Peoples faces soft?

[Garry Edwards]

When someone opens a post stating that they were doing a job for an agency, that entirely changes the nature of the post and therefore the replies.

It implies a level of competence and an ability to provide the required images at a decent standard.

So, yes, if they don't understand how to shoot podium finishes and team celebration shots, then they probably should not have taken the job on in the first place.

Harsh? Yes. But it is business. Shots like this are fleeting moments that you need to understand how to capture.

None of us are perfect and all of us make mistakes - but at least we understand the basics of the job.

And that is the thing - a job.

This is about recording and event in order to make money in some form.

The rules change entirely from casual, amateur photo shoots. And whilst you may gain experience and improve 'on the job', you certainly shouldn't be learning the basics there.


So if my responses have been viewed as harsh, that is the reason.

It is not a practice ground but a working environment.

I think that the criticism was aimed at me and not you, but what you say is correct, it's right to hold professionals to a much higher standard.

The problem, as always, is that photography isn't a profession at all. Unlike (for example) law and medicine, where people must have qualifications and insurance and are strictly regulated, anyone can call themselves a pro photographer and it's widely accepted that if they charge for their services then they are indeed professional. But, because they are professional, they should be held to professional standards.

This can be a challenge for people who are learning from experience/exposure/trial and error but, happily, there's a solution - don't charge for work that you can't do.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I think that the criticism was aimed at me and not you, but what you say is correct, it's right to hold professionals to a much higher standard.

The problem, as always, is that photography isn't a profession at all. Unlike (for example) law and medicine, where people must have qualifications and insurance and are strictly regulated, anyone can call themselves a pro photographer and it's widely accepted that if they charge for their services then they are indeed professional. But, because they are professional, they should be held to professional standards.

This can be a challenge for people who are learning from experience/exposure/trial and error but, happily, there's a solution - don't charge for work that you can't do.

It is unfortunately very much a situation of buyer beware.
As there are no "officially" established or recognised standards or proficiency levels that professional photographers have to attain, before loading them selves on to their potential customers. There is no way, apart from reputation and past work,
That any one can make anything like a rational decision about who to commission photographic work from.

However even back in the 50's and 60's when at least City and guilds and IBP exams were some sort of gold standard. Almost all my commissioned work came from recommendations. Either to the companies that I worked for or personally.
I can not ever remember bein asked to show my qualifications. But on many occasions it was appropriate to show a portfolio of my current work.


As you say photography has none of the hallmarks of a legally controlled profession. But is a jungle of the good bad and ugly.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

The problem, as always, is that photography isn't a profession at all.

This is true.

In fact, general photography for hire isn't even a trade, in the sense of having a recognised path of learning and being recorgnised as a member of that trade.

However, that's true of many modern skills. Despite working for nearly 4 decades in IT, I had no academic qualifications. Then again, neither did most of the people I worked with. What sorted the sheep from the goats and kept those of us who were in demand working, was the last job. If the customers were satisfied, they would respond positively when asked.

Regarding photography, that's also how it was 40 to 50 years ago, when I was working in newspapers (and doing weddings and other jobs on the side). Then, even your last "show" was irrelevant. If a picture fitted, it went in and you got paid. If it didn't, you would learn something from the rejection.

Hence, when someone asks for advice, it really is for those who can offer it to step up and give the best advice they can. Sometimes that advice may have to be "If I wanted to get there, I wouldn't start from here" but it should never be "You're no good, give it up" - that helps no one.

 

[Tulipone]

Despite having knives, I have never been asked by a hospital to perform any kind of surgery. I am grateful for this and the patient should be also. I would have said no anyway.

Because I have a camera I have been asked to take photos that would probably have been better if they had paid a professional. Indeed I have been paid as a photographer and the end results were as the agent required and I was used on several occasions and will be again in the future.

Unfortunately for you pro photographers cameras are available to all and more to the point, that the required standard is often pretty low.

I wonder how the image at the head of this thread was taken was received by those who commissioned it?

 

[darquill]

When someone opens a post stating that they were doing a job for an agency, that entirely changes the nature of the post and therefore the replies.

No it doesn't. OP asked for a specific question. You guys replied with something totally unrelated. It's not your place to determine why OP is working for an agency, why the agency hired OP, why OP chose to do the job, etc.

I think that the criticism was aimed at me and not you, but what you say is correct, it's right to hold professionals to a much higher standard.

The problem, as always, is that photography isn't a profession at all. Unlike (for example) law and medicine, where people must have qualifications and insurance and are strictly regulated, anyone can call themselves a pro photographer and it's widely accepted that if they charge for their services then they are indeed professional. But, because they are professional, they should be held to professional standards.

This can be a challenge for people who are learning from experience/exposure/trial and error but, happily, there's a solution - don't charge for work that you can't do.

By this logic when you just start your career you cannot take any job since you don't have "professional" experience?

Also, again, none of you know the entirety of OP's story. Maybe they didn't actually charge for the work? Maybe the agency is a local newspaper or whatever that's perfectly happy to hire people with less experience?

Hence, when someone asks for advice, it really is for those who can offer it to step up and give the best advice they can. Sometimes that advice may have to be "If I wanted to get there, I wouldn't start from here" but it should never be "You're no good, give it up" - that helps no one.

Exactly.

Anyway, I made my point and I'll shut up now since the post has already been derailed too much.

 

[Garry Edwards]

By this logic when you just start your career you cannot take any job since you don't have "professional" experience?

Also, again, none of you know the entirety of OP's story. Maybe they didn't actually charge for the work? Maybe the agency is a local newspaper or whatever that's perfectly happy to hire people with less experience?

This isn't any kind of attack on the OP.
He asked a valid question and (eventually) received valid answers, that's fine, it's what forums are for.
It may be a little concerning that, as a professional, he needed to ask the question in the first place.
It may also be a little concerning that he confused a lack of sharpness caused by noise, resulting from underexposure, with the actual cause of the problem.
It may also be a little concerning that a few people answered who didn't know the answer, but that's the nature of forums.

FWIW, I think that, apart from the obvious lack of the essential fill flash, he did a great job. But, photography is all about light. In many situations it's possible to change the viewpoint so that the lighting suits the subject but with this type of event that can't be done and the photographer needs to add light, that's pretty basic.

So, is it OK to take on a pro job without the required level of experience, knowledge and equipment? My personal answer is "No". I've taken on jobs that required more experience than I had, but always hired an assistant who had the experience to fill in my gaps. I've also turned down jobs that I wasn't sure of being able to do well, that's professionalism.

I think that it comes down to this - if he had posted pictures of his Aunt Ethel in the garden showing the same problem, he would have received the same answer but without any comments that could be perceived to be critical, but this was a pro job, and pro photographers should have the skills, knowledge and equipment to produce pro results.

 

[Faldrax]

...

I think that it comes down to this - if he had posted pictures of his Aunt Ethel in the garden showing the same problem, he would have received the same answer but without any comments that could be perceived to be critical, but this was a pro job, and pro photographers should have the skills, knowledge and equipment to produce pro results.

He did say that this was something he wouldn't normally do - what we don't know is why he was chosen to do the podium shot this time, or the conversation that may have followed when he was told he was going to do it this time.
For example, a couple of scenarios of what "might have been";
Boss - Hi, I need you to cover the podium shot this time, the guy who normally does this is off sick, and we've no-one else who can be there instead.
Response (1)
OP - Not really something I've any real experience with, are you sure no-one else can cover?
Boss - No, sorry, just do the best you can, any shots we get are better than none.
OP - OK, I'll do what I can.
Response (2)
Op - Ok, no problem.

The criticism seems to be assuming his response was (2), rather than (1).

 

[Phil V]

Let’s all be civil.
Whilst some of the answers were blunt enough to make this old Yorkshireman wince, no one said ‘you’re no good, give up.’

There were no personal attacks either, all of the points were valid in the context of professional work, even if they could have been delivered with a little sensitivity.

 

[DemiLion]

No it doesn't. OP asked for a specific question. You guys replied with something totally unrelated. It's not your place to determine why OP is working for an agency, why the agency hired OP, why OP chose to do the job, etc.

I answered his question in my first post.

The issues began once he kicked back against that advice.

 

[LCPete]

To be honest I agree with the experienced people that answered the question it hinges on the fact that the OP was taking the photos in a professional capacity and should not have accepted the work without the relevant experience
it’s a totally different situation if for example someone took the same photos as a hobbyist and asks for advice on how to take a better shot next time

 

[sk66]

I quit reading about 2/3 through... my first thought was that the 100% crop looked like an image that has been over edited with excessive noise reduction. And the lightroom settings screenshot shown later indicates that the image was taken as a jpeg in camera (camera profile "color"). So I have to say that the issue is with the camera's jpeg processing settings, and not the light/exposure per-se.

I have many images taken with the subject underexposed far greater than this example; and the results after editing (from raw) have much greater resolution/detail/sharpness. Here's a cropped example before/after (and I had to reduce the quality setting to 80 in order to meet forum size limits).




Yeah, this image was taken with a Nikon Z9 which allows me to do things like this (compared to film and early DSLR's)... but the OP is using an R5, not a D30.

If the OP's image had to be recorded for use SOOC then I would have used a flash or blown the background (subject matters most). But if it was accomplished by using a higher ISO then the results likely would not have been any better; quite possibly they would have been even worse due to the jpeg processing settings in use.

 

[DemiLion]

I have many images taken with the subject underexposed far greater than this example; and the results after editing (from raw) have much greater resolution/detail/sharpness.

You use Nikon.

Their sensors react completely differently to those of Canon when it comes to pulling back exposure.

In this case an R5 was used.

There is no comparison at all.

 

[sk66]

You use Nikon.

Their sensors react completely differently to those of Canon when it comes to pulling back exposure.

In this case an R5 was used.

There is no comparison at all.

The R5 is one of the best sensors Canon has ever released, possibly the best; and it is fairly comparable to my Z9... essentially ISO invariant at ISO 400+, and with even a slightly greater dynamic range (shadow recoverability).

Even if a lesser sensor had been used, the only way a 2 stop recovery from ISO 800 would look like the original 100% crop is if excessive basic NR was used as well.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Steven,
Some cracking photos on your website.
But, none of those that I've looked at needed fill flash. The OP photo did, and high dynamic range cannot change that.

 

[A_S]

I haven’t bothered to reply because I get the impresssion some people just like the sound of their own voice… but I feel I have to stick up for myself on this one…..

1.) the client was very happy with the photos and I’ve since my photos in both social media and print publications - including the OTHER podium shots that DID work….

2.) the fact these were not too sharp (when viewed a fairly hefty crop) didn’t matter BECAUSE I was not the primary photographer for the podium and finish shots - these were handled by a semi professional who has 20 years experience - ironically he wasn’t using fill flash and neither were most if any of the others there…

3.) the way you talk makes it sound like I made a huge life changing error while doing open heart surgery - that was not the case - it was a small error due to inexperience made into a massive issue by certain people.

2 stupid and naive presumptions which were subsequently run with, and wrung the funk out of by a rude and arrogant poster and his band of merry men, who clearly gets a kick out of making someone feel about 1mm tall.

Quite frankly I don’t care how I would have got treated on your ‘photo desk’ 20 years ago

- if you were in my team, working in most other industries you would be swiftly shown to HR for an attitude like that. ‘Not a team player’ comes very much to mind.

I don’t really have much else to add at this stage other than to to suggest I turn down the job - again what world do you live in? Would you turn down the chance to do something like this if you were given the opportunity???

Unfortunately for you - in this so called profession I can do it, I did it and I made a success of it all while having a full time job and qualifications in another profession and industry - but I damn well know that you couldn’t do my profession without a masters degree and/or professional qualifications….. but if you tried I’d offer constructive advice and I’d try to be helpful without arrogant and coming across in the manor in which you have.

Perhaps if want to focus on ‘true’ professionals you shouldn’t post on a board that is probably 90% hobbists and if you do, then you should understand that they may not have the qualifications you have or the experience/time to learn/super human powers not to make mistakes…

 

[DemiLion]

And on that volume of completely and utterly useless hot air.....

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I haven’t bothered to reply because I get the impresssion some people just like the sound of their own voice…

Perhaps stopping your last post at that point would have been good. Those who get it know what you mean and those it's aimed at will just ignore it...

 

[swanseamale47]

The thing with internet forums is they have good and bad points. The good points are you can learn a lot and often have a fund of experience. Sadly the bad points are some people have no idea how to talk to other people and can come across as prats. People who would never talk to a real person that way because A they'd get sacked or B get asked to go around the back and sort it out like a geltleman.
This forum has the advantage of an ignore button, if you dont like a person or find their advice unhelpfull, just block them, it does work. Ok you might miss something but in my experience the "prats" tend not to give any actual advise, anyway, so no loss.

 

[sk66]

Steven,
Some cracking photos on your website.

Thanks

But, none of those that I've looked at needed fill flash. The OP photo did, and high dynamic range cannot change that.

Of course that example image would have benefitted from fill flash... and I have plenty more as well. If you can't tell that they would have benefitted from flash/additional light then that's a testament to modern camera's DR (and viewing smaller images on the web). And yes, increased DR does affect that significantly (technically, more values discernible within the DR capability).

FWIW, I am not saying that the OP's image would not have benefitted from additional light (flash or otherwise)... of course it would. What I am saying is that a couple stops of underexposure and recovery would not turn the image to mush like that.

Only details/resolution that clip to black are lost with underexposure; and almost none of that image is clipped... even in the uniforms/shadows; and certainly not in the faces. Other details which are not lost due to clipping may be lost due to noise and noise reduction. But that is really more an issue of how the data is handled (processed). Certainly the primary cause of noise is a lack of light, and that is going to affect the darkest regions of an image the most.

This is the R5 exposed correctly and with 2-4-6 stops underexposure and recovery.



Six stops from ISO 100 is ISO 6400 equivalent... and it is quite noisy. Almost no-one ever says that using high ISO turns an image to mush; but most will say that using noise reduction to compensate can/will. And yes, some details are becoming indistinguishable from the noise; but it's still not mush.
2 stops recovery would have put the OP's (raw) image at ~ ISO 3200 equivalent... so better than the +6 shown here.

Here's an R5 image with the subject backlit and underexposed ~ 2 stops (guestimate)... certainly would benefit from fill flash.



And with selective recovery. Yes, parts of the scene that were actually near black have clipped with the underexposure... some details are lost in the darkest regions; but it's far better than the OP's results (and better than what you could do with a 5D2).




Note that when a detail is lost due to clipping, the color information is lost as well... i.e. if it doesn't recover as greyscale it wasn't clipped and the detail isn't lost. The recovered example of the OP's image in post 15 shows almost no loss of color information anywhere in the image. The OP's issue was still something of a beginner's mistake... letting the camera process the image with settings unsuited to the scene/situation, and probably at a lower quality setting; but it wasn't the exposure per-se.

source of cat images