So, what do you think of the Royal B&W portrait?

[Chris Dodkin]

Looks like Testino got the boot for the actual wedding day shots!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1357609/Kate-Middleton-Prince-William-snub-Mario-Testino-Royal-wedding-photographer.html

Given the quality of the engagement pics, might be a good call I think!

Here's Testino's work:

And here's Burnand's portrait of Charles:

 

[Paul Lange]

Even with my inexperience with portraits I can immediately spot the better shot. The 1st shot looks like she has a third persons arthritic hand on her shoulder!

 

[Chris Dodkin]

Interesting going through the photo's from the wedding on CNN - looks like a lot of issues with WB and quality of PP.

Now I know these were probably uploaded from laptops in the field etc etc - but I'm shocked by the lack of consistency in WB, and some of the questionable exposure and saturation settings to be honest.

I'm sure they'll all be fixed later when they have more time...

 

[Chris Dodkin]

Hamish, you were robbed mate - the official shots are mostly pants!

The two brides-maids on the left are spaced out completely

One page boy is clowning around (might be ok I guess)

There's a chandelier growing out of the portrait on the wall to the left!

 

[Milan Vjestica]

Not easy with all the white everywhere! The photographer appears to have prioritised getting the skin tones right, I like the page boy leaning over, it add a little humanity to an otherwise sterile picture.

 

[Hamish Gill]

well it could be worse... and as milan says, it at least looks human!
you can also bet the photog would have been a little on the nervous side"

 

[Paul Lange]

Would you normally have red and gold dressed people in a red and gold room with such bust walls? Seems to me to not be a good idea.

 

[Hamish Gill]

Just keeps it nice and regal I suppose, it's easy to pick at these things, but I can imagine it being a very hard job ... It's not exactly short of pressure? I dunno, I'm not that taken with the image really, but I'd give the a bit more room for error ...
My worst job was the one I did for my ex boss ... I get on with him pretty well these days I think, but as a boss he is one of those sorts that makes you a little nervous ... That was bad enough, but doing the shots for a royal wedding is a different kettle of fish ... If for no other reason than knowing that your phoos are likely to be scrutinised by millions of other Photographers, all probably saying they could do a better job with no thought to the reality of such a job!

 

[Chris Dodkin]

I know what you're saying Hamish - but this set of shots should be setting the standard for the industry - the top shelf as it were

 

[Pete Askew]

I agree Chris. I'm not inclines to be lenient. These are supposed to be the best photographers aren't they. Can't image someone like Bailey or Avedon being phased!

 

[Hamish Gill]

Yeah i suppose your right to be fair ...

I have this idea about some old school photographers that might be contentious but id be interested to hear peoples thoughts...
since digital, the quality of photography as a whole has increased ...
I have been to wedding fairs and seen wedding photographers, usually older chaps who have been doing it for years ... they would have been very good in the days of film, but actually have been left a little behind ...
maybe this is the same for this photog ... he has retained his rep from the days of film ... but hasnt quite cought up with what is now considered the standard.... a possibility?

 

[Chris Dodkin]

I think digital has allowed people to see the results of their work immediately, and make corrections whilst still shooting - that's one improvement.

It's also reduced the cost of each shot, so people take more images, meaning you have more to choose from, and also get more practice.

Digital has also allowed anyone with a half decent computer and some software, to have a fully pro PP process available to them, directly under their control. Previously, most people would not have had access to a dev/print lap of their own, or have known how to get the best out of any particular shot. Only the pros had the set-up and experience to produce pro images from the dark room.

Finally, the InterWebs have allowed people to review and share millions of images, and millions of pieces of information on photography, information which might have taken years to glean via magazines or camera clubs. These days, it's all there for anyone to take it all in - all they need to do is look.

/Soapbox

Do we know if the official wedding shots were digital of film?

 

[Pete Askew]

Probably some uncle with a camera. Oh, I forgot, Lord Litchfield died didn't he! Mind, the queen has a Leica and she's not in any of the shots so maybe...

 

[Chris Dodkin]

Prolly one of the Corgi's with a doggy-cam

 

[Paul Lange]

Chris when you say things like "top Shelf" and "Doggy Cam" I wonder if you are on the wrong forum.

 

[Chris Dodkin]

Chris when you say things like "top Shelf" and "Doggy Cam" I wonder if you are on the wrong forum.

Ooooo errrrr missus!

 

[Chris Dodkin]

The BBC have interviewed the official photog - Hugo Burnand

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13249680

 

[Pete Askew]

Well his biography is interesting and their are some perfectly nice shots on his site (http://www.hugofoto.com) but I'm less keen on his mother's work (http://ursyburnand.com). Obviously moves in the right circles but I still find the shots a bit dull and, given the apparent planning, rather disorganised looking. Still, what do I know, I'm not a wedding photographer!