BlsflBride Reshoot - Photographer's POV
Nathan Shafer
Well gang, the Blissful Bride reshoot in Chicago finally happened
this past Monday, August 25, and I'm glad to say I think it went well.
There were a few problems, of course, mostly due to scheduling foibles
and the like. However, I think we got some good shots, and it seemed
like people had fun, which was a good thing. We haven't got the film
back yet, but I do believe everything photographic went as it was
supposed to. The ceremony moments that were needed were shot on 35mm
with some supplemental lighting, and the portraits were shot on
medium format, indoors, with 2-light portrait lighting. We shot
individual portraits of each bridal party member, a full bridal
party group, and some smaller groupings.
Those of you who have paid attention will remember that BlsflBride
had an Arthurian wedding ceremony last October, involving four brides-
maids and groomsmen, Maid of Honor and Best Man, Four Knights from
Medieval Times in Chicago, a Herald, and so forth and so on. The
high end photographer she hired did not do the job as advertised, and
so after much agonizing, she decided that what was needed to make
herself whole was to get another photographer to reshoot the thing.
Well, that "other photographer" was us, my wife and myself.
We flew out Sunday night, August 24, after a 6-hour bridal show here
in Denver. The reshoot started Monday afternoon at about 5 PM (one
hour late), and went until about 10:30 PM. Afterward, there was a
party at a local cafe for those who took part, with an 8-piece band,
and GREAT food and drink. The next three days (Tuesday through Thursday
morning) we spent with the bride and groom in wedding clothes, doing
romantic portraits of them around Chicago at various locations, inclu-
ding the Chicago Botanic Gardens and the "Shakespeare Garden" at
Northwestern University. Thursday at noon we flew back from Chicago
after tearful hugs and goodbyes. Aside from the satisfaction of having
cleaned up another photograper's mess, we found that we have made
friends for life in this couple; they are true kindred spirits, and
we are richer in spirit for knowing them.
Now, when this controversy was floating around a few weeks ago,
some people here expressed concern that the original photographer's
work, and the photographer himself, were getting slammed and defamed
(although this photographer was never mentioned by name, so no damage
was done to him, so I don't really see a problem) without him getting
a chanc to defend himself. I was asked if I had even *seen* the
offending photos, and I had to admit that I hadn't. Well, now I've seen
'em, and for those who aren't yet sick of this topic, here are my
thoughts:
- First of all, the issue was never that he didn't get any good shots,
which is in and of itself a difficult position to maintain. The
issue, rather, was threefold: First, that he didn't even take much of
the contracted portraiture; second, that much of what he did take,
especially of ceremony moments, was useless because of poor timing
and because of being "out of position"; and three, that these are
more unforgivable because he represented himself as being one of the
best photographers in Chicago, and charged accordingly. The couple
paid what I can tell was FAR more than their budget should have
allowed to get this guy, because photos were important and they
believed they were getting the best. Those are the issues as I under-
stand them.
- First, general impressions: the pictures had been represented to me
thusly: what was there was generally good, but there was a lot that
wasn't gotten, and some of the portraits that were done outdoors were
done with no fill-flash, and thus there were obnoxious shadows.
Well, the reality was both a little better and far worse than that.
What was better: the portraits done outside (they were ALL done out-
side, against the specific wishes of the bride; more on that later)
were shot in the late-afternoon shadow of the building where the
ceremony took place. Consequently, what shadows there were were not
nearly as bad as I had expected - I had expected full or partial sun
outdoors. I believe that what problems are there in terms of lighting
(and there are some - there are shadows in eye sockets, and the
predominant light direction is from above, which doesn't help some
of the male members of the wedding party with prominent foreheads)
can be dealt with with some good custom printing - these are very
bad proofs. The underexposed frames I saw (the result, I believe, of
slow film being pushed) were not as badly underexposed as I expected,
and again, should be mostly correctable (in printing, or in the case
of a few, some judicious computer work).
What was worse (Remember, these are the general impressions; the
details are yet to come): Of the pictures I saw, the best were merely
competent. Not great, not good, but merely competent. The worst was
truly incompetent. This photographer has NO eye for backgrounds, NO
eye for posing, and no talent whatsoever in eliciting good expressions
from his subjects. I couldn't believe some of what I was seeing.
His ceremony moments were all shot on one of two lens lengths: wide
and not-so-wide. Although he walked all around the altar area (which
was set up on risers, so he could, in theory move 360 degrees around
it), and into both balconies (one at the from of the room, one at the
back), almost all of his shots from the ceremony seemed to be from the
same vantage point. And he truly seemed to have a talent for missing
the moment. It's like the quote from Mark Twain - "the difference
between the right word and almost the right word is like the
difference between lightning and a lightning bug." Same thing with
the difference between THE moment and almost the moment.
Now for some specifics (those who are yawning may bail out at any time):
- What I think sort of epitomizes the whole thing: have any of you ever
seen a professional photographer who accidentally gets his finger in
front of the lens while taking a picture? Or at least, would you
expect the photographer to give that proof to the couple, if he or
she did such a dumb thing? Well, this one did both.
- I mentioned bad backgrounds: there are a number of portraits of the
bride and groom outdoors, in front of this one particular door. Well,
on either side of the stairs up to this door, there are iron railings.
Of the shots done front of this door, the photographer failed to get
EVEN ONE where one end of this railing does not seem to be growing
out of the front of the bride's head. Not one.
There are also some profile shots of the bride in front of the buil-
ding, shot at an oblique angle to the building. First of all, these
are 645 shots, so 4x5 aspect ratio (for those who know the tech talk).
They are all done with the bride's nose at about the horizontal
midpoint - i.e., the back of her head is cut off. Why the hell was
that done? Second, in the background, on the other half of the frame,
you can see the out-of-focus shapes of the wedding guests, various
cars parked along the street, you name it. As I said, no eye for
backgrounds.
And the thing was, the bride had requested that these shots be done
indoors, in a sitting room of this building. Well, the sitting room
was very simple, but VERY beautiful - wood wainscotting, nice wall-
paper, tall windows, a stone fireplace. It would have been very
easy to get a basic background in this room, if he had tried. But the
photographer insisted on doing everything outdoors, and that did not
work out at all. The only guess I have as to wby is that he didn't
want to bother with flash if he didn't have to, and indoors he would
have had to. As it was, he should have used at least a little fill
flash outdoors to fill in the eye shadows, but I think he wanted to
exude as little sweat as possible.
- The man's poses are terrible - everyone is flat on their feet, it's
as if he merely said, "You stand there, you stand here." Well, after
talking to the couple and some of the bridal party, I found out that's
exactly what happened. To Jeanne, if you are reading: this was a
case in which I think the subjects COULD take full credit for their
posing and expressions. And it worked out exactly as well as I said
it would.
Here's a good example: as I've said, the bridal party included four
knights from Medieval Times, all dressed in knightly garb and carrying
swords. And bear in mind, these are gorgeous guys - to quote one
female friend of the bride, "yummy." If I weren't straight...well
anyhoo, there is not ONE group shot including the knights where one
of them does not have his sword in front of his or someone else's
face. Not one.
- No eye for expressions: there is a portrait of the couple with the
falconer and a young woman whose role is called "Treasury Maiden."
Aside from the fact that this picture looks like a medium format
snapshot, the expressions are all terrible. The bride's eyes are
half closed (probably a blink, but he didn't seem to shoot any more
frames of this one grouping, which the bride SPECIFICALLY requested),
the groom looks pained, and the Treasury Maiden is looking off to one
side.
One of the few good concepts in the portraits is one in which the
groom has "vanquished" the knights - he is standing holding a sword
looking heroic, the knights are scattered around him on the ground
looking nice and dead. (The concept, btw, was the groom's and the
knights', not the photographer's.) Good concept, but he only spent
a couple of frames on it, and in one, one of the "dead" knights is
looking up at somebody, and in the other, another knight's eyes are
open and he appears to be in mid-sentence with someone.
- As I've said, a number of the contracted portraits were simply not
done, INCLUDING a group portrait of the couple with the entire
bridal party. That shot was simply never taken, even though all of
the people were there (one of the guests, a friend of the bride's, got
a snapshot of the group). Why he didn't is beyond anybody's guess,
but what is further infuriating is the fact that he did a number of
bulls**t "fun" set-ups which were a complete waste of time. An
example would be a shot of the groom, groomsmen, and knights in a mock
"football game" - the men in lines facing each other, squatting with
one fist down on the ground in a scrimmage line pose. Now, if he had
done everything else and had extra time, it would have been one thing.
But he didn't have extra time, he *DIDN'T* get everything else, and
the shot looks terrible to boot!
- One of the big ceremony moments the couple wanted shots of was when
a falcon flew the length of the building, from the back balcony down
to the altar, carrying the rings. Now, I would not expect most
photographers (including myself) to get this on the first shot. A
bird in flight is extremely difficult shot to get - the usual method
is to use a 35mm with a motor drive, around 3-4 frames per second,
track the bird across the sky, and hold the shutter down - after a few
seconds, you've shot an entire 36 exposure roll, and somewhere in
there, MAYBE, is a good shot of the bird. So I wouldn't have expected
this guy to get it; however, since it was requested, I would expect
him either to give it the old college try or else explain to the
couple why that shot was simply not possible.
He did neither. He took two shots, one in which the bird has just
launched himself off his perch, another in which he was on the ground
in front of the altar (flash recycle time is a b*tch). And the thing
is, this guy shot himself in the foot: He had set up, in both
balconies, these enormous 60" diameter umbrella lights, to give a
nice ambient light to the room, and to give the subjects a nice rim-
light/hairlight in the shots. The problem was, when he pointed his
camera up toward the bird in flight, guess what else he was pointing
at? That's right, this great big, bright light. There was never ANY
chance he was going to get a shot of the bird, even if he was really,
really lucky.
- Those umbrella lighst in the balconies caused other problems. Sure,
they did give a nice hairlight, expecially on the processional shots,
but in a number of the other shots, they flared out the lens and
ruined the shots - this is especially true in some guest snapshots.\
Turns out that he had the umbrella lights on optical slave, not radio
slave, so they would be triggered by ANYONE's flash going, off, not
just his. So a number of the guests' shots during the ceremony were
ruined by flare. Using them was extremely stupid, especially given
how well lit this room was, given the right film speed (and 400 film
would have done it).
That's what I can think of at the moment' I'm sure there's other
stuff as well, but I've already written ten screen's worth of stuff.
One more point needs to be addressed: the photographer's attitude.
>From what I've heard, both from the couple, the bridal party, and from
friends who were at both events, the photographer was surly, unfriendly,
imperious, arrogant. He ordered people, he did not ask them; he barked
his instructions, and acted extremely put out when people were running
late on the wedding day (NEWS FLASH: People *always* run late at
weddings, it's one of the requirements!). From what I understand, he
was even worse a few weeks later, when the couple went to his studio
to try and reshoot a few of the things that were missed. And I'm sorry,
but as a wedding photographer, the pictures are only half the job, the
other half is to make the day as WONDERFUL as possible for the couple.
So in summation: it seems that this guy was a jerk both to the people
that hired him and to their friends and guests. To the best that I can
determine, he did not give this couple his best efforts, or even a
significant fraction thereof. He did not do what he agreed to do, in
writing. And to add insult to injury, he pocketed a few thousand
samolians for his (lack of) effort. If he had been paid a few hundred,
I think the couple would be way out of line in taking things this far
and being this upset. There is, after all, some competent work in
there. But they didn't, they paid a few thousand, because they thought
they were getting the best. They weren't. They didn't.
Anyone who wants further information from me on this, please feel
free to ask.
Regards,
Nathan Shafer
--
Nathan Shafer
Alpenglow Photography - Weddings, Nature, Wildlife
Thornton, CO
http://home.earthlink.net/~shafers
Unsolicited commercial e-mail is NOT welcome! Permission to include my
name and email address on any email mailing lists is expressly
forbidden.
Any violation of this will be reported to your postmaster as a formal
complaint.
"Of course my opinion reflects that of my employer --
I *am* my employer!!!"