The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Speaking of Jeff Ascough

S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
One of my all-time favorite wedding photographers... Marc mentioned him and I went to check out his blog for the first time in a while. There it noted he's doing another interview series at photo.net. He did one of these a few years back where people are allowed to post questions and he answers frankly and honestly.

A great read: http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00Tz2P

If I may be so bold as to post my favorite part of the interview... and this coming from someone who struggles with keeping shots that aren't super crisp... When asked about getting crisp/sharp shots at slower shutter speeds in low light, his reply:

Ben - My following comments are a generalisation, and not directed at you personally. This is one of my pet rants, so be warned!!
I'm afraid one of the problems with digital photography is that people have become so anal about sharpness, to the point of it dominating everything else. Seeing an image at 100% on a 30" monitor is not living in the real world. The amount of wasted hours of rubbish spoken about sharpness across the internet is bizarre. Maybe if people got out from behind their keyboards, and took pictures instead of whining about them, they would understand that sharpness is not just about a lens.
Admittedly, the current crop of sensors have immense resolving power, which will show up flaws in lens design especially at wide apertures. However, in the real world of prints and correct viewing distances, I doubt if anyone would argue that today's cameras and lenses are just incredible tools, capable of producing amazing results.
Compare what we use now to what Cartier-Bresson had throughout his career. Or Capa, Winogrand, Brassai, Eve Arnold etc. We have never had it so good, and yet all we seem to do is moan about sharpness. Why?
I was at a Don McCullin exhibition yesterday with my good friend George Weir. A lot of DM's images were 'soft' compared to what we try and strive for now. Did this softness make any difference to the power of the image? Not at all. Look at Capa's work; camera shake, out of focus images etc. and yet he is one if the most important war photographers of the 20th century. A lot of Cartier-Bresson's work is 'soft' but again who cares?? I don't. It's irrelevent unless you are simply looking at sharpness as a way of adding perceived visual value to your images. 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.
In the real world of prints, an image that looked soft on a screen at 100% will look beautifully crisp and sharp at 10x7, so what is the issue?
food for thought...
 
Thanks Shelby, I've always been a big fan of his. The sharpness issue has always been something I struggled with, and I think all photographers struggle with, but the rest of the world just doesn't care that much.

One of my personal favorite images was absolutely shredded during a peer portfolio review by people that I generally respected because the focus was a little off. I loved it because the timing was perfect to the point that no one will ever re-create it. Everyone but photographers love it, it sold a bunch, I'm happy.

Another image was responsible for teaching me a very important lesson, maybe two:
1) Never show a client a proof of an image you wouldn't want them to run at 20x30.
2) Sharpness is highly overrated.
Perhaps I should explain. I did a shoot for a large home builder that included the ground breaking of a new housing development. After we discussed turn around time and anticipated usage I decided my 10D was the right tool for the job. At the end of the shoot, I grabbed a couple posterity landscape shots of the area before houses, all hand held about f4, 1/125, 200 mm. I thought they were cute and one showed a hawk in a tree in a wetland area (aka a black dot on top of a stick), so I tossed them on the contact sheet. The client ordered 20x30 prints of all the landscape shots to frame for client areas of their lobbies. I was horrified. I couldn't really say no since I put them in with the proofs. I tried to talk them down on size but they wouldn't have. Prints delivered, client ecstatic.
 
Last edited:

douglasf13

New member
Really good points. I'm not a wedding photographer, but I think that Jeff's blog may be partionally responsible for me only shooting a 50mm for the last month or so.
 

Jonathon Delacour

Subscriber Member
Shelby, many thanks for pointing to this Q&A. Although I have no desire to photograph weddings (in fact, the very idea terrifies me) Jeff Ascough's insights -- technical, aesthetic, and business-related -- are applicable to many different forms of photography. I learned a great deal.
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
That was actually directed at me back in my photo.net days! Not a huge fan of Jeff. He's very popular but his work isn't actually that spectacular. I'd rate Marc's wedding photography higher to be honest. His attitude may work for a photographer who doesn't do family pics and has to be forced to do any kind of formal photos or portraits (like him in other words). I agree with him relative to 'capturing the moment' photography though I still think that a professional photographer should strive towards perfection at the very least. However as far as formals, portraits and family groups he is very wrong. If it isn't sharp, lit properly and well composed then the photographer has no right calling themselves pro.

In these days when every wedding forum is awash with complaints about the huge influx of shoot and burn craigslist type $500 weddings, if a photographer can only capture a moment without doing it professionally and with quality, well there are many many out there who can also do it with their DRebel and cheaper and they will sink. What I see in the industry is that huge advances are being made by those working to stay at the top of the business - in lighting. The difference between some of the lighting been produced by some young photographers and the wannabees is incredible. Take a look over at the FM forums in the wedding section to see what I mean.

Picture from this season, bride walking away from the chupa, not actually hugely sharp (focus is on the wrong eye @f1.8) but I couldn't care less, it's good enough not to make a difference. I wouldn't say that though about a portrait or family group though, if it wasn't sharp or in focus it's not good enough to show to the client because it means sloppy technique perhaps to be showcased to the world in a 20X30" for decades to come...

 
Last edited:

edwardkaraa

New member
Well, capturing the moment is what photography is all about, but I personally would rather have a sharp "moment" :D

Content vs. technique is a long dated debate, but one should strive for both imho.
 

jonoslack

Active member
HI Shelby
Thanks for that. Clearly we would all like all our pictures to be perfectly exposed, sharp and in focus (at least when we shoot them). I have a mantra:

If the picture is interesting, nobody notices the technicalities.
If the picture is uninteresting, nobody notices it at all.


If the choice is between catching the moment and getting it sharp; you'd better grab the shot.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I think we all gravitate to styles and approaches that come close to our own vision. Not everyone has the same vision nor wants the same approach, so opinions will be widely diverse ... as it should be.

I have know of, and known Jeff for many years now and have taken one of his seminars. Regardless of whether the style or approach is one you favor, I can attest to the integrity and consistency of Jeff's approach to wedding photography ... IMO.

One thing that he touches upon, that is also a pet peeve of mine in general, is the growing demand for copious quantities of wedding images. If anything drives me away from shooting weddings it will be this exponentially growing trend. Based on client expectations the post processing labor pains are getting to be excruciating ... and it is inevitable that the quality will suffer. It is mind boggling to me that some wedding shooters produce in excess of 3000 shots, of which they deliver 2000. What on earth would someone do with 2000 photographs? IMO, it has to be overwhelming ... but perhaps just another example of the Mc Donald's type consumer mentality ... "A Billion Served" ... and "Super Size Me."

I also tend to agree that content is the key element and absolute technical perfection need not be the criteria for selection of an image. However, there is a line between acceptable or not. We are the ones that have to determine where that line is based on actual use.

Forums like this sometimes lean toward technical perfection and gear refinements with less focus on content. Yet, the opposite is true for the end user in the case of wedding work. A poignant moment of a bride hugging her 90 year old great Grandmother may hold more sway than one perfect but less meaningful image.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I also tend to agree that content is the key element and absolute technical perfection need not be the criteria for selection of an image. However, there is a line between acceptable or not. We are the ones that have to determine where that line is based on actual use.

Forums like this sometimes lean toward technical perfection and gear refinements with less focus on content. Yet, the opposite is true for the end user in the case of wedding work. A poignant moment of a bride hugging her 90 year old great Grandmother may hold more sway than one perfect but less meaningful image.
HI Marc
I hope you know me well enough to understand that the reason for the mantra is an attempt to force myself to understand 'what it's for'.
I'm very keen on getting things right technically, but after years of presenting people with pictures I've realised that the ones they really like have little to do with the quality of the image technically.

I feel quite schizophrenic about photography generally, there is the techie who's interested in the kit and the techniques and the process. Then there's the 'artist'. They don't have much in common :ROTFL:
 

douglasf13

New member
I hear you, Marc. I was going through my friend's wedding proofs the other day, and I though that 550 was an outrageous amount, honestly.
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
Was going through a wedding shot by a photographer here in Jerusalem. Me and another wedding shooter were going through the images. Not bad set, very well lit but just too many. It was 660 images over 6 hours and we both agreed that the proofs would be so much more powerful if he had cut them down at least by half. I feel that too many proofs dilutes your work. That said I did a 500 proof wedding recently, I hope you'll forgive me seeing as it was over 16 hours (no exaggeration) of wedding photography! Chassidic weddings finish at approximately 3-4am and this one started at midday! When you have that much ceremony you can't cut out that much before the only thing left is 'must have's' and non of your artisitic vision is left.



To be honest I wasn't allowed to photograph the Chupa after this photo, family custom not to allow intrusion during the actual Chupa. Not that I minded, nastiest lowdown backlighting I've ever seen!
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
Not a huge fan of Jeff. He's very popular but his work isn't actually that spectacular.
wow, Ben... really surprised at this. Jeff (again IMO) provides some of the most thoughtful and artistically sensitive wedding work on the planet. Technically, he's amazingly consistent as well.

Again IMO.

All that aside, I work with a studio that consistently shoots in excess of 3000 images on an 8 hour day... RAW. That's BEFORE my images are added to the mix. I usually shoot between 800 and 1200, which already feels like too many anyway. Photography has definitely become a commodity, and it's totally why I've left shooting weddings for myself. I KNOW I could deliver less than 300 shots and have complete and sensitive coverage... but seeing that I only started less than 2 years ago, the "cat" was already "out of the bag"... and as a newbie in the market, why would anyone hire me with my measly 400 images if uncle bob would give them 1500 at a lower price.

Wrong time to become a wedding photographer. :D

Back to original post... the whole sharp/unsharp thing is something I struggle with. Given that, all the great documentary photographers seem so much more concerned with moment, composition, and light than technical accuracy. I look at Ascough, Nachtwey, Bresson, you name it... and I see such thoughtfulness in the design of the photograph. Can you imagine how sad it would be if some of those great moments were culled due to being unsharp.
 

robmac

Well-known member
Not a wedding photog, but at the shot-count some of y'all are mentioning, the B&G might as well just hire a documentary team and tape the entire process from prep to last stagger out the reception door.

THE only wedding photos that get my emotional attention are the ones that capture the stolen moments, the emotions, the fun, the discrete, some would say 'sexier' shots (usually rendered in B&W) of the bride getting prepped, etc. The rest are a mind-numbing catalog of services we've all seen 1001 times before, of who had to show up to avoid upsetting Aunt Bertha and who drank away all your money at the open bar.

From a technical perspective, for my taste, such shots need to, in order: be in focus, have bokeh that isn't distracting -- and, ideally, decent B&W tonality. Grain? Who cares? Nth degree resolution, 'micro contrast', color chart accuracy and all the other blah, blah we so often get hung up about praising/tearing apart/defending a given system about is moot. Zip. Nada. You're capturing what is hopefully a very crucial and emotional point in two people's live here - not doing art repro in the restoration department of the Louvre.

Have a 'good eye', an agnostic 'it's just a bloody tool' attitude to your gear and anything above that is gravy. Problem is we all (some more than others) get so bloody hung up on the recipe for the gravy that we increasingly end up sounding like a bunch of gibbering, ill-mannered 23 yr old virgins (by gift of personality) at a sci-fi convention wasting oxygen viciously debating the proper translation of "Up Yours" in Vulcan.
 
Last edited:

simonclivehughes

Active member
...we increasingly end up sounding like a bunch of gibbering, ill-mannered 23 yr old virgins (by gift of personality) at a sci-fi convention wasting oxygen viciously debating the proper translation of "Up Yours" in Vulcan.
:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

Classic!

Cheers,
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Not a wedding photog, but at the shot-count some of y'all are mentioning, the B&G might as well just hire a documentary team and tape the entire process from prep to last stagger out the reception door.

THE only wedding photos that get my emotional attention are the ones that capture the stolen moments, the emotions, the fun, the discrete, some would say 'sexier' shots (usually rendered in B&W) of the bride getting prepped, etc. The rest are a mind-numbing catalog of services we've all seen 1001 times before, of who had to show up to avoid upsetting Aunt Bertha and who drank away all your money at the open bar.

From a technical perspective, for my taste, such shots need to, in order: be in focus, have bokeh that isn't distracting -- and, ideally, decent B&W tonality. Grain? Who cares? Nth degree resolution, 'micro contrast', color chart accuracy and all the other blah, blah we so often get hung up about praising/tearing apart/defending a given system about is moot. Zip. Nada. You're capturing what is hopefully a very crucial and emotional point in two people's live here - not doing art repro in the restoration department of the Louvre.

Have a 'good eye', an agnostic 'it's just a bloody tool' attitude to your gear and anything above that is gravy. Problem is we all (some more than others) get so bloody hung up on the recipe for the gravy that we increasingly end up sounding like a bunch of gibbering, ill-mannered 23 yr old virgins (by gift of personality) at a sci-fi convention wasting oxygen viciously debating the proper translation of "Up Yours" in Vulcan.
Not a wedding photog ...

so the rest is easy for you to say :ROTFL:

While I agree that the less staged parts of a wedding (like "getting ready") offer great opportunities, I don't agree that "the rest are a mind-numbing catalog of services". Either you have the emotional apptitude to catch the defining moments and/or an artistic eye for interesting lighting or geometry "even during the repetious catalog of wedding services" or you don't. That's the only thing that fuels my doing this work. Without it, I'd just as soon shoot a catalog of car parts or jewelry and make more money without breaking a sweat.


IMO, the nature of camera forums, especially ones dedicated to "brands" and so on, is that the gear will get discussed ... often to death. Are these important? Sometimes a little bit. Skin tones can be important. Color accuracy can be important if a Bride spent weeks getting a certain color for the Bridesmaid's dresses. A new camera that doesn't focus properly could be important. A camera that turns synthetic black tuxes into a clownish purple color may be important. However, I doubt any of the rest actually has much to do with reality of shooting. I am pretty sure they are totally separate endeavors.

A few the the "same old shots" from the mind numbing catalog of "must haves" ... like the ceremony, recession, reception, posed work and cake cutting. ;)
 

fotografz

Well-known member
HI Marc
I hope you know me well enough to understand that the reason for the mantra is an attempt to force myself to understand 'what it's for'.
I'm very keen on getting things right technically, but after years of presenting people with pictures I've realised that the ones they really like have little to do with the quality of the image technically.

I feel quite schizophrenic about photography generally, there is the techie who's interested in the kit and the techniques and the process. Then there's the 'artist'. They don't have much in common :ROTFL:
I don't think they have much in common when you are actually shooting.

I tend to agree that it's fun to discuss the tech stuff of gear and processing. I like figuring out how to pull off something ... like wireless lighting and junk like that. But once it's figured out, it just becomes another aspect of shooting and moves to the back of the brain.
 

robmac

Well-known member
Marc - You're right on it being easy on my part, hence my lead-in comments.

I referred to the frames that typically catch MY attention "...the stolen moments, the emotions, the fun.." the behind the scenes candids, etc - as a person viewing from 'over the wall', not as the paying customer with THEIR view as to what THEIR (or in many cases any) wedding photog should capture.

As to 'the eye', I agree - it's an ability/attribute/talent/gift that exists (or not) regardless of what the cameras documenting - and it shows thru (or is glaring by it's absence) in ANY photo -- whether I, or any other detached party, happens to get an emotional vs. a simple 'that's nice' reaction from the image in question or not.

Either way, such an image stands out from the pack; and as I'm reading here with _000 images/per wedding x weddings/yr per city, county, state (to use US references only) - that's a BIG pack.
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
Marc - You're right on it being easy on my part, hence my lead-in comments.

I referred to the frames that typically catch MY attention "...the stolen moments, the emotions, the fun.." the behind the scenes candids, etc - as a person viewing from 'over the wall', not as the paying customer with THEIR view as to what THEIR (or in many cases any) wedding photog should capture.

As to 'the eye', I agree - it's an ability/attribute/talent/gift that exists (or not) regardless of what the cameras documenting - and it shows thru (or is glaring by it's absence) in ANY photo -- whether I, or any other detached party, happens to get an emotional vs. a simple 'that's nice' reaction from the image in question or not.

Either way, such an image stands out from the pack; and as I'm reading here with _000 images/per wedding x weddings/yr per city, county, state (to use US references only) - that's a BIG pack.
We're talking about to completely different sets of reactions. Weddings are very personal and are driven by private emotions rather than generic public ones ... even reactions from trained eyes such as yours or mine. The trick is to be aware enough as to what is important to the hearts of the participants, while staying true to your own artistic values.

Yet even then there is a great equalizer. Most wedding albums are 30 to maybe 100 images for a coffee table type album, and that's it. So, the real task is to produce a much smaller amount of images that stand out ... among which are many "must haves" of the cliche rituals ... so you really can't kiss off the expected stuff in favor of the behind the scenes stuff and end up with outstanding wedding work for word-of-mouth public display.

Personally, I would find that task difficult if shooting 3000 images or more. Not because I can't edit the stand outs from all that bulk, but because of the actual shooting involved ... to do 3000 shots means you are shooting relentlessly rather than looking for the shot and taking it. I've watched second shooters take the expected shots at a ferocious rate of capture, and then miss the "real" shot (like the guy licking his new wife's face posted above), as they mindlessly gaze at their LCDs to make sure they got the expected cake cutting shot.

Here's a recent candid, as it happened shot, of the must have "Champagne Toast" so ubiquitous at weddings. Not the greatest B&W tonality because of the dark room, but a fun capture none the less. Part being in the right place at the right time, and part trained reflexes. Luck helps, but it's amazing how often you can get lucky if you pay attention :)
 

Rolo

Member
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.
:)
 
Last edited:
Top