shadows were really bad on the beautiful, clear, sunny day
That part's accurate even though they're acting like it's unreasonable. Direct sunlight creates much worse shadows than an overcast day with diffused lighting.
this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2024
496 points (96.6% liked)
Funny
6907 readers
514 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
But a professional photographer taking a staged picture should know how to frame the shot so that the shadows work in your favor.
Oh yeah definitely still the photographer's fault.
I just wanted to point out their strange implication that sunny days wouldn't produce shadows. It's pretty difficult to take good portraits at peak sunlight.
Assuming the family wasn't like, "NO, WANT HERE. THIS SPOT." and "What do you mean? It's beautiful out!"
Plenty of people are plenty smart. Intelligence in one area does not equal intelligence in another. Common sense and decency also falls on a wholly different scale.
Though this is a super old meme/photo. So maybe we know the story, if there is one beyond what it says.
Nope this looks like mid-day sun, there is no magic framing that can solve this problem. Here are some of the options the photographer could've used:
- Don't shoot outside at noon on a sunny day (morning/evening instead)
- move to a shadowy area, increase exposure
- diffuse the sunlight, in this case for a group photo you need a huge diffusion panel
- use a reflector to fill in the shadows
- use lighting to counter the sun
Or any combination of the above.
There's no way to work with clear overhead sun. You pick another time of day or shoot in the shade.
Sure there are, they're just much higher effort and require to know how to work diffusion, reflection, lights etc. Probably need to hire at least one grip to help on the shoot. Price will be much higher.
Or know the right time of day to schedule an outdoor shoot.
Shadows are gone 10/10. Would hire again. You don't want shadows s ruining your memories do you?
c/shadowsruiningmemories
I would not hire a photographer without the agreement specifying that I get to keep the raw files (either in addition to or instead of whatever retouching the photographer wanted to do).
I have met a few photographers who absolutely will not agree to that and it infuriates me. Must be some new trend of pro photographer influencer bull to hold your raws hostage.
I’ve been working as a portrait photographer in business for myself for almost a decade, and in my experience the overwhelming majority of photogs aren’t giving access to their RAW files except in very, very specific situations.
I really don’t think this is a new trend. I think it’s just smart business. They’re not the client’s RAW images, they’re the photographer’s.
Ah this is perfect you can enlighten me then.
How are you a photographer trained in the art of capturing a moment with appropriate focus, lighting, timing, and framing providing a service to me?
By not providing me that moment in its purest form.
If I'm hiring you to photograph me not to be my digital artist. Or at least offer both.
By not providing the RAWs you're literally providing a restriction in my access to the moment I hired you to capture.
If I designed a web site for you and then when you tried to move your hosting to someone else and said "Oh sorry that web site is only provided as part of my services." And forced you to create a whole new design to host somewhere else. It's quite plain to see that's manipulative business practices.
In my view it comes from an insecurity of photographers that they can't compete with photoshoppers but the reality is I'm paying you to use your skills to capture the moment correctly. Frankly idgaf how good your Photoshop skills are. Especially now with A.I. "authentic" photos will become all the more valuable to people.
If I'm hiring you to photograph me not to be my digital artist. Or at least offer both.
This is what I meant by “specific circumstances.” This might end up as something of a long answer, I’m not sure. But fair warning in advance.
I can really only speak to my experience, which encompasses myself and the photographers with which I’ve met and interacted during the past eight-ish years. Keep in mind, I’m a family portrait photographer - families, couples, etc. - and I don’t know anyone who operates in the manner you’re suggesting here. Frankly, my life would be much easier if that were the case. I’d much prefer an environment where my job ended at the shoot. Lightroom/Photoshop work is the majority of a photographer’s time spent on any given project by a ridiculous margin.
So, my contracts offer both services by default. I give my clients the choice between selecting their contracted number of images from a digital proofs gallery - essentially all the RAW images in a digital album they can mark favorites on, but can’t download for themselves - or leave it up to me as “photographer’s choice.” Almost all of them opt to let me do it.
You describe a RAW image as pure, and I think that’s great. Most photographers, however, would probably describe it as unprocessed. Or unfinished. And I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be wary of that being the side of your work being shown to the public, in today’s social media obsessed world. It’s like most artists not wanting a work of theirs being shown halfway through, when they know the final product will look so much better.
If that’s manipulative business practice, I mean…I truly don’t see it. The RAWs are available to purchase for an additional fee, for all my clients, with the signed addendum to their contract they will never be posted in their RAW form anywhere online. If editing is done by anyone else, attribution is to given to them when an image is posted, or I will request the image is removed. Just because I run a small business doesn’t mean I don’t have a brand, a style, or a standard of quality to protect.
It’s not about showing off Photoshop skills or being withholding. It’s about - again, as a portrait photographer - people seeing your work, and wanting to hire you because of that work. Because it looks a certain way and evokes a certain style.
I hope that better explains it. Or helps clarify it to some degree.
Ah well you actually give the option to purchase the RAW which I'm fine with. At least ALLOW me to have an option to have the RAW myself.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain yourself and I can see circumstances where a professional's reputation and work quality are directly correlated with their future business and financial stability.
But I'd gladly pay a fee and I straight up had a photographer deny me family photo RAWs because they "never" allowed anyone access to those.
You make a good point about hiring a photographer, per se, and expecting the product to be the photography itself, not a later product that the photography acts as input to.
load more comments
(1 replies)
RAW files don't look like what your eyes saw. RAW files more often than not look meh at best compared to the actual memory of what happened.
A part of photographer's job is to match how the photo looks like to how you remember the thing looking
Hmm 🤔 that's fair but I think more often than not it's not what the photographer remembered of that moment but down to common practices with color curves and histograms in Lightroom or something.
I like your idea but I think it's more of a post-render is more like what you remember.
However you can't use your own editing skills to get the picture to how YOU remember it or want it when it's already in someone else's version.
Which fine. Like you never got to SEE yourself and that's why you hired the photographer.
My issue is that I would be happier hiring someone if I didn't have to use their awful makeup filter mode photos that don't even look like we're real people.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm in a few photography groups on FB (not sure why🤔)...anyway some of them claim that sending the raw photos would mess with their "image", since clients generally don't know how to edit/choose photos and will often choose terrible shots/edits to post on social media.
they are absolutely right.
I'd even go as far as to say most clients don't know how to open those. I've had people struggling with opening a .zip file, if I sent them a .zip full of .cRAW they'd probably think I'm trying to scam them.
Imagine someone asking a chef to not bother with fixing up a meal and to just throw the ingredients on the plate, and then posting all over social media the photos of "the chef's work"
Photography very, very rarely ends when the shutter release is pressed. For an hour shooting you'll spend roughly 3 days in lightroom. I've had exactly 1 photo in recent memory that I felt looked fantastic without any post processing, and I still wanted to balance the shadows a little bit because the contrast was too high
The raws affect the photographer’s reputation, if someone else presents them as “This is some of that photographer’s work”
So watermark the raw as unedited or something so you can verify it wasn't your finished product. Don't lock me out of being unable to see the actual moment of me and my family.
load more comments
(1 replies)
$2-250? 🤔
$200-$250. I've seen some people write it that way. Does take a hot second to realize what the hell they mean
That still makes no sense. "I bought groceries today that cost $50-70." Either round or don't...
They're not saying that's how much they paid. They're saying that was the the pricing bracket of the "editor" of the images. As in "My services range from 200 to 250, depending on [criteria]."
Yea, but why wouldn't they say how much they were charged rather than the range that the photographer can charge?
500 to 70 dollars, got it
They mean that the photographer paid them $248
It makes more sense verbally
Is this the $2 version? 😂
I wish she had done the dogs too, that would have been awesome
She didnt touch up the dogs which is the true disaster here.
Potato Jesus 2.0
I'm still upset they ultimately ruined that masterpiece.
It was the only work of art I've ever seen that I would have been willing to pay a large sum to have hanging on my wall.
load more comments
(1 replies)
IDK what you're all talking about? I just see a beautiful family that share some distinct facial features
This kid may yet hit the jackpot of:
- Becoming an internet meme celebrity...
- ...while maintaining anonymity.
The decades of laughter from this would be well worth $250
Ah! The old "nightmare fuel" photoshop filter. 👌
I'm a bit disappointed that the dogs were left as is.
I'd be concerned if my face looks like this all the time.
Lol .... That would be the best part. We all make fun of this photo and what we think is a terrible Photoshop and then realize the family does actually look like this in real life.
"It was impractical for the early hydrochloric acid farmers of the midwest to keep vibrant colored clothing for any length of time, due to the harsh nature of the harvest..."
I guess they closed the negotiations at 2 dollars
Why does grandma look like Nosferatu? 🤔💀
This reminds me of the Breakbot "My Toy" music video...
view more: next ›