mwilliamsphotography Posted October 13, 2016 Share #21 Posted October 13, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) A very loving and personal set of wedding photos by Mr. Overgaard ... ones that are sure to be treasured for many a year. Whether any specific camera is a top notch wedding photographer's tool wholly depends on the photographer's approach, and how well it assists in meeting a variety of client expectations (desires often based on family expectations as well as the Bride & Groom's). This extends to aperture used ... for example, if shooting a family group image, one may not want f/0.95 or f/1.4 wide open since most clients would expect everyone to be in focus not just the eyes of those in the front row : -) Point is, there are other tools and techniques better suited to some types of wedding images one encounters in an on-going basis while running a wedding photography business. Personally, I have employed a Leica M over many, many years as a wedding photographer, but not exclusively. The M is a wonderful candid tool in experienced hands. The lenses do perform magnificently wide open, but as mentioned by others, it is not an exclusive attribute. Jeff Ascough, one of the more celebrated wedding photographers, was an exclusive M film camera shooter for many years until digital became somewhat mandatory for a number of reasons. He is now a Canon Ambassador. - Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 13, 2016 Posted October 13, 2016 Hi mwilliamsphotography, Take a look here M Wedding Shoot. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
exile Posted October 15, 2016 Share #22 Posted October 15, 2016 Very nice Thorsten. To those questioning the use of such wide apertures, I must say that from a pragmatic perspective my personal preference in such low light situations as we see in many of those shots is for fast lenses used near to wide open, rather than constant and intrusive flash photography. Best to save the flash for group shots with greater depth of field and dancing to freeze the action. Secondly, IMHO suggesting that the depth of field is too shallow to cover the subject is churlish - Thorsten has the creative freedom to decide what is the subject, so if he decides the bride and groom is the subject of his photo and not the entire wedding party, who are we to say he made the wrong decision? And really, who cares whether he chooses to capture an identifiable but slightly impressionistic abstract form of a weddding cake common to many marriages, rather than a forensic documentation of the precise cake eaten on the day of his daughter's wedding? This is a creative decision. Finally, let's not forget Thorsten was the father of the bride carrying a small discreet camera. If anyone else in that position had walked away from such a deeply personal and emotional event with photos like these, we would be lavishing praise and congratulations. Thorsten was not making images for a client, he was trying to preserve some of the essence of one of the most significant days in his daughter's life, whilst also being there for her in person and enjoying the experience to the full. It looks to me like he succeeded on all counts. This series has inspired me to try to do the same whenever that day comes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted October 17, 2016 Share #23 Posted October 17, 2016 Very nice Thorsten. To those questioning the use of such wide apertures, I must say that from a pragmatic perspective my personal preference in such low light situations as we see in many of those shots is for fast lenses used near to wide open, rather than constant and intrusive flash photography. Best to save the flash for group shots with greater depth of field and dancing to freeze the action. Secondly, IMHO suggesting that the depth of field is too shallow to cover the subject is churlish - Thorsten has the creative freedom to decide what is the subject, so if he decides the bride and groom is the subject of his photo and not the entire wedding party, who are we to say he made the wrong decision? And really, who cares whether he chooses to capture an identifiable but slightly impressionistic abstract form of a wedding cake common to many marriages, rather than a forensic documentation of the precise cake eaten on the day of his daughter's wedding? This is a creative decision. Finally, let's not forget Thorsten was the father of the bride carrying a small discreet camera. If anyone else in that position had walked away from such a deeply personal and emotional event with photos like these, we would be lavishing praise and congratulations. Thorsten was not making images for a client, he was trying to preserve some of the essence of one of the most significant days in his daughter's life, whilst also being there for her in person and enjoying the experience to the full. It looks to me like he succeeded on all counts. This series has inspired me to try to do the same whenever that day comes. I think any comments regarding technique were derived from the OPs original contention that the M is a top notch wedding photographers tool ... solely based on an anecdotal situation such as Mr. Overgaard's. That broad statement is wholly dependent upon the task at hand and the conditions one may face at any given wedding. While anyone is certainly free to shoot anything the way they wish, a wedding photographer doesn't always have the luxury to overlook certain expectations when shooting for a client. As you mention, there may be a need for DOF for group shots or use of flash to freeze action in extreme low light conditions at a traditional reception. These are not unusual situations, but very common. If a client is okay with not having such shots included, then that is a different matter. However, most clients do want full coverage, not just limited to creative proclivities. I do agree that Thorsten was not working for a client, and the images are indeed deeply personal ... but that wasn't the contention made by the OP. BTW, I'm not sure I'd evoke the work "discrete" to describe someone dressed in that manner ... the camera had little to do with discretion. - Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted October 17, 2016 Share #24 Posted October 17, 2016 BTW, I'm not sure I'd evoke the work "discrete" to describe someone dressed in that manner ... the camera had little to do with discretion. Not to mention 'discreet'. Sorry, the pedant in me. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted October 17, 2016 Share #25 Posted October 17, 2016 I looked at the link again and it's worth pointing out that some of the photos shown were taken by the hired photographer who appears to have used a Canon 5D. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.