Could be my first job, advice needed

[Fuji Dave]

This place ... I wish people would just stick to answering questions asked and stop trying to dish out the law every other thread, Jesus ..




Nice of you, pity it got p***ed on immediately

I knew 100% I would be fine in doing it so I am glad I was right

 

[DemiLion]

Very noble of you - although I'm not sure where the breach of copyright is in what @Dave70D is planning on doing so the reply is just 'anal'

Do stop being a dick. Warning someone that there are potential licensing issues is hardly being anal. It's called compliance.

FYI - Misuse of a software licence equals breach of copyright.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I agree with everything you have said here Gary but as an amateur photographer friends moan more about the cost of hiring a professional photographer than anything else, hence why they ask friends who have a hobby of photography to do the pictures for them. This is going to happen more and more often as digital makes 'half decent' images attainable by the masses.

The last Wedding I attended the Couple did not want to spend money on a pro tog and asked guests to send them any pictures they had taken. They made an album from it and said it was far better than any proffesional album because the photo's from guests meant more to them; most people there said 'what a great idea' and were all moaning about the costs of a pro.

But surely that's very different?
If your friends ask you to do photography for them, for whatever reason (Can't afford a pro, prefer amateur pics, too tight to pay, don't value professionals or whatever) then they know, and presumably any other friends who are involved also know that you're there as a friend who is taking their photos for them. You aren't passing yourself off to be a professional.

In the case of the OP, this is a public event, a charity ball where complete strangers will have paid a lot of money to go to, and where they will expect the photographer to be professional. Their expectations will, very reasonably, be much higher than those of your friends. For some reason the orgainiser thinks that it's OK to cheapskate on this and book the OP.

The OP who, with the greatest respect, only knows how to shoot leisurely outdoor portraits in good light in AV mode, and who doesn't even know how to use autofocus, let alone manual focus, will find himself working in a strange environment under severe time pressure, completely out of his depth - and that's before he finds out that the promised space is a quarter the size expected, and that the lights are then turned off for the dancing, and that the music is so loud that he can't even communicate with the people he's trying to photograph. We already know that this job is beyond his present skillset BEFORE any new challenges arise, and the inevitable result is that the photos will be 'disappointing' and that the public will blame professional photographers in general.

 

[Box Brownie]

I had forgotten there was in the OP mention of shooting for a Charity Ball........but on @willkia Will's post #3 on 13th September he says he had 4 weeks to go.

Unless I missed it (please correct me) I don't recall him updating the thread about how he got on at the ball.....and more importantly, for all the client saying she will happy with whatever he produces, was she indeed happy,..........now approx 8 weeks gone by!!!

 

[droj]

I know I can Give away for free my Adobe photoshop and Lightroom as got in touch with Adobe a while ago, so on that I am fine.

Yes it is legal, and moreover the apps have a market value within that legal framework - which to me emphasises the generosity of the offer.

I often think that there's too much testosterone on these forums - can't you find anything else to do with it, guys?

Not to mention possibilities of depression and / or alcohol consumption. Not pretty, but maybe something that needs acknowledgement?

And whatever the merits of the case, I'm guessing that the OP has done a runner?

 

[Fraser Euan White]

But surely that's very different?
If your friends ask you to do photography for them, for whatever reason (Can't afford a pro, prefer amateur pics, too tight to pay, don't value professionals or whatever) then they know, and presumably any other friends who are involved also know that you're there as a friend who is taking their photos for them. You aren't passing yourself off to be a professional.

In the case of the OP, this is a public event, a charity ball where complete strangers will have paid a lot of money to go to, and where they will expect the photographer to be professional. Their expectations will, very reasonably, be much higher than those of your friends. For some reason the orgainiser thinks that it's OK to cheapskate on this and book the OP.

The OP who, with the greatest respect, only knows how to shoot leisurely outdoor portraits in good light in AV mode, and who doesn't even know how to use autofocus, let alone manual focus, will find himself working in a strange environment under severe time pressure, completely out of his depth - and that's before he finds out that the promised space is a quarter the size expected, and that the lights are then turned off for the dancing, and that the music is so loud that he can't even communicate with the people he's trying to photograph. We already know that this job is beyond his present skillset BEFORE any new challenges arise, and the inevitable result is that the photos will be 'disappointing' and that the public will blame professional photographers in general.

Good post Gary & you are completely right

 

[Fraser Euan White]

Do stop being a dick. Warning someone that there are potential licensing issues is hardly being anal. It's called compliance.

FYI - Misuse of a software licence equals breach of copyright.

One day you may just stop being rude to people and provide something constructive to a debate?

At no point did @Dave70D suggest he was going to do anything illegal in his very kind offer to the OP.

 

[Phil V]

Reading the official sites is bad enough without the click bait. The problem is most companies and organisatios are now so fearfull that they insist that every one

at a event must give their permissions, they conflate GDPR, child protection and about everything else in to their private rules.

Could you post the relevant sections from the official ‘sites’ about GDPR that you think should trouble photographers?

 

[Fuji Dave]

One day you may just stop being rude to people and provide something constructive to a debate?

At no point did @Dave70D suggest he was going to do anything illegal in his very kind offer to the OP.

I just laughed it off as crap as I knew 100% I will be ok to pass it on. Yes copyright is serious but before jumping in as normal some folk NEED to find Adobe FACTS like I did

 

[Fraser Euan White]

I just laughed it off as crap as I knew 100% I will be ok to pass it on. Yes copyright is serious but before jumping in as normal some folk NEED to find Adobe FACTS like I did

It's a very generous offer from you and is what makes these forums

 

[Fuji Dave]

It's a very generous offer from you and is what makes these forums

Thank you, if Will does not take any of the help/advice on and use it then I will offer to one of the members doing the Weekly 52. So the ball is in Will`s hands now.

 

[HoppyUK]

I agree with everything you have said here Gary but as an amateur photographer friends moan more about the cost of hiring a professional photographer than anything else, hence why they ask friends who have a hobby of photography to do the pictures for them. This is going to happen more and more often as digital makes 'half decent' images attainable by the masses.

The last Wedding I attended the Couple did not want to spend money on a pro tog and asked guests to send them any pictures they had taken. They made an album from it and said it was far better than any proffesional album because the photo's from guests meant more to them; most people there said 'what a great idea' and were all moaning about the costs of a pro.

They might have a point. Perhaps the guests' pictures provided some happy memories of what actually happened on the day instead of a series of faked events stage-managed by the photographer to rack up the bill.

Oops, what have I said

 

[Phil V]

They might have a point. Perhaps the guests' pictures provided some happy memories of what actually happened on the day instead of a series of faked events stage-managed by the photographer to rack up the bill.

Oops, what have I said

I’m not aware of photographers racking up the bill based on arranging staged events. Seems a daft assumption
And I’ve only ever ‘stage managed’ anything at the request of a client, though I appreciate the fake cake cutting and register signing are still common.

I always considered we were there to capture the moments the guests were involved in, if the guests are busy recording the wedding then they’re no longer part of it.

People will be able to justify any decision they make, but to assume that guests can ‘document’ a wedding better than a decent photographer is ridiculous.

And having just had the plasterer in, I don’t think photographers are particularly expensive either.

 

[Baloo]

At present, he isn't a photographer. Just a bloke with a camera that he doesn't know how to use but is willing to provide his services anyway.

Actually a bloke with a camera, whether he knows how to use it well or not is a photographer, sorry to dent your ego!

Do stop being a dick. Warning someone that there are potential licensing issues is hardly being anal. It's called compliance.

Get a life.

 

[TheBigYin]

I had forgotten there was in the OP mention of shooting for a Charity Ball........but on @willkia Will's post #3 on 13th September he says he had 4 weeks to go.

Unless I missed it (please correct me) I don't recall him updating the thread about how he got on at the ball.....and more importantly, for all the client saying she will happy with whatever he produces, was she indeed happy,..........now approx 8 weeks gone by!!!

I'd like to think that he saw sense from the advice he got in "part one" of this thread, before he resurrected it by posting shots of the birthday party and salon opening - and decided to let someone competent handle the paid job. I'd like to.... I really would.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Could you post the relevant sections from the official ‘sites’ about GDPR that you think should trouble photographers?

The GDPR is not about restricting the activity or business of Photography in any way. It is about how private data is created stored, handled and published by enterprises. Though it excludes the data held by private individuals for their own purposes. ( amateurs generally fall out side the scope of these regulations)

Photoraphs as data fall under that general heading, so how they are stored used and distributed fall under the same regulations.
generally speaking a data holder has to make sure that his clients are aware of his policy on this, and positively opt in where necessary.
in terms of photographs this would include agreeing to what a photographer intended to do with said data (Photographs and other personal data)

The only difficulty that has any sort of serious implication are recognisable images of people included in a photograph fortuitously, or as part of the general scene. Clearly there is nothing at all illegal in them being photographed and appearing in the photograph. Though there are data considerations if they are published. They do have the right to be obscured or their image otherwise removed. which though problematic and inconvenient, It is fortunate that this rarely happens in practice. But we do see examples on news stories, most often in regard to people's children.

Photographers at events can Forestall these problems by ensuring that by an announcement, and / or signage, that they are taking photographs at the event and that every one is likely to be photographed. And that people not wishing to be included in photographs, should tell the photographer and/or indicate their wishes clearly to him.

However the problems are ones of data storage and compliance and not of the taking photographs themselves, which is not regulated in any way by GDPR
.

 

[willkia]

I had forgotten there was in the OP mention of shooting for a Charity Ball........but on @willkia Will's post #3 on 13th September he says he had 4 weeks to go.

Unless I missed it (please correct me) I don't recall him updating the thread about how he got on at the ball.....and more importantly, for all the client saying she will happy with whatever he produces, was she indeed happy,..........now approx 8 weeks gone by!!!

This is what she text me 2 weeks before the ball

Hello lovely. I’m so so sorry but my cousins have managed to get a professional photography for free therefore we won’t be needing you that evening. I’m so sorry!!! Thank you anyway xx


I was glad she text me that as I didn’t feel confident

 

[willkia]

I'd like to think that he saw sense from the advice he got in "part one" of this thread, before he resurrected it by posting shots of the birthday party and salon opening - and decided to let someone competent handle the paid job. I'd like to.... I really would.

Both the events I shot recently were for friends.

They DIDNT plan on having a photographer.

I messaged them both and said ‘can I take pictures for you’

They both said ‘yes of course’

 

[Garry Edwards]

This is what she text me 2 weeks before the ball

Hello lovely. I’m so so sorry but my cousins have managed to get a professional photography for free therefore we won’t be needing you that evening. I’m so sorry!!! Thank you anyway xx


I was glad she text me that as I didn’t feel confident

Excellent, she managed to exploit someone else instead, you're well out of it

You are seriously lacking in both knowledge and skills.
Just recognise that as a fact, learn and practice. You'll get there.

 

[Box Brownie]

This is what she text me 2 weeks before the ball

Hello lovely. I’m so so sorry but my cousins have managed to get a professional photography for free therefore we won’t be needing you that evening. I’m so sorry!!! Thank you anyway xx


I was glad she text me that as I didn’t feel confident

Both the events I shot recently were for friends.

They DIDNT plan on having a photographer.

I messaged them both and said ‘can I take pictures for you’

They both said ‘yes of course’

Ok, back to the cameracraft.

What are your thoughts & feedback about post #51 ?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I’m not aware of photographers racking up the bill based on arranging staged events. Seems a daft assumption
And I’ve only ever ‘stage managed’ anything at the request of a client, though I appreciate the fake cake cutting and register signing are still common.

I always considered we were there to capture the moments the guests were involved in, if the guests are busy recording the wedding then they’re no longer part of it.

People will be able to justify any decision they make, but to assume that guests can ‘document’ a wedding better than a decent photographer is ridiculous.

And having just had the plasterer in, I don’t think photographers are particularly expensive either.

Weddings that I have been to recently have appeared on social media within moments of the guests starting to gather.
A majority of these images are ephemeral and will never be seen again. However the ability of a multitude of smart phones to capture the essence of an event is profound.
The affect of imagery on social media is all pervasive, and has changed the perceptions and experiences of everyone.

Weddings, as private social events, are one of the greatest expenses a couple ever face, Probably only eclipsed by their first House purchase.
The cost of photography has been an integral part of this since its invention.
Just as in other areas covered by professional photography it is in a decline. and for much the same reason.
Photography has become a universal language used by virtually everyone.
From the very beginning leading Amateurs and professionals have demonstrated equivalent levels of technical expertise.
To day that is all but equalled by digital automation in the hands of the masses.
A profound change in how images are created stored and distributed has already taken place.
It would be ostrich like to suppose that this has not and will not further change professional photography.
A professional must add value in some way to remain relevant.

 

[willkia]

I’ve just set up back button focusing guys.

But I don’t get that beep anymore or green light.

Is that right ?

 

[willkia]

Hi Will @willkia

Firstly, forgive me as I am sure I am repeating myself in regard to giving this advice on one of your other threads "you choose your focus point" ..................so let me say it again!

You should choose the focus point to suit the situation and the type of subject.

In the case of the ladies above and the shot you show of the camera back the reason as I see that they are OOF because is your chosen FP was between them on the back wall! If you had chosen the FP at that vertical position but the one to the right of the one you have used you could have focused on her right eye (or used the left hand one of those 3 Focus Points and focused on the left eye of the shorter lady) this would would have ensured they were both in focus and your composition was maintained.

Can you confirm that you understand what I am describing???


In regard to this one....................I agree about the flash recycle time as mentioned by @andrewc
But based on the FP choices issue you are struggling as talked about above.
Re: in regard to the OOF issue in the second picture ~ In the initial picture I surmise the focus was on the lady's hair........................but in the second shot she moved and you focused on the window frame in the background.





IMO ~ Focus & Recompose ~ to use the methodology the OP needs to understand the basics first because I fear that as he insists(?) on using f1.8 and at the apparent close in distance of the posted shots he will find other OOF issues that he will not appreciate the reason for it happening and the explanation will more than likely flummox him.



Unfortunately it seems so

So the single focus point should of been on her left eye?

 

[Phil V]

So the single focus point should of been on her left eye?

No, the other girl is closest.
Unless the girl on the left is ‘birthday girl’ etc.

 

[Phil V]

I’ve just set up back button focusing guys.

But I don’t get that beep anymore or green light.

Is that right ?

The beep and confirmation switches off when you switch on Continuous AF.

 

[HoppyUK]

I’m not aware of photographers racking up the bill based on arranging staged events. Seems a daft assumption
And I’ve only ever ‘stage managed’ anything at the request of a client, though I appreciate the fake cake cutting and register signing are still common.

I always considered we were there to capture the moments the guests were involved in, if the guests are busy recording the wedding then they’re no longer part of it.

People will be able to justify any decision they make, but to assume that guests can ‘document’ a wedding better than a decent photographer is ridiculous.

And having just had the plasterer in, I don’t think photographers are particularly expensive either.

O/T

I was making a comment Phil, rather than a criticism - the photographer is there to do a specified job, hired by the couple. And that's fine.

The point I would make though is that there are now two events going on around most weddings these days - two people getting married, and a very expensive family/social event. As Terry says above, and for the reasons he gave "A professional must add value in some way to remain relevant." Some of the weddings I've been to, you would think the whole affair was one big Hollywood movie set with the photographer as director and the couple as leading actors.

I wouldn't call arranging family group shots as significantly fake stage managing by the photographer, that's part of the job, ditto cake-cutting and register signing - those events do actually happen after all. But what about all those daft scenarios of the groom's mates acting the fool, or all the bridesmaids arranged in pretty poses pretending to make daisy chains? Images of the bride getting ready too, that's a relatively recent invention, not to mention pre-wedding engagement photos. And let's not forget Trash The Dress where reports of near-drowning or serious burns to the bride are not uncommon, and one poor girl actually did drown. All those situations are artificially created by the photographer to add value to their service.

 

[f/2.8]

O/T

I was making a comment Phil, rather than a criticism - the photographer is there to do a specified job, hired by the couple. And that's fine.

The point I would make though is that there are now two events going on around most weddings these days - two people getting married, and a very expensive family/social event. As Terry says above, and for the reasons he gave "A professional must add value in some way to remain relevant." Some of the weddings I've been to, you would think the whole affair was one big Hollywood movie set with the photographer as director and the couple as leading actors.

I wouldn't call arranging family group shots as significantly fake stage managing by the photographer, that's part of the job, ditto cake-cutting and register signing - those events do actually happen after all. But what about all those daft scenarios of the groom's mates acting the fool, or all the bridesmaids arranged in pretty poses pretending to make daisy chains? Images of the bride getting ready too, that's a relatively recent invention, not to mention pre-wedding engagement photos. And let's not forget Trash The Dress where reports of near-drowning or serious burns to the bride are not uncommon, and one poor girl actually did drown. All those situations are artificially created by the photographer to add value to their service.

That pretty much describes what every single couple who books a wedding photographer wants.

Getting ready photos especially of the bride have been happening for donkeys years it isn't a new thing.

I assume your an older chap as you are so far out of touch with reality it's unreal.

 

[Phil V]

The only difficulty that has any sort of serious implication are recognisable images of people included in a photograph fortuitously, or as part of the general scene. Clearly there is nothing at all illegal in them being photographed and appearing in the photograph. Though there are data considerations if they are published. They do have the right to be obscured or their image otherwise removed. which though problematic and inconvenient, It is fortunate that this rarely happens in practice. But we do see examples on news stories, most often in regard to people's children.

Images are expressly considered to not be data under GDPR.
However, there are existing laws which protect people’s privacy, which result frequently in the obscuring of faces, or indeed much more commonly not publishing images.

I appreciate that in the public view all of these issues can become confused. But I think as a forum where people come for advice, it’s best we endeavour to clear this up and help rather than adding to the FUD.

 

[Andy Into The Wild]

I’ve just set up back button focusing guys.

But I don’t get that beep anymore or green light.

Is that right ?

Do you have a reason for wanting to set up back button focusing? I get the impression that you are struggling with normal focusing so you might want to learn how to do that before moving on to other techniques.

 

[scott199]

@willkia im a beginner at best as well, pretty much-learning everything from the kind people here who offer time and critique to us and also the tube and reviews other online places.

i found it a big help to take pictures of stuff, at different focus points, exp, apertures and then compare and see what I did or didn't get right, if I found something wrong or i didn't like i would then go an research just that thing, maybe my DOF was to much/little, id then spend time understanding that.

Break it down into little chunks, learn that bit and move on, trying to learn everything is too much. I'm predominantly learning sports, that's a different ball game as you only get one shot really, so my first night game i prob took 300+ pics, all at varying ISO, aperture, shutter speeds, white balance etc, so when i got home i was guaranteed 30 (actually ended up with 23, so not great) or so for the team and the rest i could compare and see what worked and what didn't. (av per game for me would be 100-130 pending action ect)

the guys and girls on here are fantastic, but can only give you a basic/starting point, you need to learn the rest as your scene/place of the shoot will have massive amounts of variations in lighting, space, personal artistic nature, what you aiming for, what the customer is aiming for/what your equipment can and can't do ect.

If you get help here, then you need to take that onboard and go and research/learn beyond the info provided.

at the end of the day, you need to be your worst critique, some of your pictures are ok but if you look at them from the birthday party do you see anything wrong (you should)??????

(I'm nowhere near as experienced as most here, so just my two cents from a beginner point of view)

 

[Fuji Dave]

Do you have a reason for wanting to set up back button focusing? I get the impression that you are struggling with normal focusing so you might want to learn how to do that before moving on to other techniques.

I sent Will a PM saying try BBF and go from there, he has now set it up so we can wait and see how he gets on now.

 

[willkia]

Thanks guys

I am going out with my camera today to practice BBF.

Only head shots so I will be ok. I always am.

It’s when I am in an environment I’m not used to under pressure and when my anxiety kicks in.

Birthday party for example

I am also going to book a photography lesson. Couple hours. Just to go back to basics.


Thanks for all the reply’s guys.

P.s we’re the pics from salon that bad? I thought they were ok.

Birthday party not so good

 

[Box Brownie]

So the single focus point should of been on her left eye?

The brevity of your answer without your addressing re:- did you and do you understand about choosing the correct FP to suit the circumstances......depresses me. Dont get me wrong, questions are good but it is pointless asking what you did without you explaining that you understand how & why you should choose an appropriate FP.

You repeatedly say you appreciate the help but show little to no willingness to act on the help

No, the other girl is closest.
Unless the girl on the left is ‘birthday girl’ etc.

As you can see Phil has addressed the "you were there, you make the decision....." and IMO that includes the cameracraft to decide on which FP to select.

I and many others are trying to help develop your understanding but I fear we (I am?) will lose interest in continuing to help because it does not appear to be sinking in!!!!

If you find this post too judgemental, so be it, but show me/us some consideration by acting on the advice with examples to show that you have done so [you previously asked about photographing two or more people....but still do not seem to grasped how to handle it]. then ask the next question .

 

[willkia]

The brevity of your answer without your addressing re:- did you and do you understand about choosing the correct FP to suit the circumstances......depresses me. Dont get me wrong, questions are good but it is pointless asking what you did without you explaining that you understand how & why you should choose an appropriate FP.

You repeatedly say you appreciate the help but show little to no willingness to act on the help



As you can see Phil has addressed the "you were there, you make the decision....." and IMO that includes the cameracraft to decide on which FP to select.

I and many others are trying to help develop your understanding but I fear we (I am?) will lose interest in continuing to help because it does not appear to be sinking in!!!!

If you find this post too judgemental, so be it, but show me/us some consideration by acting on the advice with examples to show that you have done so [you previously asked about photographing two or more people....but still do not seem to grasped how to handle it]. then ask the next question .

To me the girls are stood at the same level.

So I would say it doesn’t matter which girl I focus on?

Obv I want them both in focus

 

[Fuji Dave]

So the single focus point should of been on her left eye?

As the girl on the right side looking at the photo, it is her eye you need to focus on. When I first got my 70D I watched a lot of Youtube on the 70D and even got a book off Amazon Canon 70D for dummies, it helped me out till I felt happy then got it on BBF and had great fun with the camera then.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Images are expressly considered to not be data under GDPR.
However, there are existing laws which protect people’s privacy, which result frequently in the obscuring of faces, or indeed much more commonly not publishing images.

I appreciate that in the public view all of these issues can become confused. But I think as a forum where people come for advice, it’s best we endeavour to clear this up and help rather than adding to the FUD.

I am interested to see where in the regulations Photographs are expressly deemed not to be personal data under GDPR. As yet I have never found it.
Though Bio-metric data seems to be in contention and is unclear as to its status.

 

[metroman]

O/T

.......Images of the bride getting ready too, that's a relatively recent invention, not to mention pre-wedding engagement photos.........

I have long admired wedding photographers, it's a craft that's for certain and something I steer well clear of, I do however love to do the behind the scenes stuff, very little pressure and time to make those adjustments that I find so difficult in fast moving situations.

 

[ecoleman]

I am going out with my camera today to practice BBF.
Only head shots so I will be ok. I always am.

Back to the comfort zone. You won't learn much there.

I am also going to book a photography lesson. Couple hours. Just to go back to basics.

Back to basics? There are free photography lessons on youtube. I pointed to to the correct channel a few threads ago.[/QUOTE]

 

[Nod]

Face to face is far better than learning purely from videos.

 

[ecoleman]

To me the girls are stood at the same level.

So I would say it doesn’t matter which girl I focus on?

I would say that the girl on the right is closer to the camera as she is stood at an angle so you ideally what to focus on her as the DOF stretches further backwards than it does forwards, but you've already learned that a few threads ago.

Obv I want them both in focus

So based on all the information you've received in this thread and the last 2 or 3, how would you achieve that?