On Thursday, 24 September 2015 21:00:40 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/09/2015 16:40, whisky-dave wrote:

Where did you get that idea. why do peole employ photographers at
wedding when you can be pretty sure that the vast majority of those
attending will have cameras and have the ability to take pictures
that are in focus and of correct exposure ?

The guests are too busy to stand there and take formal pictures.

Oh a formal picture what do you mean by that.
Why can't guests take formal pictures ?



The last wedding I went I gave the photographer the pictures I had taken
and they are in the wedding album with the formal ones.

why didn;t you take the formal ones aren;t uyou a good enough photographer ?


The brides mother is a professional wedding photographer so she could
have done it herself if she didn't want to be in the shots.

what's the point of a professional wedding photographer when all you really need is someone with a digital camera.
Why spend the money , I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of those at wedding have the ability to take a photo.




Anyone can take bad photos. Some people can take good photos.

How can you tell good from bad ?

How can you?
Its personal choice and what you or anyone else thinks is pretty much
irrelevant unless you are doing them for someone else.

which is why professional photographers are employed because few
snap shooters know a good photo from a bad one, some don't even know when told.



Yep and that's as easy to do, you don't even need a camera. Artists
have learnt how to frame for centuries.

Artists have advantages over photographers, they don't have to be at the
viewpoint.

neither do photographers when they can digialty manipulate an image.
I put a large fishing trawelr on teh surface of mars. I didn;t have to be there.

I've yet to see an artists do that, maybe they havent; the imagination who knows.





Whisky Dave, is there anything that a photographer who is familiar
with both media can do with film that can't be done with digital?

well depends what you mean. paramount pictures can't remaster the
Star trek Deep space 9 series as well as they can the original with
kirk in it. Because the digital media used for DS9 was realively low
res. and can;t be imporved even by upscalling.

However they have done so if you compare the latest showings with the
original stuff.

Yes and it lokos ****, have you seen the depp space 9 remastered and conpared it with the original with kirk or TNG. The DS9 images are grainy, because of teh low resolution.


Film was better but it isn't now.
Insisting on using an old medium that is inferior quality is idleness as
you can lower the quality in post processing if you used digital in the
first place.

So why aren't they doing that with the new star wars film.


Or are you claiming that someone who uses digital, no matter how
proficiently, isn't "a photographer" but just someone who takes
photos?

Again I'm talking about teaching. if you want to teach someone how to
fly you take them up in a small manually controlled plan NOT the
latest 757 which can land itself.


Just use an airport without the ILS.

that won't get you a pilotsd licence any mor ethan playing a flight simulator on a PC.


You can teach someone to fly a cessena if you want but it won't teach
them to fly a jumbo.

of course not but few learnt to fly in a jumbo, jst like few learnt to drive in an automatic car or an F1.
And we all know what the furture will bring the best drivers will be those in google or maybe Apple cars, because they wonlt have accidents.