Photographing the Taoiseach

Carrigman

I was at a non-political event recently where Brian Cowen was marking the opening of a business venture.

He stood up at the podium and delivered the usual kind of speech politicians deliver in such situations.

What intrigued me however was the number of photographs being taken of him while he was speaking. A local freelance must have taken 60 shots of him while he delivered the speech. A couple of others - possibly in Mr Cowen's entourage - were also busy snapping away.

Why?

All they needed was a couple of head and shoulders shots. Simple to take. No technical difficulty.

Is it to flatter the politician - especially a Taoiseach - that he is so important that every glance and gesture must be captured for posterity?

What happens to all these photos?

I'm not making any political points here. I'm sure that the same behaviour can be observed regardless of who is Taoiseach.


Regards,

John

Fajitas!

The more you take, the better the chance of getting a good one... Hard work sometimes...

:pac:

The last opening I shot, I think I have about 100 photos of 3 people giving speaches, I'd rather waste the memory on those (I do have 30ish gigs ) than pray that 1 out 2/3 is a keeper.

Tallon

I agree with Fajitas! except I think its more to catch people with a silly (photo selling) face. (Which Brian Cowens face usually is)

I.E:

Fajitas!

Lol @ Tallon's photo.

Fantastic.

Carrigman

Fajitas! wrote: »

The more you take, the better the chance of getting a good one... Hard work sometimes...

:pac:

The last opening I shot, I think I have about 100 photos of 3 people giving speaches, I'd rather waste the memory on those (I do have 30ish gigs ) than pray that 1 out 2/3 is a keeper.

The LCD screen should surely show if the shot is a keeper or not.

I don't think you'd take so many shots if using film. If any photographer finds that he/she has to take a 100 shots of talking heads to get a handful of keepers then, sorry, but it suggests there might be something wrong with his/her technique. Either that or he/she is needlessly doubting his/her abilities.

It's like those wedding photographers who boast about shooting 2000 frames or so at a wedding. Totally over the top. Good technique trumps the machine gun approach every day. Time was when a good wedding photographer would shoot 3 rolls of (12 exposure) 120 film and get 24 album quality prints out of them.

Regards,

John

Tallon

Hold on dude, wedding photography and event photography are two Totally different things.

Quackles

When I'm shooting events like that I'm always trigger happy - most of the shots I take will have the speaker pulling a funny face, mouth hanging open, etc, so it's nice to have plenty to choose from to make sure you get a good 'un. As for shooting Mr. Cowen, I wouldn't risk cracking my lens on that mug. Some cultures believe that taking photos takes away part of a person's soul.. how does that work when they don't have one to begin with? Is he in negative values now?

Fajitas!

Carrigman wrote: »

The LCD screen should surely show if the shot is a keeper or not.

I don't think you'd take so many shots if using film. If any photographer finds that he/she has to take a 100 shots of talking heads to get a handful of keepers then, sorry, but it suggests there might be something wrong with his/her technique. Either that or he/she is needlessly doubting his/her abilities.

It's like those wedding photographers who boast about shooting 2000 frames or so at a wedding. Totally over the top. Good technique trumps the machine gun approach every day. Time was when a good wedding photographer would shoot 3 rolls of (12 exposure) 120 film and get 24 album quality prints out of them.

Regards,

John

They didn't make film SLR's with 8&9 fps a second for nothing. It's always been the same. Tbh, I'd rather shoot off 100 photos than start chimping my screen - I have my auto review feature turned off, I know what I'm going to be getting exposure wise, I'm more concentrated on what the subject is doing. I'm not doubting my technique for one second, I'm doubting a subject I have no control over making the facial expression, body language and pose I want/need to get. If I have to shoot off extra frames to do so, then I'll do it. Bear in mind I shoot plenty of film aswell as digital.

The 2000 photo per wedding - So what? It's not costing anything - If photographers of the 70's didn't have to pop a new back on to their camera, wind to the first frame, and snap off another 12/16 frames before changing, and spending a few hours in the dark, then they'd be doing the same. Good technique coupled with being comfortable with taking plenty of excellent photographs = an excellent wedding album = happy clients = money in my back pocket = tomorrows lunch & a phonecall off more potential clients.

A general wedding, myself and second 'tog shoot about 1200 frames, from approx. 8pm the night before 'til after the first dance - could go on much longer, which equals more photographs... They'll end up getting a CD of about 300-400+ images... That's a 1 out of 4 keeper rate.

In my opinion, 'time was' counts for nothing, technology, style and costs are constantly changing.

Mycroft H

Tallon wrote: »

I agree with Fajitas! except I think its more to catch people with a silly (photo selling) face. (Which Brian Cowens face usually is)

I.E:

Brilliant :-)

smelltheglove

Lol, this is brill. Firstly at John, I agree with your statement about wedding photographers, I had one lady come to me asking why would she be better choosing my package compared to another photographer whop guaranteed to supply 700 shots. I told her she would be much better off with 100 good shots than 700 shots full of detail pics, and that I would much rather spend my time on quality shots than quantity. My first wedding I shot 640 and had 220 keepers. Now I tend to shoot around 400 and have 320 keeprs, most of the lost images being to closed eyes.

With Brian Cohen, I also agree why would you want 60 shots of him but then each to their own, Tallon is right 2 different ball games. Ask me to shoot a wedding tomorrow, I'd jump at it not for the money because I love it, I was asked to shoot Brian Cohen only 2 weeks ago by a pr girl I know, I had no interest so passed it along to Arciphel instead and he enjoyed every second iof it and appreciated it, we all have completely different tastes and the photographers shooting him that day were probably in their element.

Carrigman

smelltheglove wrote: »

.......With Brian Cohen, I also agree ......

If only he was! We might not be in the mire we are in. All the Cohens I know are very good at financial affairs. Except one - Leonard.

Regards,

John

pullandbang

You don't usually get to see him doing this....

Tallon

Were those pics takin in the Dail?

pullandbang

Tallon wrote: »

Were those pics takin in the Dail?

Remember when the 20 Junior Ministers became 15........

Tallon

pullandbang wrote: »

Remember when the 20 Junior Ministers became 15........

:eek:

humberklog

Great shots Pull and Bang, was he in training for the 1st John Maguinness hunt?

He could ask one of these clowns for some tips (and I don't mean they the short one).




I'd only 3 shots at these. I was so intent on framing them with 'The Irish' in the background I forgot everything else and came out with a crap photo.
Take millions if you can. A blink, twitch, nudge, seagul landing on head could make all the difference. (This is coming from someone not in 'the game' and who does take only one or two).

Fajitas!

smelltheglove wrote: »

Lol, this is brill. Firstly at John, I agree with your statement about wedding photographers, I had one lady come to me asking why would she be better choosing my package compared to another photographer whop guaranteed to supply 700 shots. I told her she would be much better off with 100 good shots than 700 shots full of detail pics, and that I would much rather spend my time on quality shots than quantity. My first wedding I shot 640 and had 220 keepers. Now I tend to shoot around 400 and have 320 keeprs, most of the lost images being to closed eyes.

The trick is; quality *and* quantity - It's a win-win situation.

pullandbang

humberklog wrote: »

I'd only 3 shots at these. I was so intent on framing them with 'The Irish' in the background I forgot everything else and came out with a crap photo.

Actually Gerry looks very "priestly" and Michael D looks very "saintly" with the half halo over his head.
Are you trying to say something with this pic? Is there something we should know? Are you in the loop? Do you drink in Buswell's Hotel?
Afterall, this thread title is Photographing the Taoiseach.......:D

giftgrub

First time in this part of boards...howdy!

My work takes me to a lot of press and publicity events.

A lot of the time there always "snappers" there, and we're always left wondering how ways there are of takinig the same picture

I got talking to one of the guys once and he told me that different agencies (Maxwell's, Photocall etc) look for different things

For example one agency might want a pic of the Taoiseacch surrounded by the press pack, cameras and mic's

Another crowd might want a pic of him alone, looking isolated

Its all about context i guess!!

humberklog

pullandbang wrote: »

Actually Gerry looks very "priestly" and Michael D looks very "saintly" with the half halo over his head.
Are you trying to say something with this pic? Is there something we should know? Are you in the loop? Do you drink in Buswell's Hotel?
Afterall, this thread title is Photographing the Taoiseach.......:D

No, I'd had Higgins give Adams the thumb on the nose but that didn't come out either.
This photo doesn't look as bad small, in fairness, but woegeous in full. Very busy.
Well the OP draws his point around taking loads of photos of the main subject and to do this he uses a recent experience he had watching Cowen being schnapped.

forbairt

In a way I fail to see the issue.

I know at my wedding I was very conscious of the first few shots. After a while I forgot about the camera .. the guy just kept on clicking and at the end there were some amazing shots (ok I'll assume the Taoiseach is more used to photos). (This was at the mairie so basically sitting down signing some documents with your witnesses)

You're there to take a photo ... you're probably going to be there till the end of the speech / talk / whatever. Whether you're a god with the camera or an amateur you might as well keep snapping. I would assume that 1 photo might do it but if you want a bit of variety keep going for it. I'm a complete amateur but I would assume there is always room for improvement on your photos and if its a question of there being 5 photographers there and all maybe competing for the same few papers ? then why not just make sure you've got the right shot.

eas

I'm sure PR photography is not unlike any other photography discipline in that there's much more to it than you'd think. I know one guy who explained to me that he wants to get his speakers saying particular syllables. This takes skill and an ability to predict words and be on the shutter just as the syllable is being pronounced.

A press type photo that could look perfectly acceptable to me would be deleted by someone who knew what they where looking for.

60 shots of the leader of government giving a speech seems perfectly acceptable to me.

gary82

pullandbang wrote: »

You don't usually get to see him doing this....

Ahh will they ever learn...!


S'up. Breaking the new law enforcement policy down y'all...

conkeroo

smelltheglove wrote: »

My first wedding I shot 640 and had 220 keepers. Now I tend to shoot around 400 and have 320 keeprs

Damn, you must be both confident and good. That's very little room for error you're giving yourself.

thebaz

Fajitas! wrote: »

The more you take, the better the chance of getting a good one... Hard work sometimes...

:.

I'm with Carrigman on this - rather than someone who can press his finger faster and longer than anyone else - I know well your not in that grouping Al - but you know the breed - that is /was whats good about film , and bfore cheap memory, you had to think or see something special before shooting - rather than shooting everything and just strike lucky on the law of averages

Fajitas!

Oh, absolutely Barry! I mean, there's a lot of magic involved in the process (And seriously, I've never found the knack in winding on my 'blad at 1.5fps), but still, if it's work involved, I'll take any availible assistance to my own skills - Not because I doubt my own skills by any means, but to make sure I get what I want out of a situation - I'd call that professionalism