Another Tog in trouble

[Jonathan]

I would be interested to know how she was going to "Develop" them herself in the "Darkroom" though.

Of course English isn't her first language....

In all this I think we're missing the main point.  Anybody think those pictures are actually that good?  I mean they look OK but if that's what Boots think is the general standard of professional portrait photography then we're all in trouble.

[Eileen]

Of course English isn't her first language....

In all this I think we're missing the main point.  Anybody think those pictures are actually that good?  I mean they look OK but if that's what Boots think is the general standard of professional portrait photography then we're all in trouble.

I had that thought. They're not bad pictures, but there's room for improvement on lighting in particular. They're of a standard with some professional photographers (we all know that professional doesn't always mean first rate). But not the standard of professional I would hire.

[picsfor]

Anybody think those pictures are actually that good?  I mean they look OK but if that's what Boots think is the general standard of professional portrait photography then we're all in trouble.

As Eileen says, being a pro does not always involve producing top notch work. I've seen much better from people on this site alone who are committed hobbyists.
Jonathan would probably assign them a reject flag in Lightroom 

I did note the absence of the simplest way of proving who took the pictures - take the camera down.
The exif data on a Canon camera includes the serial number of the camera taking the picture and if configured correctly the authors details - even Boots can't argue with that!

But my final point would be this - if Boots do not expect to be printing 'professional quality' pictures, what does it say about the quality of pictures from  their intended market?

[Jonathan]

I had that thought. They're not bad pictures, but there's room for improvement on lighting in particular. They're of a standard with some professional photographers (we all know that professional doesn't always mean first rate). But not the standard of professional I would hire.

Yeah I didn't mean "nobody charging money would do work that bad"   I meant "well they are clean and sharp but it's not like taking a knocked off Avedon down there - I'm surprised the staff were spooked"

Jonathan would probably assign them a reject flag in Lightroom 

You think I'd take them in the first place......?

Never seen a picture in more need of a backlight.

[ABERS]

It must be a thorn in the side of any quality professional that anyone can claim to be a professional whatever standard of photography they produce, since there is no body to police or apply standards.

A bit like Gordon Ramsey claiming that in a former life he was a professional footballer.

[picsfor]

You think I'd take them in the first place......?

Not now you're a 'trusted photographer'   

[CML-1591]

I did note the absence of the simplest way of proving who took the pictures - take the camera down.
The exif data on a Canon camera includes the serial number of the camera taking the picture and if configured correctly the authors details - even Boots can't argue with that!

Its rented from the loan shop so depending when she took it they prob would have been wiped off...

TBH, despite trying to take advice off these second years on the upcoming studio work, I thought the pics were average and just your normal studio work type shoot thing...

[anglefire]

Its rented from the loan shop so depending when she took it they prob would have been wiped off...

TBH, despite trying to take advice off these second years on the upcoming studio work, I thought the pics were average and just your normal studio work type shoot thing...

Thats probably why they thought they were from a Pro then. (No offence to JR intended!)
A lot of pro work that I've seen is average and run of the mill - which is what sells probably.

I've seen some shots of a recent wedding - and they were very average overall - a lot taken/cropped to a 30' angle - with, to be fair, some very nice ones thrown in the mix. Don't know why the angle - but in most cases seemed to result in hands/heads cut off and, for me, did nothing for the shots.


I'm not sure if the bride likes them - she asked in the email with the link for any pictures that anyone ese had taken of the day too.