Speaking of Jeff Ascough

[fotografz]

Maybe, one should regard Jeff's Photo.net thread as part of his marketing campaign. I see it as about Jeff continuing his role play as the celebrity photographer.

No doubt he's a class leading photographer, but what he writes is not what he does. Just note what is hype and what is practical wedding photography. Jeff shoots groups whenever they're wanted by the bride. He won't turn a fee down because a bride wants some formals, nor any other of his "I don't do this......".

He changes his opinions and kit more quickly than anyone I've ever come across. I've read his posts since 2004 on several Forums. Go back into the archives of DWF, or photo.net and you'll quickly find that two years ago Jeff was shooting his Canons on Programme Mode, dual cards, AF, zoom lenses, big kit bags and 1,000 jPeg frames a wedding using auto bracketing, Australians are the only credible B&W printers. Now it's primes, RAW, manual focus, spot meters, printing done by the album maker ....... drivel !

On the photo.net thread, one poster wrote:
"To my knowledge, here's the kit you've (Jeff) gone through in the last 4 years:
3 Leica M7's
2 Canon 1D MkII N's
2 replacement ditto
2 1Ds MkII
2 1Ds MkIII
1 Leica M8
and now ... 2 Canon 5D MkII's

At one time, you swore that all that was needed was two zoom lenses and
a dual card body as the essential tools for all wedding cameras. Now they're not ?
On the software front, it's been iView, Photoshop, Lightroom, Photo
Mechanic, Capture One and now Aperture 2."


I live just 45 miles from him and know from local videographers that work with him that his outward approach is no different from any good wedding photographer - he poses the brides and groups. He just never shares that as it dispels his 'rockstar' Top Ten myth. p.s. the others never refer to their Top Nine ratings.

Who else do we know that continually refer to their style being influenced by every great photographer ? It's as if, say it enough and the greatness will rub off on me. Ever met a bride, or more than one who knew who Erwitt, Salgado, Natchway ....... was, or cared. No, this is marketing to the industry via the user network.

Not my business to defend anyone, let alone Jeff Ascough.

But perhaps you should have bothered to also post Jeff's response where he clearly stated that he does do posed/groups work if requested, but attempts to limit the amount of time devoted to that task. I try to do the same thing with my clients.

Jeff has used various gear over the past 4 years. So what? He's a piker compared to some folks here on this forum ... including me and the owners of the forum. We all are enthusastic about what we're using ... until we change what we're using.

He left film because processing became harder. So did I. Things change. Camera's get better. Obviously he makes enough money to do what he wants.

Shameless self promoter. Perhaps. Again, so what? I should promote myself as well and maybe business would pick up a bit :clap:

 

[Guy Mancuso]

LOL. Well said Marc

 

[Rolo]

Not my business to defend anyone, let alone Jeff Ascough. :clap:

You're right, it's not. :lecture:

Read carefully and you'll see that he wasn't being attacked. I regard his work to be of a very high standard and I'm sure he's a nice guy.

I was pointing out that there's so much marketing hype there and I think he's doing ever so well, but it's still hype and there's a lot of it.

ps
"He left film because processing became harder." No problem with that, but he did it within a few weeks of the release of the Wedding Masters DVD extolling his reasons for using Leica and especially film cameras. Wonder if I was the only newbie wedding sad B'd that laid out $7,000 in the meantime ? I didn't know it was hype then - too green. Wonder if any new starter today is reading his every word ? Ooops M9, ooops Nikon...... ahhh Hasselblad. Is there no responsibility with being a 'rockstar' ?

The answer to that is, No.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well he is not alone , there are many Internet so called guru's that can't shoot there way out of barn but they have there following. i won't even begin to name names but popularity is more important than any substance they may have in actually trying to learn from them. Again typical in the photo business , marketing hype wins the day on there popularity. Not speaking of Jeff here per say which is a good shooter but there are a lot of pig droppings out there.

 

[ecsh]

Which makes me glad this is a hobby.
Joe

 

[fotografz]

You're right, it's not. :lecture:

Read carefully and you'll see that he wasn't being attacked. I regard his work to be of a very high standard and I'm sure he's a nice guy.

I was pointing out that there's so much marketing hype there and I think he's doing ever so well, but it's still hype and there's a lot of it.

ps
"He left film because processing became harder." No problem with that, but he did it within a few weeks of the release of the Wedding Masters DVD extolling his reasons for using Leica and especially film cameras. Wonder if I was the only newbie wedding sad B'd that laid out $7,000 in the meantime ? I didn't know it was hype then - too green. Wonder if any new starter today is reading his every word ? Ooops M9, ooops Nikon...... ahhh Hasselblad. Is there no responsibility with being a 'rockstar' ?

The answer to that is, No.

AhHah! the last paragraph reveals the root of it all. So your naiveté is someone else's fault?

So, if I buy a (insert camera brand name here) I will be like (insert name of well promoted photographer here).

Nothing new there. Been going on forever.

I used Leica Ms for weddings before I ever heard of Jeff Ascough, and I still do. He likes the Canon 5D which is a camera I briefly owned and absolutely despised. Cameras are personal choices and have little to do with talent ... other than facilitating it.

I take it that you never got on well with the $7000. worth of Leicas? To bad, great camera IMO. :thumbup:

 

[Rolo]

I take it that you never got on well with the $7000. worth of Leicas? To bad, great camera IMO. :thumbup:

Actually, quite the opposite, but don't let that interrupt your point scoring. :ROTFL:

 

[fotografz]

Actually, quite the opposite, but don't let that interrupt your point scoring. :ROTFL:

Point scoring? :wtf: Odd attitude. I take it that any opinion contrary to yours is "point scoring."

If the Leicas worked for you what's the beef? You made it sound like you were stuck with Leicas once Jeff moved on to something else.

If you don't like the "rock star" system as you call it, that is a different discussion.

Jeff Ascough is an aquaintance of mine, and we've exchanged a few mutually helpful e-mails over the years. I respect what he does, and having attended his seminar know for a fact that he is VERY intelligent and thoughtful in his approach. BTW, the use of famous photographers in his discussions is a wonderful reference point given to other budding photographers IMO, NOT a marketing ploy for consumer adoration as you seem to suggest.

I've used the same reference points with my assistants over the years ... and have a modest collection of the "immortals" work myself along with hundreds of their books. All collected before I ever took one wedding image. I learned a lot from that experience. So, I don't grasp the beef you have with that either.

What I do like about the "Rock Star" aspect that seems to irritate you is that he, and others like him, have helped bring up the reputation and respect for of wedding photography a notch or two amongst our peers.

For that I'm grateful. :clap:

 

[fotografz]

Which makes me glad this is a hobby.
Joe

Yeah, but we get to deduct our gear costs off our taxes, and the answer to the wifey is that "I need it for business".

Seriously, I'm grateful that I get to shoot weddings. It gives me pratical purpose and creative challenge. I LOVE doing it where others may tremble in terror at the thought of it.

All the stress, politics and jealousy in photography is a drop in the bucket compared to my lifelong career experiences in the advertising creative business ... which more closely resembles French court intriques of the 16th century than 21st century business. Trust me, TV shows and movies on the subject only show the tip of the Machiavellian Iceberg. For me, photography has been a walk in the park on a sunny day.

 

[Rolo]

"Point scoring? :wtf: Odd attitude. I take it that any opinion contrary to yours is "point scoring.""

Not the case at all. I commented on an existing thread about Jeff Ascough. You come after me for having an opinion on the subject, make wrong assumptions about me, but obviously want to put me in my place. That's scoring points, Marc.

"If the Leicas worked for you what's the beef? You made it sound like you were stuck with Leicas once Jeff moved on to something else."

That's what you read. I don't have a beef, just a point of view. Are you saying it's not allowed to have a different view to yours.

"If you don't like the "rock star" system as you call it, that is a different discussion."

That was Jeff's term, not mine. He was being critical of them, whilst at the same time applying that very approach.

"Jeff Ascough is an aquaintance of mine, and we've exchanged a few mutually helpful e-mails over the years."

... and mine too, but I'm not in awe of him.

"I respect what he does, and having attended his seminar know for a fact that he is VERY intelligent and thoughtful in his approach."

I have too and bought his Actions. I respect his 'wedding work' enormously, as indeed I respect yours. You have a much wider 'gamut' than he, support newbies for the love of the image and understand equipment incredibly well. I trust what you say and do, but we do have a difference on this subject.

"BTW, the use of famous photographers in his discussions is a wonderful reference point given to other budding photographers IMO, NOT a marketing ploy for consumer adoration as you seem to suggest. "

I have a different opinion. Every reference he makes on all of these greats in his postings is about how it reflects on him. Nothing I've ever seen suggests that he's a Winogrand, an Erwitt, a Salgado, a C-B ..... Show me a single 'people' shot taken that wasn't paying for the privilege. Direct me to any collection of his images that show PJ or street photography.

"I've used the same reference points with my assistants over the years ... and have a modest collection of the "immortals" work myself along with hundreds of their books. All collected before I ever took one wedding image. I learned a lot from that experience. So, I don't grasp the beef you have with that either."

Me too, but see above.

"What I do like about the "Rock Star" aspect that seems to irritate you is that he, and others like him, have helped bring up the reputation and respect for of wedding photography a notch or two amongst our peers."

I agree with that, just don't understand why he would criticise others for doing what he does. He's playing the 'rock star' game big time and succeeding and I'm pleased for him, but I don't appreciate the way he contradicts himself with such regularity. Doing so demonstrates that his opinion is not well thought out and informed.


:clap:

 

[fotografz]

Come after you? Again, I find that odd. You took comments out of context without the benefit of also showing his response ... which is what I take exception to whether it's him or anyone else. That has nothing to do with opinion. It's stacking the deck in favor of an opinion ... IMO.

For me to say someone contridicts himself, would be like the "kettle calling the pot black" ... so I avoid it even if it's true. But as you say, we differ somewhat on this subject, and perhaps best left at that.

Frankly, I'm to old to be in awe of anyone :ROTFL: Maybe you've reached that stage yourself?

But I do (vaguely ) recall my newbie youth and being in awe of some shooters. One of them became a sort of mentor ... who is not a wedding photographer. I'm not in awe of him anymore (except for his fab NYC studio and income ) ... but we are still friends.

(the Sony folks must be bored to tears with this discussion :banghead

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

I still think the attitude expressed in his answer to me quoted at the beginning of the thread is only relevant to 'capturing the moment' type photography, especially given his examples and that is a rather narrow outlook on wedding photography as a whole and personally I feel the opposite of what should be taught to aspiring wedding photographers. Cartier Bresson said that the basics of photographic skill should be as subconscious as changing gears in a car as a prerequisite to achieving in photography. Ascough's statements seems to subscribe to the view that if the moment is good enough then the rest is optional.

If he had said 'aspire to capturing the moment with good lighting and focus but if you don't, the moment is what is important' that is one thing. But he didn't. He maligned the concept of aspiring to shooting the moment, not only at the right time, but correctly too. I cannot respect that. I certainly cannot respect a photographer who lectures to an entire industry based on what is still a niche style of wedding photography that he happens to shoot. Critical sharpness and exposure are critically important for family groups and portraiture but he said:

"If as a wedding photographer you must have critical sharpness, and critical exposure, and critical flash exposure, etc then maybe you are missing the point of photography? Maybe you are missing the whole concept of what makes a picture? In my mind all that stuff simply distracts from finding images."

Wedding photography is bigger than Mr Jeff Ascough. Not sure if he realises it though.

If a photographer doesn't at least aspire to getting the shot well exposed and sharp (in focus/no camera shake) then they're not a pro, they're a hack.

But of course we live in the age of 'good enough' to the detriment of quality everywhere and in all walks of life.

 

[Rolo]

Frankly, I'm to old to be in awe of anyone :ROTFL: Maybe you've reached that stage yourself?

Fortunately not yet. Still a young buck. :salute:

BTW to be clear, I was stating that 'I' am not in awe of him, not suggesting for a moment that you are/were .

 

[fotografz]

I still think the attitude expressed in his answer to me quoted at the beginning of the thread is only relevant to 'capturing the moment' type photography, especially given his examples and that is a rather narrow outlook on wedding photography as a whole and personally I feel the opposite of what should be taught to aspiring wedding photographers. Cartier Bresson said that the basics of photographic skill should be as subconscious as changing gears in a car as a prerequisite to achieving in photography. Ascough's statements seems to subscribe to the view that if the moment is good enough then the rest is optional.

If he had said 'aspire to capturing the moment with good lighting and focus but if you don't, the moment is what is important' that is one thing. But he didn't. He maligned the concept of aspiring to shooting the moment, not only at the right time, but correctly too. I cannot respect that. I certainly cannot respect a photographer who lectures to an entire industry based on what is still a niche style of wedding photography that he happens to shoot. Critical sharpness and exposure are critically important for family groups and portraiture but he said:

"If as a wedding photographer you must have critical sharpness, and critical exposure, and critical flash exposure, etc then maybe you are missing the point of photography? Maybe you are missing the whole concept of what makes a picture? In my mind all that stuff simply distracts from finding images."

Wedding photography is bigger than Mr Jeff Ascough. Not sure if he realises it though.

If a photographer doesn't at least aspire to getting the shot well exposed and sharp (in focus/no camera shake) then they're not a pro, they're a hack.

But of course we live in the age of 'good enough' to the detriment of quality everywhere and in all walks of life.

A bit harsh perhaps Ben, but points well taken.

My take on Jeff's comment was that if you are obssessed with critical sharpness, etc., and it dominates your conscience approach, then there may be something to reconsider.

But on the other side of the coin is that he's often talking to people who haven't yet mastered the functional aspects of camera use as a tool, and it isn't second nature to them yet even though they THINK it is. Avocating shooting available light at ISO 3200 using f/1.2 will land a lot of these people in deep trouble because they don't know how or when to do it. I cannot tell you how many relatively important 2nd shooter images I have had to delete because they shot wide open when they should have stopped down.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

The impression I got from his writing and general attitude was that he says that it doesn't matter if you are shooting at your example of iso 3200 f1.2 oh and you miss focus - wedding photography is all about the moment and everything else is side issues detracting from the ethos of wedding photography. I disagree, I think that quality of imagery not just timing of imagery is important and what makes us pro's to seperate us from the crowd.

The D-day photos are bad photos, their context makes that fact unimportant, same could be said for an awful lot of the examples that he's using. Cartier Bressons contact sheets are nothing to write home about and the same could be said for practically any famous PJ photographer but wedding photography has to make every single shot count. I don't think the context of a wedding excuses bad technique when there are so many who have mastered utterly amazing lighting, camera control, use of lenses, etc in making those captured moments truly incredible. Those are the people, many of them my age or younger, who I aspire to. Not photographers of a utterly different genre shooting utterly different subjects and who we only know for when they captured the moment, not for when they screwed up the moment but no one knew because the only record of the moment happening is in their memories and precious few others.

 

[Johannes01]

Thanks for share.The "moment" is moving.