My experience with a "fauxtographer."

[JohnnyRebel]

this is a classic case of not knowing how to use the AF on a 7D. Always use single point on that awesome camera. Anyone who doesn't is clueless about that camera.

+1

Makes sense when shooting portraits, especially shooting at f/1.2.

JR

 

[Zargon]

looks to my untrained eye that most of the issues are with the PP.

that crap is why when my brother insisted on 'pro photos' for my parents anniversary I specified in the contract that we get the raw's and then they are to do some PP.

and that we get the pictures without watermarks for our own purposes. ie rights released

 

[xchangx]

looks to my untrained eye that most of the issues are with the PP.

that crap is why when my brother insisted on 'pro photos' for my parents anniversary I specified in the contract that we get the raw's and then they are to do some PP.

and that we get the pictures without watermarks for our own purposes. ie rights released

I'd doubt any true pro would hand over raw files. I sure the heck wouldn't

 

[angry hampster]

I'd doubt any true pro would hand over raw files. I sure the heck wouldn't

I won't either. I have had clients request it, and I told them I will only give batch-processed JPEGs with color correction and very mild sharpening. Same client then came back saying that my JPEGs were too large for her computer to handle, so I had to give smaller files.

 

[Zargon]

I'd doubt any true pro would hand over raw files. I sure the heck wouldn't

I got them for my wedding..(the RAW's)

but of course, the photographer was a close friend

you are correct though, I think he gave me JPG's, not the RAW's, but they were pretty much uncorrected, about 3 weeks later I got another set of disks that he had corrected

but they are full res and not totally mucked with, which is what I really wanted, and so I could shutterfly them any size I wanted without worrying about pixelation

I will *never* contract with a photog that makes me get prints from them, thats for sure.

 

[alfa147x]

No photographer I've worked with would ever give out RAW files.

That and getting all the pictures taken. Those are two of the most shot down requests

 

[TanisHalfElven]

I got them for my wedding..(the RAW's)

but of course, the photographer was a close friend

you are correct though, I think he gave me JPG's, not the RAW's, but they were pretty much uncorrected, about 3 weeks later I got another set of disks that he had corrected

but they are full res and not totally mucked with, which is what I really wanted, and so I could shutterfly them any size I wanted without worrying about pixelation

I will *never* contract with a photog that makes me get prints from them, thats for sure.

I've actually been recently thinking of doing some paid photo work ( i figure a little extra money for something i enjoy anyway). If it were me, i'd just hand over the RAWs. Why not ? Its not like i'm ever going to sell someone's family photo's or weddin photo's. Might as well relivies yourself of the responsibility.

Its good to know there are people out there who'd like that.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

No photographer I've worked with would ever give out RAW files.

That and getting all the pictures taken. Those are two of the most shot down requests

Why is that anyway ?

 

[mchammer187]

Haha, no problem. I know my head looks bad, especially at that angle. That shot is one of the worst. And clearly shows that she has no clue how to use individual focus points. She drove up in a Land Rover. Wearing running shorts and a T-shirt. I think she had the money to blow on a 7D and nice lens and thinks she's a photographer.

While you may have a point. If you look at her facebook page WYSIWYG. She is definitely not misrepresenting herself and she does apparently have plenty of satisfied clients.

To me it would be like hiring a hefty model that advertises as such and then complaining that she is hefty after the fact.

 

[finbarqs]

I've actually been recently thinking of doing some paid photo work ( i figure a little extra money for something i enjoy anyway). If it were me, i'd just hand over the RAWs. Why not ? Its not like i'm ever going to sell someone's family photo's or weddin photo's. Might as well relivies yourself of the responsibility.

Its good to know there are people out there who'd like that.

I would ONLY give RAW's to CLOSE friends that I do free work for. For clients, I would never release raw files, as that is NOT how I represent myself. What if they're photoshop or their RAW converter is messed up? RAW files are the flattest, most basic picture you can get. You would want SOME post processing, at least t'il you get images that are as good as film (in terms of contrast and color). Logos over the images are simply for the reason of theft: so that people cannot use the pictures online.

Selling prints is another way for a photographer to make money. I always charge MORE for a CD than a print. Because at that point, they can print whatever they want to. Some places, such as costco or sam's club, would require a photographer's release for any consumer to make prints off of professional images (or what they deem to be professional images)

 

[finbarqs]

+1

Makes sense when shooting portraits, especially shooting at f/1.2.

JR

She was shooting Some @ 1.2, 1.8, and the first image @ 3.2

She just had a problem of focusing.

And the comment about blown out highlights, i see that as shooting in high key, which isn't very distracting to the overall image. Unless we want HDR, I think it's acceptable.

But going to back to the Center point AF (or single point AF) - Shooting Wide open you MUST be careful. Because even if she is focus-recomposing her shots, @ 1.2, 1mm off results in mis-focusing. Meaning, if she doesn't follow the same exactly plane of focus, she's gonna be off. She needs to use the joystick to gain control of all her focus points, and select the point closest to the subject's eye. Center is just way too far, especially for close ups.

Shooting in portrait mode, depending on the orientation, I use the far left or right point (though still a single point) of focus.

 

[angry hampster]

Why is that anyway ?

With weddings, I usually shoot around 1500-2000 photos. I will present around 300 to my clients. The other 1700 are photos that they simply don't need to see. They're either duplicates, out of focus, poorly composed, poorly exposed, or didn't work out for any number of reasons.

No reason to represent myself, my work ethic, and my business by giving sub-par work to paying clients. I explain this to my clients and they appreciate it.

 

[alfa147x]

Why is that anyway ?

I can only speak for a very small portion of the wedding photography industry. Indian, high budget, Atlanta.


It a WYSIWYG type thing. Most weddings are very carefully planned out. Photographers get checked out very throughly. At that point the family should trust the photographer well enough not to doubt their judgement.

Also shooting Indian weddings are a bit crazy. Many photographs are crap. Especially when you 3 cameras going at once.

The wedding photography business in Atlanta is a bit crazy. At least a few years ago when I was a part of it. Probably more so with the Indian community.

Most brides knew exactly what photographer they wanted. Most of the time when a photographer said "no" to a request the client wouldn't mind.

 

[alfa147x]

With weddings, I usually shoot around 1500-2000 photos. I will present around 300 to my clients. The other 1700 are photos that they simply don't need to see. They're either duplicates, out of focus, poorly composed, poorly exposed, or didn't work out for any number of reasons.

No reason to represent myself, my work ethic, and my business by giving sub-par work to paying clients. I explain this to my clients and they appreciate it.

Plus I feel like you're giving too much of your artistic technique away. It's almost like asking your barber to show you how to cut your own hair.

 

[finbarqs]

or a magician "revealing" his secret! it wouldn't be magic anymore!

 

[JohnnyRebel]

She was shooting Some @ 1.2, 1.8, and the first image @ 3.2 She just had a problem of focusing.

I thought I had read earlier that all shots were wide-open. I get what you're saying. I've had some similar issues @ f/1.4 and will rethink single AF and recompose. Thanks.

JR

 

[JohnnyRebel]

I can only speak for a very small portion of the wedding photography industry. Indian, high budget, Atlanta.


It a WYSIWYG type thing. Most weddings are very carefully planned out. Photographers get checked out very throughly. At that point the family should trust the photographer well enough not to doubt their judgement.

Also shooting Indian weddings are a bit crazy. Many photographs are crap. Especially when you 3 cameras going at once.

The wedding photography business in Atlanta is a bit crazy. At least a few years ago when I was a part of it. Probably more so with the Indian community.

Most brides knew exactly what photographer they wanted. Most of the time when a photographer said "no" to a request the client wouldn't mind.

I agree. I would think that you would want to present only your best work. Plus, these are opportunites for additional profit. I remember paying $400 for the proof set of my wedding back in 1990, plus getting all the prints from the photographer AFTER he was paid handsomly for shooting the wedding. (well worth it, every shot he showed us was perfect and I recommended him dozens of times to others).

JR

 

[alfa147x]

Wedding photographers live off of recommendations. In fact that's how I got most of my customers.

 

[xchangx]

I got them for my wedding..(the RAW's)

but of course, the photographer was a close friend

you are correct though, I think he gave me JPG's, not the RAW's, but they were pretty much uncorrected, about 3 weeks later I got another set of disks that he had corrected

but they are full res and not totally mucked with, which is what I really wanted, and so I could shutterfly them any size I wanted without worrying about pixelation

I will *never* contract with a photog that makes me get prints from them, thats for sure.

That last line is puzzling... why wouldn't you? A photographer isn't just about taking the picture. It's also about the print. I don't want someone taking a digital copy of one of my shots to Walmart and getting it print there. I trust the print companies I use for their quality and color correctness.

 

[randomrogue]

The profit (if any) is not on the prints. Photographers just want the pictures to show well.

 

[dougp]

The profit (if any) is not on the prints. Photographers just want the pictures to show well.

There's a lot of profit in prints. My wedding photog was charging like $50 for an 8x10. She included a "free" gift card worth $100 worth of prints - I promptly asked her how much a CD would cost and if I could apply the $100 to it. After she agreed, I believe I paid $300 out of pocket - and it was worth every penny.

 

[angry hampster]

There's a lot of profit in prints. My wedding photog was charging like $50 for an 8x10. She included a "free" gift card worth $100 worth of prints - I promptly asked her how much a CD would cost and if I could apply the $100 to it. After she agreed, I believe I paid $300 out of pocket - and it was worth every penny.

I believe I charge about $20 for an 8x10. My print prices are very reasonable. Typically when I am meeting with clients before for their consultation(s), I will show them side-by-side comparisons of my prints vs a Walmart/Walgreens print. Mine will be a perfectionist print and the one from walmart will have basic color correction and mild sharpening, then printed on WM's cheapest paper. There's no turning back after seeing a well-done print vs a cheapo.

 

[finbarqs]

I thought I had read earlier that all shots were wide-open. I get what you're saying. I've had some similar issues @ f/1.4 and will rethink single AF and recompose. Thanks.

JR

you can still use single and recompose... just select the focus point closest to your area of focus! (the joystick will give you quick access, if you enable it in the custom menu... well at least on the 5D Mark 2)

Just download a pic or 2, and look at details. it'll show all EXIF data.

 

[randomrogue]

There's a lot of profit in prints. My wedding photog was charging like $50 for an 8x10. She included a "free" gift card worth $100 worth of prints - I promptly asked her how much a CD would cost and if I could apply the $100 to it. After she agreed, I believe I paid $300 out of pocket - and it was worth every penny.

Yeah there is profit in it if you want to fleece your customer. I realize it's all anecdotal but my 3 professional photographer friends don't do that. I have tried to get them to charge a bit more for their trouble but they state it's not their business. They make money on the photography and the processing and then have the images shipped out for professional printing.

Either way buying the CD is generally the wrong move unless you actually understand the relationship between the image and the printer and then spend money on quality paper and printing.

If you're just taking snapshots then by all means print them at walmart or better yet just print them at home.

 

[dougp]

Yeah there is profit in it if you want to fleece your customer. I realize it's all anecdotal but my 3 professional photographer friends don't do that. I have tried to get them to charge a bit more for their trouble but they state it's not their business. They make money on the photography and the processing and then have the images shipped out for professional printing.

Either way buying the CD is generally the wrong move unless you actually understand the relationship between the image and the printer and then spend money on quality paper and printing.

If you're just taking snapshots then by all means print them at walmart or better yet just print them at home.

But you're assuming that someone just has them printed at Walmart or another place like this - outside of a more exclusive local printer, everyone has equal access to great print labs like Adorama, Mpx, SmugMug, etc.