I do, all the time. Then again, I have a 400 f2.8 AFS, and a 200-400 f4 AFS-VR, and a Sigma 120-300 f2.8, and a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 AFS (the OLD one) .... hmmm :wink:I dare you to start photographing birds in the wild!
Don't be a whimp, it builds muscle and character. Who wears the pants in YOUR family anyway???? ( ps. I've been married 38 years now, you get one guess as to who wears them in MY family )Ha. I'll be on my second marriage (and $10k spent on this hobby) in no time I'll stay away from the birds for now......
Good thread, and to me it really points out that in the end it is neither just equipment nor just talent, but a combination of both.Exactly Paul. I'm sure the pictures from the outdoor wedding and formals (outdoor) were awesome. It was just REALLY REALLY dark in the reception and it was late at night. All the talent in the world would make it difficult to make those pictures look great with no flash and an f/3.5 max aperture lens. The photographer could be (and probably is) really talented at what she does. That's why I decided to grab a few shots with my 35mm f/1.8 of the details of the reception (and I have the opposite problem: a fast lens but no talent!) :tongue:
It sounds to me as if the photographer perhaps just does not have the experience to ask questions about such things as venue for the reception being in the dark. I have seen very experienced folks not ask some very obvious, to me, questions as well, and not just in things such as wedding photography.
This is not an issue that is specific to wedding photography either. I photograph a lot of youth sports, and one question that I often get from parents is why the photo's I display look "better" than what they get, and sometimes they have "superior" equipment. Simply a matter of experience and knowing the subject, same as with a wedding.
Any chance that you will be able to find out the results, and the opinion of the bride/groom to the photo's they received?