. But software like Photoshop do offer the option of cropping pictures to better advantage. Lighting is difficult, especially indoors. You want people's faces to be just right - not in shadow, not bleached out by the sun, no red eye. Oh, and smiling. So you may well need a flash and to know how to use it. But these things can be picked up with practice. Sounds like Marg's 'pro' was just a duff operator.

[Mortartube]

It sounds like you got a bad photographer. A proper professional photographer will instinctively know things like a potential problem that can ruin a photo and correct them.

For instance a bride in a white dress and bright sunlight, who stands near a lot of greenery for a photo can have a green cast on the skin and clothing caused by reflected light from the vegetation. A good photographer would not pose someone near those bushes in that situation. They would instinctively know. It is only one example but there are many.

Imagine trying to take a photo of an extremely dark skinned man in a white suit standing in front of a white wall with direct sunlight on it. Not an ideal situation but it could be required, what exposure do you use to get the best out of the picture?

A professional should be able to get the best out of this circumstance. The camera doesn't do it all.

[Doc_Spock]

Professional photographer, load of old boll0cks.

Modern digital camera, decent software, the sky is the limit.


Why anyone pays hundreds of pounds for a wedding photo taker is beyond me.

[Ice.Maiden]

Can't agree Doc. We have professional photos taken every 18 months or so, and they're outstanding. A "proper" photographer instinctively knows the best angles and backgrounds to use - and whilst it can cost a lot of money, you only pay for the photos you like, and get the best.

[fo3nix]

It doesn't matter what camera you have.

A good artist will produce good with with good or bad tools.

A bad artist will make bad stuff with good or bad tools.

Case in point:

I buy the best brushes, paints and canvas made. Will I produce the Mona Lisa? No.

F stops and all that: yes, some cameras will allow you to get away from that. But this is what photography should be anyway. Anyone who thinks good photography is all about knowing the best settings for a camera is deluding themselves.

Good photography is good art. It can't just be created by a good camera. It takes artistic talent and skill.

If Ansel Adams was still around, he'd be loving today's digital cameras. Not because it means he doesn't have to work as hard, but because he can get away from all the boring stuff and concentrate on why he's there in the first place -- to shoot a fantastic scene.

[Marg0]

Thanks for all the responses, very interesting.
The guy did have an amazing camera, which probably saved his results slightly; the other bits that were really down to him he )*))ed up. I mean: he was able to point and click, there would have been some really cokced up shots with an old fashioned camera. But I've seen other wedding photos, and they're not just visual snapshots, they're works of art. And this guy was no artist. It pi##es me off when people behave like this. It's not like you're buying a car or something: this is your wedding, a one off.
I love the way the photos are sold, too: they watermark them then shove them on a website and you need to fork out seven quid a go per photo for something that costs him 40p.

[34years]

if you take nice pictures = you must have an expensive camera ??????????
if you make a nice meal =you must have an expensive cooker ???????????

[Panic Button]

When you see the work of a really good photographer, it becomes obvious why you pay for their art.

[ChuckFickens]

A decent camera will take decent pictures most of the time, by decent I mean they will be exposed correctly and should be in focus.

A decent camera doesn't make a decent photographer. Give me an old fashioned camera and I could set it to take a properly exposed and focused shot but that wouldn't make it a decent photograph as the framing and the composition would probably be crap. I understand the technical side of photography but I have no artistic talent at all.

To say a decent camera will make a good photographer is like saying if someone gave you an expensive easel and paints you'd suddenly become a great artist.

[Ice.Maiden]

I agree with panic. With a good photographer, you pay for their artistic ability, not just the equipment they use. They instinctively know how to get you into the nest possible pose, and you pay for that training and experience.

[Ice.Maiden]

*Best, I meant! Oops!