Peter Klein
New member
I've shot weddings with just a Leica M, but only as a gift to a friend or a family member. I've never been the only photographer. I always say, "hire someone to do the official stuff, and I'll do 'candids.'" In most cases, they have liked my photos more than the pro's.
One of the most awkward moments I've ever had in photography was when a family member hired a pro to do his cheapest "digital package." Which was basically, "I shoot JPGs, give you the files and that's that." He advised them to spend a little more (presumably so he could shoot film or RAW and work on the files), but they wanted the cheapest.
The wedding was at an old country inn, so there were a lot of available light shots with sunlight streaming in the windows where he wasn't allowed to use fill flash. So there were important shots where the subjects were too dark, or the subject was OK but sunlit parts of the shot were blown. Outoor stuff with fill flash was fine, but even there, sometimes the contrast was too much for the JPGs in dynamic situations.
The couple was furious with him. Fortunately, my shots (on BW400 CN film for the ceremony and pre-ceremony, and color neg for the reception) saved the day, and they had good-quality coverage of everything. But the pro photog got a lot of bad word-of-mouth. And he was good. I'd shot alongside him at a couple of other family weddings, and he knew what he was doing. The irony was that he had resisted going digital for just this reason, but economics forced him to.
I defended him, explaining that the cheap package almost guaranteed that shots under extreme lighting would be a problem, which is why the photog advised them to spend a bit more. But try explaining dynamic range issues to a couple of teed-off New Yorkers.
I'm just glad I was there with my M6 and film, so they have a complete record of the wedding and the pro didn't have to deal with more than a tongue-lashing.
--Peter
One of the most awkward moments I've ever had in photography was when a family member hired a pro to do his cheapest "digital package." Which was basically, "I shoot JPGs, give you the files and that's that." He advised them to spend a little more (presumably so he could shoot film or RAW and work on the files), but they wanted the cheapest.
The wedding was at an old country inn, so there were a lot of available light shots with sunlight streaming in the windows where he wasn't allowed to use fill flash. So there were important shots where the subjects were too dark, or the subject was OK but sunlit parts of the shot were blown. Outoor stuff with fill flash was fine, but even there, sometimes the contrast was too much for the JPGs in dynamic situations.
The couple was furious with him. Fortunately, my shots (on BW400 CN film for the ceremony and pre-ceremony, and color neg for the reception) saved the day, and they had good-quality coverage of everything. But the pro photog got a lot of bad word-of-mouth. And he was good. I'd shot alongside him at a couple of other family weddings, and he knew what he was doing. The irony was that he had resisted going digital for just this reason, but economics forced him to.
I defended him, explaining that the cheap package almost guaranteed that shots under extreme lighting would be a problem, which is why the photog advised them to spend a bit more. But try explaining dynamic range issues to a couple of teed-off New Yorkers.
I'm just glad I was there with my M6 and film, so they have a complete record of the wedding and the pro didn't have to deal with more than a tongue-lashing.
--Peter