This seems to go against the spirit here, but...

Hyubie · #1 January 20th, 2012, 12:09 PM

Quote:

... she remarked that her first wedding camera was a Canon Rebel. What stunned me was that half the audience applauded the remark. I did a blog post the next day entitled "How Much of a Professional Are You?" and raised the issue of professional-grade gear for wedding photography. I also included a Judge Joe Brown YouTube video which was cruising the Internet. Judge Joe Brown found for the plaintiff, a bride who hired a photographer that produced less-than-professional images. In that video, Judge Joe Brown made it clear—once he found out that the photographer was using the Canon Rebel—that that was not the type of gear a wedding professional should be using—him being quite a photographer himself.

Anyway, in my post I continue to raise the question of professionalism if you're shooting a Canon Rebel as your primary wedding camera. The bottom line for me was—not really! My post was flooded with over 100 comments within 24 hours! Half the commenters wanted to hang me from the highest yardarm, and the other half came to my defense because they felt the same way I did. Hey, a Canon Rebel can take a great photograph, but it's sure not the gear a wedding professional should be using if they want to do the best job for their clients. If you're shooting a wedding with the same gear that a lot of the wedding guests are using, how can you call yourself a professional? That isn’t to say that I can't take great photographs with the Canon Rebel—I'm sure I can. But I also want my gear to help me stand out from the crowd, distinguishing myself as a wedding professional shooting a job.

(Highlight by me.)

A common theme in our forum is that "it's not the gear, but the person behind it." But thinking about it (especially from point of view of bride/groom), does he make a big point? I imagine it might be, probably especially for Bride-zillas.

I remember my wedding day, I was concerned with a lot more other things, and didn't even notice what my photographer's gear were. I just knew they were big, black, and long. And they didn't produce astounding images, now that I look back at the pictures. They even look like straight from camera JPEGs (not to disparage OOCs - I use them too - but it felt like "here are the images I took, now choose").

Discuss.

RobWatson · #2 January 20th, 2012, 12:14 PM

"hired a photographer that produced less-than-professional images"

Once this standard is in place does the gear matter one whit? Crap images from awesome gear, I can do that.

Djarum · #3 January 20th, 2012, 12:14 PM

I actually read almost the entire bit on the canon rebel, including the bit about Judge Joe Brown(I've seen his show a few times).

My own personal view on this is that if I got married, I wouldn't care what the photographer used. In all honesty, I think during the reception I'd even ask that something small and something less intrusive be used.

Just as an example, my father is a master carpenter. Even my father believes that tools from Harbor Freight have their place, even for the professional like himself.

sprinke · #4 January 20th, 2012, 12:20 PM

I think the body matters much less than the lens. As other people have pointed out on this forum, there are simply some types of images that CANNOT be produced without lenses of certain focal lengths and apertures. If a client is expecting those types of images, and you can't deliver them with the gear you have, then they are going to be disappointed.

RevBob · #5 January 20th, 2012, 12:37 PM

If you are going to make a living as a pro photographer it only makes sense to go for high end gear - full frame camera and high quality glass - but not, as this guy states, to look like a pro. You do it to get the best photos. Output trumps aesthetics, why should it matter what your gear looks like. His conclusion is valid, his reasoning is ridiculous!

Hyubie · #6 January 20th, 2012, 12:42 PM

I guess my beef is how elitist it all sounds? I know good gear really ups the keepers - I've had much more keepers even with just the upgrade from P&S to m43 and the system's outstanding lens lineup. But to carry pro gear for the sake of looking like a pro sounds to me like BS. Again, maybe it's just me.

pxpaulx · #7 January 20th, 2012, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprinke

I think the body matters much less than the lens. As other people have pointed out on this forum, there are simply some types of images that CANNOT be produced without lenses of certain focal lengths and apertures. If a client is expecting those types of images, and you can't deliver them with the gear you have, then they are going to be disappointed.

Agreed with this. More importantly, you should be hiring a photographer based on their portfolio. You should have an expectation of the final product based on their prior production (regardless of gear really - if their portfolio is consistent and what you are looking for, that should be a done deal).

If you don't have the funds and have to hire someone who isn't necessarily a professional or have the background, that is the risk you are taking...as long as the photographer is up front about expectations that may just be the risk you have to take in that scenario.

Our wedding photographer (back in those old days of film!) was a school teacher who did it as a hobby/side job. He did have a studio in his basement, an extensive portfolio, and 100% knew what he was doing. Looking back I still wouldn't hesitate to call the work professional level, despite the reasonable costs and photography being a hobby for the guy.

dhazeghi · #8 January 20th, 2012, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hyubie

I guess my beef is how elitist it all sounds? I know good gear really ups the keepers - I've had much more keepers even with just the upgrade from P&S to m43 and the system's outstanding lens lineup. But to carry pro gear for the sake of looking like a pro sounds to me like BS. Again, maybe it's just me.

It's not elitism, it's a filtering mechanism. Sure, lots of idiots have-high end gear. But it's a much smaller proportion than those who have low-end gear. Price is a barrier to entry. Just because somebody has a fancy camera doesn't mean they know how to use it, but the odds are better than somebody with a cheap one.

Of course if you know the photographer well, you'll know what they can and can't do, and the gear becomes largely irrelevant, but most folks aren't in that position.

DH

Jonathan F/2 · #9 January 20th, 2012, 12:52 PM

You can usually tell a pro off the bat. I'd rather pick a wedding photographer with 3 E-P3 bodies around his neck each mounted to a 12, 25 and 45 than some guy with a Canon 7D and a kit 18-55 lens.

starlabs · #10 January 20th, 2012, 12:55 PM

I think the popular belief that "it's the photographer, not the camera" is partially true.

That is, it's true for most of us. We've all seen examples of crappy photos taken by people with the most expensive gear. The limiting factor in those cases is indeed the photographer, not the camera.

However there are cases where the gear does matter - and that's professionals. This doesn't mean they can't take good photos with sub-par gear. It means they can take even better photos (or have more flexibility) with good "professional" gear.

I'll give you an analogy. Think of a professional F1 race car driver. He can probably do amazing things driving in your everyday car that you can't even get close to replicating. But give him an F1 car, and that'll unleash his true skills - he'll be able to do things he couldn't do in your car.