If you're a wedding photographer and you're using a Sony, Fujifilm, or even a Hasselblad, sorry, you're not a pro. At least, that's what Brides magazine would have you believe.
I try to exercise a lot of patience in life, but seeing publications in a position to educate instead pass off obvious misinformation is a pet peeve of mine. Such is the case with Brides Magazine, which recently published an article titled "Essential Questions You Need to Ask Your Wedding Photographer" with a glaringly wrong piece of advice that could compromise both work for a photographer and a couple's ability to choose an appropriate wedding photographer. In the original version, the article advises brides to ask their photographer what sort of equipment they use:
What kind of equipment do you use?
'They should say either Cannon [sic] or Nikon, which are the most readily available professional cameras available,' says Tiffani. 'However, there are professional and amateur cameras in both brands. A professional camera should be a 'full format' camera. This will ensure that you can print large-scale prints easily.'
Obviously, there are numerous things wrong with this statement. Our own Jason Vinson does gorgeous work with crop-sensor Fujifilm cameras. Plenty of shooters have made the switch to Sony mirrorless. And we haven't even mentioned those who use medium format systems. Beyond the fact that this is just plainly bad broad-spectrum advice that's demonstrably incorrect, I find it all the more annoying because it encourages clients to ask questions they probably don't fully comprehend the answers to (through no fault of their own considering they're likely not photographers). It would be like me refusing to go to a restaurant because of the brand of knives the chef uses when I don't know the first thing about knives. But more importantly, what about how the food tastes? What about how the photos look? Why is Brides not encouraging couples to really study portfolios to find a style they love instead of interrogating photographers on their brand choice, sensor size, whether they use film or not, and what type of file they shoot? If you don't know photography, their answers will mean nothing to you anyway, and if you do know it, you'll know that the final images matter way more than if it wasn't shot on a full-frame Can(n)on. A properly educated client makes better choices that make for more compatible working relationships, and that's better for the everyone involved.
Interestingly, it seems that after PetaPixel broke the story, the magazine updated the article without comment, in which the aforementioned section now reads:
What kind of equipment do you use?
Ideally, your photographer would use the most readily available professional camera.
I'm sorry, but I don't even know what "readily available" means. The latest model? The most popular? Again, this sort of thing is frustrating for me not because I'm sitting here, itching to snipe at some publication for giving poor advice, but because people read magazines and give them assumed authority, and they take what they read and come to wedding photographers with it. And when they unnecessarily pass on a photographer they like because of some technical piece of information that they don't understand and that doesn't matter, it hurts the photographer in the lost income and it hurts the couple in that they possibly pass over the right photographer for irrelevant reasons.
What do you think? Should couples be asking photographers about their equipment? Or is it just the images that matter?
[via PetaPixel]
before I went back to film I was shooting weddings exclusively with Fuji's. they delivered on every level. They are small, light and gave me incredible imagery. autofocus was fine for my shooting style. I loved them.
Interesting revision of the Brides article. In the first version, they used wedding photographer, Tiffani Matsuura, as the source., Bride magazine used the photographer's first name. In the revised version, they used the photographer's last name.
I trust brides magazine on photography as much as I trust Fstoppers on boutonniere selection.
Well great. We JUST went shopping.
These magazines are meant to please the masses. Since the "masses" of wedding photographers use Canon and Nikons it makes sense, albeit its a terrible choice of words. I switched from Nikon's years ago because all the wedding photographers I knew used Canons. I have never met a wedding photographer that shot with anything other than those two, though I'm sure they are out there. If I was personally choosing a wedding photographer again, I would be hesitant to hire someone that didn't use either of the "big two."
It was one magazine. Anyone who takes advice from one source should be avoided, they are dummies.
it's the brides reading it that I think is concerning. Some brides aren't as savvy as us techy nerds so they take these magazines pretty seriously.
if you're a photographer and you take this advice. yeh you're a dummy.
#Cannon
everyone seems to be missing the fact that the quote in question was not the magazine itself. it was the wedding photographer who they interviewed FOR the article (Tiffani Matsuura, a wedding photographer with Sun and Sparrow). sure they published it but when you realize it was the wedding photographer who actually said that it becomes even crazier!
that does make it even crazier. i took a look at her work. it's honestly not bad but I find it very typical of todays wedding photo trend.
I hope this doesn't sound pretentious but I question the the longevity of her career if this is her attitude about things. While I don't hate her work at all I'm not particularly blow away by it. Thinking there are only 2 camera brands that make you a "pro" doesn't exactly set you apart from other shooters. which in my opinion is what you should want most. Wedding photography seems to be getting very saturated with photographers with this thinking. maybe i'm wrong.
god damn that all sounded pretentious haha.
I originally read this on PP and said she'll be a laughing stock... but now I am starting to feel bad for her as this could have easily been a minor mistake on either both the writer/editor and photographer who misspoke, or clearly lacks clarity on the trends of the photography industry, especially now as Sony doing some serious take over on the camera market for pro photographers. As for Full Format, who knows, if that was the photographer or the editor, or both, trying to dumb down industry speak to something more main stream tech speak, so saying "full format" as a way of being full format, which I personally agree it is the better form factor and quality standard in shooting portraiture these days.
But it was clear as day why she opted to working with the editor on this piece, exposure to 300k possible brides to be, so it was a no brainer. Will she have much respect to industry pros though? Meh... maybe a few years once this fades and as most industry forgives and sometimes forgets for most industry bombshells. Even though this wasn't a huge bombshell compared to others like Jasmin Star and similar famous photogs, but clearly she learned her lesson after that one incident unlike some others.
Reminds me of when a client asked me what lenses I used and the aperture for each lens I was told that my apertures were too small. The client thought 1.8 on a 35 and 50mm and a 2.8 on a 70-200 were too small but that I could use my kit lens because it was a 3.5-5.6. His brother was the one who gave out wrong info, thankfully the client was teachable.
Whatever the gear, if the photographer does work you like and are willing to pay, go with him/her.
The quote from Bride is priceless! I've seen work created with point and shoots that rival my own best efforts with "professional" gear. It's not the tool but the the hand that wields it.
This is so funny; I’ve been experiencing this conundrum since way back in the 35mm, medium format days well into the 25 year mark now. I used to shoot mainly with multiple Minolta 35mm cameras with various lenses and loved the cameras and never decided or needed to ‘upgrade’ to Nikon. I worked on and off over the years with my Minolta cameras (plural) and even had a Hasselblad medium format that I found in a second-hand store back in the late 80s and wanted it so badly because of all the talk in all the magazines about professional photographers solely using Nikon and Hasselblad so I figured I’d play around with it. All this time I’m working freelance and getting paid (what I thought was) ridiculous amounts of money to ‘take pictures’.
Very few people would ask me, “What equipment do you use? What camera do you use? Are you a Professional Photographer? How can you be a Pro Photog is you use Minolta? Why aren't you using Nikon or Canon?” These questions only ever came up a very rare few times over my 25 plus years. Usually the fact that I owned a Hasselblad even if I wouldn’t be shooting with it at their event would be enough to stop the inquisition there. Most people who would look at my portfolio, loved my style, and loved what they saw and we’d be off from there.
I only remember one time where the client just wouldn’t let it go so ‘we’ finally agreed that I would shoot for him and if he didn’t like the shots he didn’t have to pay me for anything but would also not get the photos either and if he did like the photos he would pay me X amount per photo (almost double what I usually charge per photo and way more than I ever got paid per event). Guess what, that was my highest paid gig ever and not only that his referrals had me busy for over 8 months.
The only real times I caught flak was from ‘other photographers’ who shot with Nikon exclusively even if they weren’t ‘professionals’, they would tell me that they could take better pictures than me because they had a ‘professional’ camera. Yeah and all you need to be able to paint the Sistine Chapel is the same paint brushes and paint Michelangelo used and the same amount of time it took him to do it. They never equate the skill and talent needed to see, compose and take a proper photograph (not a picture); there is a difference.
I finally started switching to digital a few years ago; my first digital camera was a Kodak 10 MP-ish fixed lens camera. After about a month of free time getting used to the technology I was confident enough to start shooting with it as a secondary and would often use it to show clients the real time photos of what I was shooting for them on film. I still liked shooting primarily on film because of the different temperature different film gives you. Next was a digital Olympus 12.1MP Fixed lens camera again played with it slightly to get used to the tech and then started incorporating it into my gear. In the last year I’ve finally bought several Nikon Digital cameras and after a bit of getting used to the tech I’m now solely using them and have given the Kodak to my Grandnephew who is 6 (almost 7) because he wants to be a Professional Photographer like me, The Olympus to my Sister who likes to take ‘pictures’ of her girls school events.
I even let my 13 year old niece use an extra Nikon D3100 to shoot at an event when she bugged me enough to let her come to one of my shooting events. I told her she would be bored out of her mind and would be bugging me to leave but that this was an all-day event and once there I can’t leave. We made a suckers bet that she would be whining and complaining and bugging me to leave but if she didn’t she could keep the camera. Well she loved the event, love shooting with ‘real’ photographers, they loved that she was interested in photography and loved showing her what, where, how to compose and take a great photo, even the models all wanted to work with her. She even unpacked all the gear herself when we got home without a word and then took some photos of the sunset after everything else was done. By the way guess who the sucker in the sucker bet was, yep you guessed it now I’m down not just a camera, but a Nikon.
Since then she’s gone online and started researching everything there was to learn about photography and shooting, and even downloaded posing cards of models and made some of her own in Photoshop. Over the last six months I’ve taken her to a few shooting events with other professional photographers since then and its funny she seems to find the best backgrounds to compose shots against with the models and is usually the first one ready to shoot, gear up and grab a model and go shooting . I see the other ‘professional’ photographers following her around to snake her shots. They ask her of course for permission and I hear them asking her what lens she is using and what settings she is shooting at, etc, etc. She has never shot on Auto; I told her real photographers don’t use Auto, but she could flick over on it to get the general settings and then adjust from there. She always shoots in RAW only and usually takes a minimum of 2 GB of photos per event. After she gets her camera setup for the lighting of the day whether shooting outside or in the studio I don’t think she could take a bad photo if she tried.
So I guess now that I’m shooting with a Nikon after 25 plus years now I’m a ‘professional’ photographer. She’s only been shooting about 6 months but because she is shooting with a Nikon that qualifies her as a ‘professional ‘photographer also. Just the fact that we are both shooting with Nikons no relation to our skill levels or talents, not the fact that I’ve been getting paid on and off for over 20 years with hundreds of satisfied clients but just the fact that we are shooting with Nikons qualifies both of us as Professionals.
I'm so glad I finally made it to 'Professional Photographer' status just because I went out and bought a Nikon. Really?
I don't like cannon. I prefer a sword.
Geez . .. I hope in their next issue they publish an equally in depth article on how to choose a wife, how to choose a husband.
I can hardly wait to see their criteria . . .
While original bride article itself was poorly constructed to feed misunderstanding, I can not stop but remembering some of gig classified I have seen decades ago.
On that classified, certain production company under talent management agency were hiring multiple young photographer for certain events... doing gig as Paparazzi for celebrity appearance who is also under their management. Funny things about that detail descriptions... when inquired was, they did not care if camera is working or not, but they need to have working big flash and professional looking camera. They would keep film or memory card (yes that was era we still see both type of photographer) if you bring working camera, and they will only compensate on hourly wage (crappy deal other than certain access and item they said they would provide). If you do extra acting (i.e altercation type of things that is scripted), you get paid slightly more and you are encouraged to get nice looking junk camera for that purpose(suppose that can be destroyed in acting).
Basically photographer were more of cast members of event productions who created illusion of star power than actually hired to take photo of events. FYI: real Paparazzi guys often uses smaller, low profile camera.
While it is extreme example, lot of commercial productions have that side i.e when ad shoot client bring in people from corporate offices to watch studio or locations shoot, agency director often asked you to bring out big light and big camera type of things (or schedule shoot that need particular things for those client viewing day)... preferably bring out Hasselblad, Mamiya, or view camera or view camera type of attachment i.e horseman bellows. And some agency director won't be happy if they see say Canon Rebel when client showing up with him...
And I assume this Bride magazine has probably similar point of view from Wedding planner... who want appearance of big wedding photo productions first. For them, big wedding photo productions means big Canon or Nikon with long zoom lens... there are unspoken need to have camera with big lens to impress client who knew nothing about photography. To them, photographer is a cast member, who also happened to take photo. So, they do not care if you actually shoot with what type of camera, but they would worry about appearance to client and their guest.
Obviously, whole ideas are silly and offensive to photographic communities since we all know it really does not matter if it is Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Fuji or whatever else. But this type of treating photographer as a cast members first and being photographer as secondary type of mentality are unfortunately there since early days of commercial photography.
There are certain point to this type of article... like it or not. If she had wrote it in the manner that clearly expressed perspective of wedding planner hiring photographer... I think that would have provides interesting insight for some of hiring practices to particular industry segments. This also help us understand situations; like photographer wondering client asking about camera than looking at portfolio etc. or why certain client made huge fuss when one bring out smaller mirrorless at events... these type of things can be understand more clearly when we looked at other side perspective.
I am so tired of Canon and Nikon users saying that their cameras are more reliable then everyone else's when my personal experience with Canon is a mirror replacement, 2 Compactflash drives going out and a shutter failure during weddings in a 2 year period. Since switching to Sony almost 2 years ago I have not had one failure. Pros always have 2 comparable cameras when they show up for a wedding and amateurs do not.
Awesome discussion!
Ultimately, the couple doesn't care about the equipment used to photograph their wedding. ESP (expression sells portraits).
For all intents and purposes, a "crop senor" has the same resolution as a full-frame with the same pixel count. This is due to the crop sensor using smaller lenses for the parced sensor. That is, the sensor is sliced (parced) into pixels. Then a small lens above the sensor guides light to that sensor. So resolution is the same for comparable pixel count sensors, regardless of the size of the sensor.
The difference comes in the noise and color of the finished image. The large chips have large pixels that better capture low light. So you will generally find that a large sensor creates better low-light images.
Ultimately, the camera is a merely a tool that the photographer uses to capture the image.
I've been photographing for more than 40 years as a working professional, and have used the crop-sensor Canons (Cannons ??) since 2004. Since my labs create finished prints by using machines that interpolate when the image is enlarged (that is, they add pixels/dots in the finished image to avoid pixelation), I have delivered amazing wall-size portraits without problems.
Canon, Nikon, Fuji? Show me a happy couple as they admire their finished portraits, and I assure you they will not have a clue what camera was used. Nor will they care.
And I make it a point of bringing multiple cameras, lenses, and strobes to my weddings. I swap out bodies every two years, to avoid breakdowns. I don't care if a camera breaks just before a wedding, since I have multiple spares.
http://pretoriaphotography.co.za/blog/bridal-mag-is-wrong.html , My take on the issues is all there, I will admit I am not very kind to Brides. I have linked back to this article as well.
Unfortunately there are all too many people who view wedding photography as a way to earn a little extra income on the side or to cover the cost of a new camera or lens and these individuals have not made the investment in equipment or in learning their craft and for the brides there are no do-overs, they are stuck with what they get and I have spoken to mothers of brides who think of their own wedding photographers and relive the pain of those people's poor performance.
With low light venues the photographers need f/2.8 zoom lenses and cameras that can produce relatively clean images at ISO 6400 and they need flash and know how to use it for fill. They also need focal lengths at a minimum from 16mm to 200mm and these need to provide f/2.8 apertures at these focal lengths. Someone with a f/4 or f/5.6 (at full extension) is going to have problems with autofocus in low light both in terms of accuracy and having it happen fast enough to get the shot properly framed.
Few cameras other than those from Canon and Nikon have pro level f/2.8 lenses and few have adequate low light autofocus performance and most have very limited choices for lenses and few provide good balanced fill flash with a strobe. Only recently have cameras and lenses for MFT cameras advanced to where I would consider them suited for wedding photography.
I also use Quantum Qflash and modifiers and these are compatible with Nikon and Canon flash and cameras and not with Sony or Olympus or Fuji. Going to a MF digital camera makes no sense at all considering the size of the images that are going into an album or the largest wall prints that are going to be ordered. It becomes a gimmick that adds no value for the client.
For video the Sony cameras are the least bad but do not begin to compare to a $4,000 camcorder like a C100 in terms of operbility and focusing performance or the available zoom range or ability to pull focus and record sound that is not terrible.