Is this really necessary!!! at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Wedding / Event Videography Techniques

Wedding / Event Videography Techniques
Shooting non-repeatable events: weddings, recitals, plays, performances...


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 4th, 2013, 05:33 AM   #1
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK/Yorkshire
Posts: 2,066
Is this really necessary!!!

The picture speaks for itself!
Attached Thumbnails
Is this really necessary!!!-rings.jpg  
Peter Rush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2013, 05:59 AM   #2
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Tipperary, Ireland
Posts: 587
Re: Is this really necessary!!!

probably not!!

it seems to me that photographers, of which I am one, tend to take far far too many shots during events. As i reviewed my last event all i can hear is the photographers shutter machine-gunning its way through the entire ceremony, I tried removing it but it would be too time consuming, i hope the B&G don't mine!!

In my own efforts, i've been trying to practise the 'less is more' philosophy when it comes to stills photography, but the urge to turn on burst mode is still there ;-)
__________________
http://www.robertcantwell.com
Rob Cantwell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2013, 06:11 AM   #3
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Bedfordshire, UK
Posts: 863
Re: Is this really necessary!!!

This happens when the shooters dont have ultimate trust in each other. Neither feels they can trust the other to get the shot so they take the same shot to make sure. Especially un-necessary when they are both rocking the same lens.

We often see it when the photographer has a second shooter but its not someone they shoot with a lot i.e they offer it as an extra to make money but dont really rely on the shots.
Danny O'Neill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2013, 07:04 AM   #4
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,380
Re: Is this really necessary!!!

Sound about right ... better to be safe than sorry!
James Manford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2013, 07:05 AM   #5
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 6,609
Re: Is this really necessary!!!

I remember back in the day when I was doing still work. I shot 6X7 format, 220 film-20 shots per roll and had 2 extra film cartridges in my bag. You did perhaps 2 shots of setup shots not 20 or 30. Film and processing was expensive back then. After the wedding when all was said and done I would have 300 to maybe 400 shots TOTAL of the entire wedding and it was well covered. That was the norm.
Different animal today, perhaps it's the ease of being able to shoot 5 or 6 shots at once and hope one is good. Maybe some photogs should learn the basics of frame, focus, exposure but what do I know?
__________________
What do I know? I'm just a video-O-grafer.
Don
Don Bloom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2013, 07:09 AM   #6
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 848
Re: Is this really necessary!!!

Could be some OJT of an assistant. And always wise to CYA. However I don't like how that flash in the foreground is pointed as it's unlikely to bounce anywhere useful.
Jim Michael is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2013, 07:58 AM   #7
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK/Yorkshire
Posts: 2,066
Re: Is this really necessary!!!

Lol I've seen many togs shooting outside bouncing flash off the sky :)
Peter Rush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2013, 08:16 AM   #8
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: LOWESTOFT - UK
Posts: 2,121
Re: Is this really necessary!!!

I think I missed the point. I wondered why somebody pregnant was having her bump photographed. The fact there were two, just made me think it was important?
Paul R Johnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2013, 08:21 AM   #9
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK/Yorkshire
Posts: 2,066
Re: Is this really necessary!!!

Actually it's her hip - just the way she's stood
Peter Rush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2013, 08:33 AM   #10
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,380
Re: Is this really necessary!!!

I thought they were photo'ing the hands touching ?
James Manford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2013, 09:13 AM   #11
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,414
Re: Is this really necessary!!!

this is a 'rings' shot, what background is up to photographer, this time it's bride's dress
__________________
I love this place!
Buba Kastorski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2013, 11:04 AM   #12
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 8,421
Re: Is this really necessary!!!

Yes, it's necessary in order for the photog to get the shot he wants, maybe the bride expected. However, having two shooters at once of the same shot? Shows a complete lack of confidence in one's ability, and it totally unnecessarily intrusive, IMO. It's a pet peeve of mine.
Jeff Harper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2013, 11:24 AM   #13
Major Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reading Berkshire UK
Posts: 827
Re: Is this really necessary!!!

Errrrrr ..... there are a bunch of misconceptions going on in this thread :- ( e.g.

The lenses are NOT the same. They are however likely to produce a similar perspective.

But the image does illustrate a point I've often made which is that there really is no point in having two photographers at most weddings. If indeed the clients are getting two actual photographers rather than one photographer and one guy with a camera. Their work rate is invariably much lower than single shooters plus they duplicate shots all the time. Duplication may not matter - after all its the postprocessor who has to throw resources at that. But it does impact on the enjoyment of the guests bigtime same as two vidiots do.

Its completely irrelevant that one flash it pointing skywards - much as many photographers and videographers might like to tut tut about the apparent incompetence of the shooter. Why bother to switch the flash off or re-orientate the head when you risk then forgetting to switch it back on again etc in the heat of battle. Pointing skywards doesn't hurt or distract anyone. Again even when pointing skywards it can still introduce a nice kiss of fill light into the image. Modern flashes are good for hundreds of high power discharges before needing their batteries replaced, unless the flash is the main light source and on full power, so you don't need to worry about wasting battery capacity.

The shooters look to me like they are trying to be too clever. The far one has a radio trigger on his flash and both cams appear to be set to shutter priority (to avoid putting the guns into high speed sync mode and then loosing range). The 1st shooters radio trigger may have been set to fire the 2nd shooters flash as fill light on the 2nd shooter holding the kit momentarily in an appropriate position. I would expect them to have been doing off camera lighting in other parts of the day.

The nearest shooter is using an old midrange gun and a bundled camera strap. And possibly the old 24-70L. This tells me that they are probably not an experienced fulltimer.

Much as the large format period may seem like a golden age it was not. The overall standard was extremely low compared to today. You would be very lucky to have a set of prints where no participants are blinking or are caught in a temporary unflattering facial expression. Some practitioners would use an assistant whose sole job was to watch the guests at the point of shutter release and then report to the photographer if anyone blinked. This in turn made the shooting of the formals extremely lengthy and to this day has left a feeling of dread and despair among many guests. Numbers delivered were far fewer but it would be commercial suicide to try and deliver low numbers in todays mainstream market as the general perception among clients is that they need a good 500 - 100 and in the States sometimes many thousands.

Pete
Peter Riding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2013, 01:22 PM   #14
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Uxbridge, MA
Posts: 43
Re: Is this really necessary!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Rush View Post
Actually it's her hip - just the way she's stood
LOL, i thought she was pregnant also.

I actually photographed my first wedding this past weekend. I took 1,730 shots betweeen 10AM and 10PM.

I will probably throw out at least 1000 shots because they are out of focus or there is a better version.

I definitely took four shots of each situation because I wanted to be sure I had the picture and could pick the best one. It's a confidence thing, probably.
Nick Reuter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2013, 01:27 PM   #15
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK
Posts: 3,445
Re: Is this really necessary!!!

This looks like the behaviour of the conjoined photographers that I encountered at a recent wedding. They were in my way a lot but the worst bit was the pair of them jostling me as the B&G were coming back down the aisle where there was room for two of us not three.
Nigel Barker is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Wedding / Event Videography Techniques

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:38 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network