One aspect that you are not considering here is that the earlier photographers had very poor coverage. Shooting just a few shots of an affair that can last for many hours (4-8) isn't doing justice to the affair. My clients normally get a proof book of all the photos along with whatever albums and enlargements they order. There is such a thing as wanting a better document of that important day. I look back on my wedding album and wish I had more pictures of the event. The photographer we had was more like your middle description.
On top of that, having a choice between "pretty good", a "little better" and "even better" is not a bad thing. Much like shooting a sunset - you think, "that looks good" and take the picture. Then the sun sinks a little lower and you think, "Wow, that's even better" and take the pic. Then the sun drops and you think, "That's the one!" and you take the pic. Sometimes the sun drops and the first shot is the only good one. So if you waited, you would have no good shots. So, was it bad editing that you just did? No, it was a change in the situation that you didn't have control of that you reacted to. A significant portion of a wedding is not under the photographer's control. That portion is more like shooting the sunset - you are not positive that you got the best shot. On top of that, you aren't sure just what the couple/family will actually want. I have been surprised sometimes about what shots are re-ordered. When I was shooting medium format, I was much more reserved in my shooting because I had to be (cost of film/developing, speed of changing film, etc). But I can tell you that since shooting digital my clients are getting better and more variety than before. When you only shoot one, your choice is obvious. Your statements are much like saying that anyone who buys/shoots Canon or Nikon doesn't know how to operate a camera because they are relying on automation. Sure, some are like that, but not necessarily the majority. The same goes for the wedding photographer. Now instead of only offering one shot of mother/daughter with mom blinking, you can offer a good shot (no blinking) along with more poses and candids. Shooting people is a numbers game to some degree. Expressions change from moment to moment (especially unposed shots) and situations continuously change. Not offering coverage is certainly an option as a photographer, but it doesn't make those who do, poor at in camera editing or lazy. Sorry, you touched a nerve. -- Best regards, Bruce Saturday, May 29, 2004, 8:07:00 AM, you wrote: g> Interestingly enough, this goes hand in hand with something I was just thinking g> about the other night. g> Years ago (1950's - early 60's) a standard wedding package was 10-12 B&W 8x10 in g> an album. The photographer usually shot 1.5 to 2x that many negatives, but hoped g> some of those would sell as extras. In other words they shot pretty close to 1:1. g> Back in the late 80's early 90's a wedding photographer usually shot 3 rolls of g> 35mm (108 shots), or 5-6 rolls of 120 (50-72 shots). Gave the client the best g> 30-50 as proof to pick from. A ratio of about 3:1. g> Now the wedding guys on the list, are say they are shooting 600-800 shots per g> wedding. You give the customer (who most likely can not tell a decent shot from g> an awful one) hundreds of images to select from on a computer. If the photog g> dumped the junk there may be 100 actually sellable photos in the batch. 8:1. g> So what is my point? Well, first I think that they are still getting about 24 g> keepers. The difference is the early photograpers edited in the camera. A lot of g> current photographers (and I am talking about commerical photographers here) do g> not seem know how to edit their work at all. g> How does this connect to Bill's comments below. Simply put, it was not cheap to g> shoot, so that early photographer was carful to shoot only sellable photos. He g> edited out the others before tripping the shutter. g> -- g> William Robb wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Mark Cassino" >> Subject: Re: Darkroom or Digital for beginners >> >> >> >>>I'd bet that same school teaches kids writing with pencils and >> >> paper. >> >>>That's a shame. Real writing is done with reeds on clay tablets. >> >> People may >> >>>try to write using pencils, paper, pens, typewriters, or even word >>>processors or computers. But do you really think that they could >> >> possibly >> >>>express the same thoughts that they could express with clay tablets >> >> and >> >>>reeds? Obviously not. If they really want to express themselves, >> >> clay >> >>>tablets and reeds are the only way. (Of course, if they want to be >>>published, they should scan the clay tablets in a format suitable >> >> for >> >>>computerized typesetting.) >> >> >> I realize that this is written with tongue firmly in cheek, but think >> of this: >> >> If you really have to work at putting those words down, then you will >> think more carefully of what you write. >> You will find a way to express yourself as succinctly as is possible. >> You will cut to the meat of the matter. >> You will learn to express yourself more accurately. >> >> It is often argued that the tool (or process) doesn't matter, all >> that matters is the result. >> I think the tool does matter, more than most people realize. >> >> William Robb >> >> >> >> >>
