The best lenses choices for wedding photography- it's a matter of "personality"!
Jun 6, 2017 22:31:50 #
Gotta admit...that young lady was getting her shots...she was always in the right place at the right time. The guy who made the video seemed to be"stalking" her and standing right behind her to make his point.
Jun 7, 2017 06:12:07 #
Wow, you guys are making me feel malnourished. I'm feeling good that I went up to 129 lbs :)
Jun 7, 2017 10:21:29 #
E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
Gotta admit...that young lady was getting her shots...she was always in the right place at the right time. The guy who made the video seemed to be"stalking" her and standing right behind her to make his point.
That's a very unkind thing to say and I didn't expect from you. You've lost my respect ...
You know Ed ... there are things like zoom lenses, maybe you should try one ... nuff said
Jun 7, 2017 12:55:59 #
Beercat wrote:
I leave a mail bag with my 70-200 at a place out of site and change out after the exchange. However,there is something new coming out this fall ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nye4eAjtwT0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nye4eAjtwT0
I like it, actually I need it.
Jun 7, 2017 13:53:38 #
B
Perhaps there is NOT 'nuff said!
You have taken my remarks out of context and made an inaccurate and insulting post directed at me. Well- the President of the United States does that all the time so maybe some folks think that's OK!
Firstly, I use telephoto and zoom lenses all the time and have for many years. I have 10 such lenses lenses up to 1200 mmm. I worked as a press photographer on a daily newspaper for a number of years and did a stint in the Army- served in Viet Nam as an aerial reconnaissance and on-the ground photographer- in an active combat zone, I did not work up close and personal with enemy combatants. Your assumption that I don't own and use zoom lenses is a snide and disrespectful notion on your part. Believe me-I have tried them out successfully on numerous occasions! I have posted images of my usual hand-held bracket rig- you will notice that the camera in the shot sports a zoom lens!
In all my posts on this forum, I never disparaged the use of zoom or telephoto optics. I just pointed out the different perspectives that normal and wide angle lenses have to offer. I have never disturbed a wedding ceremony by working in too close without permission and in fact, I go out of my way to avoid such circumstances.
I did not comment on that (silly wedding photographer) video when I first noticed it but I usually take offense when I see things that make fun of wedding photographers and shows them off as some kind of buffoons- it's bad PR for the business. There was a "popular" video that shows a wedding shooter backing up for a shot and falling into a water fountain with a camera and an electronic flash power pack. Lots of folks laughed at that- it made me sick! Stuff like that ain't funny.
Granted, not every wedding shooter is a perfectly "professional smooth and ethical" operator and some do become obtrusive and make fools of themselves. Nowadays, however, clients won't put up with that kind of bad service and negative word of mouth will sooner or later, flush the bad guys and and out of the industry. The rest of us work too damn hard to deserve the bad reputations we get from "videos" like the one of the young lady.
The point I was really trying to make with my last remarks was that the woman photographer (in the video) was just trying to do her job the best way she knew how. Granted again, her manner of dress was too noticeable and she did take some stances and positions would have been distracting. Perhaps the client prioritized their photography and expected her to do exactly what she did- perhaps not! Nonetheless she was getting in the shots. Perhaps, you or I would have done things differently. My other point was that the videographer seemed to be purposely taking a position to exaggerate the level of obtrusiveness that the still photographer caused. The editing seemed to take on that attitude as well.
A real FORUM should encompass various opinions, ideas and sometimes opposing methodologies. Most photo- so-called forums do not fit this description. They mostly tend to be battlefields that polarize members and create "camps", encourage combative attitudes, agism and single mindedness rather than open mindedness. I thought mistakenly, that this section of the Hog was different. Apparently, I was wrong. In past years, I was a moderator on two major photo-forums. This participation led to nothing but ongoing aggravation and bad politics. I swore off all of this activity- I really don't need theses things. In real life- I get well paid for teaching and consulting.
I always try to be polite and friendly but I am at the end of my patience. You are the moderator here so I would consider it a personal favor if you would eliminate my membership here to make sure I don't come back...old and bad habits die hard!
My apologies for bringing on your disrespect- my bad! That my Canadian side talking- we say we are SORRY for everything- even when we are not at fault. My American side?- well what I have to say ain't nice!
As they say in the movies...I'm outa here! Ed
Perhaps there is NOT 'nuff said!
You have taken my remarks out of context and made an inaccurate and insulting post directed at me. Well- the President of the United States does that all the time so maybe some folks think that's OK!
Firstly, I use telephoto and zoom lenses all the time and have for many years. I have 10 such lenses lenses up to 1200 mmm. I worked as a press photographer on a daily newspaper for a number of years and did a stint in the Army- served in Viet Nam as an aerial reconnaissance and on-the ground photographer- in an active combat zone, I did not work up close and personal with enemy combatants. Your assumption that I don't own and use zoom lenses is a snide and disrespectful notion on your part. Believe me-I have tried them out successfully on numerous occasions! I have posted images of my usual hand-held bracket rig- you will notice that the camera in the shot sports a zoom lens!
In all my posts on this forum, I never disparaged the use of zoom or telephoto optics. I just pointed out the different perspectives that normal and wide angle lenses have to offer. I have never disturbed a wedding ceremony by working in too close without permission and in fact, I go out of my way to avoid such circumstances.
I did not comment on that (silly wedding photographer) video when I first noticed it but I usually take offense when I see things that make fun of wedding photographers and shows them off as some kind of buffoons- it's bad PR for the business. There was a "popular" video that shows a wedding shooter backing up for a shot and falling into a water fountain with a camera and an electronic flash power pack. Lots of folks laughed at that- it made me sick! Stuff like that ain't funny.
Granted, not every wedding shooter is a perfectly "professional smooth and ethical" operator and some do become obtrusive and make fools of themselves. Nowadays, however, clients won't put up with that kind of bad service and negative word of mouth will sooner or later, flush the bad guys and and out of the industry. The rest of us work too damn hard to deserve the bad reputations we get from "videos" like the one of the young lady.
The point I was really trying to make with my last remarks was that the woman photographer (in the video) was just trying to do her job the best way she knew how. Granted again, her manner of dress was too noticeable and she did take some stances and positions would have been distracting. Perhaps the client prioritized their photography and expected her to do exactly what she did- perhaps not! Nonetheless she was getting in the shots. Perhaps, you or I would have done things differently. My other point was that the videographer seemed to be purposely taking a position to exaggerate the level of obtrusiveness that the still photographer caused. The editing seemed to take on that attitude as well.
A real FORUM should encompass various opinions, ideas and sometimes opposing methodologies. Most photo- so-called forums do not fit this description. They mostly tend to be battlefields that polarize members and create "camps", encourage combative attitudes, agism and single mindedness rather than open mindedness. I thought mistakenly, that this section of the Hog was different. Apparently, I was wrong. In past years, I was a moderator on two major photo-forums. This participation led to nothing but ongoing aggravation and bad politics. I swore off all of this activity- I really don't need theses things. In real life- I get well paid for teaching and consulting.
I always try to be polite and friendly but I am at the end of my patience. You are the moderator here so I would consider it a personal favor if you would eliminate my membership here to make sure I don't come back...old and bad habits die hard!
My apologies for bringing on your disrespect- my bad! That my Canadian side talking- we say we are SORRY for everything- even when we are not at fault. My American side?- well what I have to say ain't nice!
As they say in the movies...I'm outa here! Ed
Jun 7, 2017 14:27:34 #
All my cameras were stationary after the processional. She walked in front of every single one and in fact was in several video cameras at the same time though the frame was boxed in tight on several of the cameras. The platform was very small at 8' X 8' and several times she went up on that small platform within a few feet of the couple. No need for that in this day and age of great zoom lenses. During the vows and ring exchange she stood there blocking not only the view of 150 attendees but right in front of the parents vantage point.
Yes the video was a summary of the 20 minute ceremony but never have we had a photographer do such a thing. 90% of the time the photographers come right behind the video cameras and fire away, again in this day and age there is no need to get 2 feet away from the bride/groom.
If you can't see the logic in this I feel sorry for you Ed ... the new norm if you haven't heard is less close ups/posed shots and a bunch of candid shots that the couple never knew were taken ....
Your old school knowledgeable and yes there are a few things I gleaned ... later
Yes the video was a summary of the 20 minute ceremony but never have we had a photographer do such a thing. 90% of the time the photographers come right behind the video cameras and fire away, again in this day and age there is no need to get 2 feet away from the bride/groom.
If you can't see the logic in this I feel sorry for you Ed ... the new norm if you haven't heard is less close ups/posed shots and a bunch of candid shots that the couple never knew were taken ....
Your old school knowledgeable and yes there are a few things I gleaned ... later
Jun 7, 2017 14:30:20 #
superpijak wrote:
I like it, actually I need it.
Agreed, I already have one ordered though the delivery won't happen until October. Love walking around with only one body ...
Jun 7, 2017 20:51:24 #
B!
So sad. Again you are making assumptions about me- things I do that you don't know anything about. Yes, I'm old but far from "old school". I have been shooting spontaneous wedding candid for eons. Today my coverages are 75% off the cuff candids that do not require the couple's time or cooperation. I do a formal session for those who want something more elegant- most of my clients do!
As early as 1959, I was shooting so-called society weddings in New York City for Bachrach Studios. Those clients posed for 15 minutes and everything else was strictly candid! Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Weddings are totally wild affairs. Shooting these requires split-second timing and fast camera handling. My coverages are far from being restricted to posed shots and closeups.
Don't feel sorry for me... at 73 years of age, I am still shooting and getting a minimum of 5 grand per wedding.
How do you know what folks are buying and demanding over 3,000 miles from your home base?
Perhaps you would have less aggravation of you coordinated the efforts of you still and video shooters. i have word with film and video crews for years and never had an issue- even in the days of 8mm and 16mm film with hot lights.
Anyway...you can have the last word. Please remove my account here!
Nasty!
So sad. Again you are making assumptions about me- things I do that you don't know anything about. Yes, I'm old but far from "old school". I have been shooting spontaneous wedding candid for eons. Today my coverages are 75% off the cuff candids that do not require the couple's time or cooperation. I do a formal session for those who want something more elegant- most of my clients do!
As early as 1959, I was shooting so-called society weddings in New York City for Bachrach Studios. Those clients posed for 15 minutes and everything else was strictly candid! Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Weddings are totally wild affairs. Shooting these requires split-second timing and fast camera handling. My coverages are far from being restricted to posed shots and closeups.
Don't feel sorry for me... at 73 years of age, I am still shooting and getting a minimum of 5 grand per wedding.
How do you know what folks are buying and demanding over 3,000 miles from your home base?
Perhaps you would have less aggravation of you coordinated the efforts of you still and video shooters. i have word with film and video crews for years and never had an issue- even in the days of 8mm and 16mm film with hot lights.
Anyway...you can have the last word. Please remove my account here!
Nasty!
Jun 8, 2017 16:49:58 #
superpijak wrote:
I like it, actually I need it.
Guys, there is a system available now.
https://www.peakdesign.com/product/clips/capturelens/
I bought it a month ago for a large event I was doing. I practiced at home a few times and backed out and decided not to chance it at the event. The issue that made me nervous was my 70/200 swinging from my belt. It is on the large and heavy side and my risk aversion kicked in. I did not want to take a chance that I would bang it against something or maybe not get it snapped in correctly. These systems are easier with smaller lighter lenses so just something to keep in mind. I have not given up. I will do some more practice runs.
Jun 8, 2017 17:09:37 #
Thanks Jay for another product ...
Having a 70-200 on your belt is probably a lot better than a second body with the 70-200 banging around from a strap.
Having a 70-200 on your belt is probably a lot better than a second body with the 70-200 banging around from a strap.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.