Wedding photos

[GrillMouster]

..I think my sister figures I'd be taking as many (if not more) photographs as a paid photographer, so why not just have me do it. In a twisted way it makes sense. ...

I can understand it if the bride and groom are on such a tight budget that they cannot afford a professional photographer. But if they could afford one, and their reason for having a novice relative shoot their wedding is because they figure she'd shoot just as many images as a pro, well, that just doesn't make sense. That's like saying I'm gonna hire my cousin Earl to build me a house. Earl isn't licensed, bonded or insured, and he has no professional skill or qualifications. But I'm sure he'll use just as many two-by-fours that a professional contractor would. Quantity is not the same as quality.

Sorry, I try to bite my tongue on the issue of novices photographing weddings, but I couldn't hold back. As I said, it's one thing when the couple would otherwise have no photographer at all, but it's another if the couple could afford a professional, but chose to go cheap.

 

[wenrob]

I shot film for years and I check my LCD (had a Canon T90 since 1987). That was one of the main reasons to go to digital, to check to see if I got the shot I wanted. If not, shoot again, it's free! Seems to me, if you're treating it like a film camera and never checking your shots, you're wasting one of the most valuable assets of the digital SLR.

So, don't assume that someone doesn't know what they are doing just because they take a look at their LCD.

I tend to agree. I grow more and more confident every day that the choices I make are correct but it doesn't stop me from checking my histogram or zooming in to make sure I'm getting my focus where I want it. The LCD is a wonderful tool and has helped me learn on the fly.

 

[MICKEY88]

I shot film for years and I check my LCD (had a Canon T90 since 1987). That was one of the main reasons to go to digital, to check to see if I got the shot I wanted. If not, shoot again, it's free! Seems to me, if you're treating it like a film camera and never checking your shots, you're wasting one of the most valuable assets of the digital SLR.

So, don't assume that someone doesn't know what they are doing just because they take a look at their LCD.

I agree 100%..I've been shooting for over 30 years, so I can usually nail the shot the way I want it, but I figure why not be sure, and if it's not exactly what I want I'll reshoot it, so I have less post processing work to do..

 

[MICKEY88]

I've done a few of those "freebie" weddings before, so know what I'm getting in to. She does have a "backup" photographer for me (who has done several weddings) who will shoot the actual ceremony, since I will be at the alter. I think my sister figures I'd be taking as many (if not more) photographs as a paid photographer, so why not just have me do it. In a twisted way it makes sense. Obviously, since it is my family, I will be ultra comfortable doing it. Will just have to be the big-sister and take charge when needed.

I think she will be very happy with the results that she ends up with. I have several different (unique) portrait ideas that we've already discussed. She is having my brother get ordained to marry her, so this is going to be far from a traditional wedding. She's not even getting married in a church. Rather at a venue in the North Georgia mountains. I'm quite excited about doing these. I'll work my butt off, but it will be for a good cause.

even if you are a professional and shoot weddings all the time, I hope your sister realizes the sacrifice you are making, there is no way you will be able to truly enjoy her day, and participate as a sister should...plus I always thought part of a maid or matron of honors responsibilites on wedding day was to make sure everything is oK for the bride and kind of be there for her,

I wish you luck..

 

[webshark3]

I shot film for years and I check my LCD (had a Canon T90 since 1987). That was one of the main reasons to go to digital, to check to see if I got the shot I wanted. If not, shoot again, it's free! Seems to me, if you're treating it like a film camera and never checking your shots, you're wasting one of the most valuable assets of the digital SLR.

So, don't assume that someone doesn't know what they are doing just because they take a look at their LCD.

Don't get me wrong, everyone likes a little self-satisfaction.

But the good ones already know what hit that film (trust me, I'm not one of them). In fact, the photographer for my wedding didn't ask if anyone blinked, he pointed "you, you you and you blinked, let's try again." And that was Medium format.

My current pride-and-joy is a Sigma DP1. Great camera, horrible LCD screen. Users of the DP series equate opening a RAW file on the computer to opening a Christmas present. The LCD is so poor, and only shows the embedded jpg file. I use it for composition only. Likewise, no LCD is giving you the full picture. RAW files were meant to be tampered with.

Enjoy your LCD, but don't let it become a substitute for learning how to become a better photographer.

 

[kaffinito]

I've done a few of those "freebie" weddings before, so know what I'm getting in to.

I think she will be very happy with the results that she ends up with. I have several different (unique) portrait ideas that we've already discussed. She is having my brother get ordained to marry her, so this is going to be far from a traditional wedding. She's not even getting married in a church. Rather at a venue in the North Georgia mountains. I'm quite excited about doing these. I'll work my butt off, but it will be for a good cause.

It sounds like you have some good ideas for for portraits! I like to see a mix of the traditional and non traditional in wedding photos. It says "yes, a pro shot these, and an artist as well." I hope you have a great time!

I can understand it if the bride and groom are on such a tight budget that they cannot afford a professional photographer. But if they could afford one, and their reason for having a novice relative shoot their wedding is because they figure she'd shoot just as many images as a pro, well, that just doesn't make sense. That's like saying I'm gonna hire my cousin Earl to build me a house. Earl isn't licensed, bonded or insured, and he has no professional skill or qualifications. But I'm sure he'll use just as many two-by-fours that a professional contractor would. Quantity is not the same as quality.

And how did pros get to be pros? Were they born knowing exactly how to shoot weddings, or did they have to learn how to? Quality is not solely a product of you "pro" photographers, it can also be a product of a novice photographer taking the time to study and to learn how to be a great photographer.

I'm sorry, but even a "novice" can take good photos. Pros get to be pros by repetition, not by magically acquiring god like photographic qualities, KWIM? Quantity has no bearing on the issue.

 

[webshark3]

Thanks! How did you "fix" it in Adobe? I don't use PSE but DH does. Yep, it was all freebie and my DH roped us into it.

For all my efforts with color correction, many times I just choose the "Auto Colors" in Adobe (That's what I did with your image here). In CS3 and later, it does a surprisingly good good most of the time. And if it looks to off, just undo it.

Likewise, you can give them a little more "pop" by adjusting the levels.
http://livedocs.adobe.com/en_US/Pho...WSfd1234e1c4b69f30ea53e41001031ab64-7673.html

Those two techniques give me the most "bang for my buck."

In addition, I like a little USM (Unsharp Mask). This is very subjective and varies person to person. Just play around with it until you see more detail pop out, but not too much that is starts to look un-natural.

USM example:
Straight from RAW:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26089489@N02/2668129328/sizes/o/
USM applied (183%, .3, 0)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26089489@N02/2667308161/sizes/o/

 

[webshark3]

I'm sorry, but even a "novice" can take good photos. Pros get to be pros by repetition, not by magically acquiring god like photographic qualities, KWIM? Quantity has no bearing on the issue.

It's a little more than repetition and photography. It's preparation, anticipation, adaptation, and skill.

- What happens when the Church doesn't allow flash, or the priest confines you to the rafters, and tell you this 30 minutes before the mass?

- When a sudden event occurs. A truckload of groomsmen fly by the brides house in the back of a pickup truck while the photographer's working with the bride inside.

- The best man falls on you, disabling your primary camera.

- Bride wants at least 12 different family portraits in the Church after the mass. Everyone is scattered, and you have exactly 10 minutes before they kick you out.

- You have THE family portrait all set. All 46 members. Wait. Uncle Earl is missing, and no one knows where he is. And this was the shot the bride insisted on having.

- Bride wants a photo photo together with her new hubby and her Dad. Problem is, Dad just got out of prison for attempted homicide on new hubby. Rest of the family tries to keep them separated all night, but the bride is insisting.

- Bride and groom love photography and want their day well documented. But their extended family and old world culture dictate the opposite. In fact, you're told that if you point a camera at them, "they will likely spit at you."

These are just a few of the very real scenarios I've seen. Sure a novice can take a nice picture. But can they (repeatedly) get the picture?

 

[manning]

It's a little more than repetition and photography. It's preparation, anticipation, adaptation, and skill.

- What happens when the Church doesn't allow flash, or the priest confines you to the rafters, and tell you this 30 minutes before the mass?

- When a sudden event occurs. A truckload of groomsmen fly by the brides house in the back of a pickup truck while the photographer's working with the bride inside.

- The best man falls on you, disabling your primary camera.

- Bride wants at least 12 different family portraits in the Church after the mass. Everyone is scattered, and you have exactly 10 minutes before they kick you out.

- You have THE family portrait all set. All 46 members. Wait. Uncle Earl is missing, and no one knows where he is. And this was the shot the bride insisted on having.

- Bride wants a photo photo together with her new hubby and her Dad. Problem is, Dad just got out of prison for attempted homicide on new hubby. Rest of the family tries to keep them separated all night, but the bride is insisting.

- Bride and groom love photography and want their day well documented. But their extended family and old world culture dictate the opposite. In fact, you're told that if you point a camera at them, "they will likely spit at you."

These are just a few of the very real scenarios I've seen. Sure a novice can take a nice picture. But can they (repeatedly) get the picture?

That about sums it up. When I started it was with a studio and for several months I went on jobs as an assistant. I shot backup and I didn't go out alone until the boss was satisfied I learned everything.

Weddings are the real thing and not a place for trial and error. If you don't get the job done right there could be a legal mess. Our studio didn't have it but we heard the stories.

My other advice would be work for a studio first and learn the trade.

 

[GrillMouster]

And how did pros get to be pros? Were they born knowing exactly how to shoot weddings, or did they have to learn how to? Quality is not solely a product of you "pro" photographers, it can also be a product of a novice photographer taking the time to study and to learn how to be a great photographer.

I'm sorry, but even a "novice" can take good photos. Pros get to be pros by repetition, not by magically acquiring god like photographic qualities, KWIM? Quantity has no bearing on the issue.

No, pros weren't born knowing how to shoot weddings, but they do learn how to consistently take well-exposed, in-focus, creative shots in fast-paced difficult conditions before shooting weddings. After they are capable behind the camera, they assist and/or second shoot at weddings for another photographer, so they learn about the flow of wedding coverage. Judging by the posts and questions of people here who are photographing weddings, it's clear that they have not yet mastered the basics of photography. A real life wedding is not the place to learn photography. There are plenty of ways you can practice in conditions that may be similar to a wedding without actually ruining someone's once-in-a-lifetime moment.

The wedding photography industry is being flooded by unprepared novices who charge next to nothing and give everything away. It's hurting the industry and it's taking food off the tables of the families of other photographers who learned their craft and set up their businesses properly. What's sad is that most of these novices don't realize that they're not operating profitably, and go out of business, only to be replaced by ten more just like them. But the worst part is that brides who don't know any better are getting hosed, and the only lasting part of their once-in-a-lifetime fairy tale wedding, the photography, is garbage or nonexistent.

 

[saturndb]

No, pros weren't born knowing how to shoot weddings, but they do learn how to consistently take well-exposed, in-focus, creative shots in fast-paced difficult conditions before shooting weddings. After they are capable behind the camera, they assist and/or second shoot at weddings for another photographer, so they learn about the flow of wedding coverage. Judging by the posts and questions of people here who are photographing weddings, it's clear that they have not yet mastered the basics of photography. A real life wedding is not the place to learn photography. There are plenty of ways you can practice in conditions that may be similar to a wedding without actually ruining someone's once-in-a-lifetime moment.

The wedding photography industry is being flooded by unprepared novices who charge next to nothing and give everything away. It's hurting the industry and it's taking food off the tables of the families of other photographers who learned their craft and set up their businesses properly. What's sad is that most of these novices don't realize that they're not operating profitably, and go out of business, only to be replaced by ten more just like them. But the worst part is that brides who don't know any better are getting hosed, and the only lasting part of their once-in-a-lifetime fairy tale wedding, the photography, is garbage or nonexistent.

I agree with what you are saying. I have been asked to do weddings for friends or some family and I say thank you, but no. I beleive if you can not give a professional result for this type of a once in a lifetime event, then you should not do the bride and groom a injustice. Now if they said we will not be hiring a photographer period, since it is not in the budget, then I might do it, but I would make sure they have the appropriate expectations. I ould tell them "I am NOT a professional wedding photographer, so do no expect those types of results and some shots may not come out or be taken." Expectations need to be set right beofre you agree to do the wedding.


Dave

 

[Chikabowa]

No, pros weren't born knowing how to shoot weddings, but they do learn how to consistently take well-exposed, in-focus, creative shots in fast-paced difficult conditions before shooting weddings. After they are capable behind the camera, they assist and/or second shoot at weddings for another photographer, so they learn about the flow of wedding coverage. Judging by the posts and questions of people here who are photographing weddings, it's clear that they have not yet mastered the basics of photography. A real life wedding is not the place to learn photography. There are plenty of ways you can practice in conditions that may be similar to a wedding without actually ruining someone's once-in-a-lifetime moment.

The wedding photography industry is being flooded by unprepared novices who charge next to nothing and give everything away. It's hurting the industry and it's taking food off the tables of the families of other photographers who learned their craft and set up their businesses properly. What's sad is that most of these novices don't realize that they're not operating profitably, and go out of business, only to be replaced by ten more just like them. But the worst part is that brides who don't know any better are getting hosed, and the only lasting part of their once-in-a-lifetime fairy tale wedding, the photography, is garbage or nonexistent.

This was one of the best written responses I've ever read about novices shooting weddings for bargin-basement prices.
So well worded and soooo on the mark.

 

[bob100]

The wedding photography industry is being flooded by unprepared novices who charge next to nothing and give everything away. It's hurting the industry and it's taking food off the tables of the families of other photographers who learned their craft and set up their businesses properly. What's sad is that most of these novices don't realize that they're not operating profitably, and go out of business, only to be replaced by ten more just like them. But the worst part is that brides who don't know any better are getting hosed, and the only lasting part of their once-in-a-lifetime fairy tale wedding, the photography, is garbage or nonexistent.

isn't this just supply and demand? photography is not like, say, dentistry where incompetence can hurt!

In fact, from what I've seen on the Canon forum real wedding photographers aren't concerned with the "guy with camera" who charges "next to nothing" for a wedding, that is not their competition.

 

[VVFF]

isn't this just supply and demand? photography is not like, say, dentistry where incompetence can hurt!

In fact, from what I've seen on the Canon forum real wedding photographers aren't concerned with the "guy with camera" who charges "next to nothing" for a wedding, that is not their competition.

I agree, the cost of entering the photography business is at an all time low allowing people to start up a business without having that high of initial costs. Yes, there are those out there that will do weddings for bargain prices but their product shows this. People can decide what pictures are worth to them.

 

[GrillMouster]

isn't this just supply and demand? photography is not like, say, dentistry where incompetence can hurt!

In fact, from what I've seen on the Canon forum real wedding photographers aren't concerned with the "guy with camera" who charges "next to nothing" for a wedding, that is not their competition.

To say that it's just supply and demand is oversimplifying the matter. What's happening is that people are undercutting professionals with unsustainable prices. I don't know what business you're in, but let's say you sell LCD HDTVs. You sell them at a reasonable price that puts food on your table and a roof over your head. How would you like it if fifty guys start selling HDTVs for $50 right in front of your store?

Personally, I don't compete on price; bargain basement brides aren't my clientelle. Nevertheless, the bargain basement photographers I've been talking about still impact all markets, as they're redefining the norm of what's expected to be included in a wedding package.

And besides, the issue of the effect on professional photographers is only one part of the problem. As I said in my last post, what I think is the most tragic part is that the wedding couples are getting garbage instead of precious memories. I believe that brides of any budget should be able to get quality photography. Even brides on a budget should be able to get quality and good service, but they may not get as much product as a bride paying premium prices. Unfortunately, that's not what's happening with most of the cheapo photographers.

 

[VVFF]

To say that it's just supply and demand is oversimplifying the matter. What's happening is that people are undercutting professionals with unsustainable prices. I don't know what business you're in, but let's say you sell LCD HDTVs. You sell them at a reasonable price that puts food on your table and a roof over your head. How would you like it if fifty guys start selling HDTVs for $50 right in front of your store?

Personally, I don't compete on price; bargain basement brides aren't my clientelle. Nevertheless, the bargain basement photographers I've been talking about still impact all markets, as they're redefining the norm of what's expected to be included in a wedding package.

And besides, the issue of the effect on professional photographers is only one part of the problem. As I said in my last post, what I think is the most tragic part is that the wedding couples are getting garbage instead of precious memories.

But this does happen in most other markets. Go buy a dynex LCD for half the cost of a top of the line Sony/Samsung/Pioneer. You get what you pay for and most people know this. There will always be the uninformed who will regret their decision. To complain that undercutting on price for a generally inferior product is wrong is an argument for price protection which isn't how the free market works.

 

[NostalgicDad]

I'll add that I do agree it's frustrating to have a more saturated market with the influx of novice shooters. I've experienced it as well shooting bike races and even went to the extent of telling one guy to at least charge something since he was literally giving away his shots for free when there have been several of us shooting these races for a while. I'm fine with competition, but how do you compete with that?

But don't get me wrong. When other photographers join the scene at certain venues, I see it as a reason to step it up a notch and get even more creative with my shooting as well as marketing my name/business. In other words, it forces me to stay on top of my game and provide a superior product.

 

[bob100]

I'll add that I do agree it's frustrating to have a more saturated market with the influx of novice shooters. I've experienced it as well shooting bike races and even went to the extent of telling one guy to at least charge something since he was literally giving away his shots for free when there have been several of us shooting these races for a while. I'm fine with competition, but how do you compete with that?

you don't. If anyone with a camera can take the same pics as you then you need to be in another line of work or go where they exclude DSLR cameras, e.g. concerts, schools, or now even the little league ballparks, (!)

But don't get me wrong. When other photographers join the scene at certain venues, I see it as a reason to step it up a notch and get even more creative with my shooting as well as marketing my name/business. In other words, it forces me to stay on top of my game and provide a superior product.

yes, that's the way to look at it. If a customer is willing to pay for your experience or skill you don't have to worry about the "cheapo photographers"

 

[wenrob]

I have the highest respect for those of you who are working professionals. It's not an easy job and your talent gets taken for granted. I personally have learned I don't want that kind of pressure and found I do not like processing photos for other people and well, let's face it, I'm a long way from being professional caliber. I know my limitations and as such turn people people down. (never did do that family reunion) I think what happens in a lot of cases is people think it's just a matter of pushing a button with a "good" camera and therefore hound those of us who have said "good" camera to do photos. Then we feel the pressure to do a favor. I don't think the novices that are taking on these jobs and giving the photos away necessarily think they've got what it takes they just feel like they're helping out. Of course there are just as many taking money when they have no business doing so but I think most people have good intentions. Certainly they're not trying to take food out of the pro photographers families mouth. I personally don't think that argument washes. People who hire a cheap inexperienced photographer or get someone to do it for free are not going to be willing to spend the thousands it takes to get a pro to do it. That money was never on the pro's table, kwim? You have people who shop at Walmart and People who shop at Saks. People who spend $20 dollars for jeans aren't going to suddenly spend $300 for some. Those looking for a superior product will find it, simple as that.

 

[Chikabowa]

I have the highest respect for those of you who are working professionals. It's not an easy job and your talent gets taken for granted. I personally have learned I don't want that kind of pressure and found I do not like processing photos for other people and well, let's face it, I'm a long way from being professional caliber. I know my limitations and as such turn people people down. (never did do that family reunion) I think what happens in a lot of cases is people think it's just a matter of pushing a button with a "good" camera and therefore hound those of us who have said "good" camera to do photos. Then we feel the pressure to do a favor. I don't think the novices that are taking on these jobs and giving the photos away necessarily think they've got what it takes they just feel like they're helping out. Of course there are just as many taking money when they have no business doing so but I think most people have good intentions. Certainly they're not trying to take food out of the pro photographers families mouth. I personally don't think that argument washes. People who hire a cheap inexperienced photographer or get someone to do it for free are not going to be willing to spend the thousands it takes to get a pro to do it. That money was never on the pro's table, kwim? You have people who shop at Walmart and People who shop at Saks. People who spend $20 dollars for jeans aren't going to suddenly spend $300 for some. Those looking for a superior product will find it, simple as that.

It's still the bride and groom getting screwed over.

There are a lot of successful professional photographers out there that do photography full-time who have specifically set up their business to handle high-volume/low-pricing. Brides and grooms can still get a quality product (re: good photos), but maybe not all the bells and whistles in terms of product offerings. These are your "Wal-Mart" photographers. You can easily get a photography package for $750-$1000 depending on your area.

Then you have a lot of successful professional photographers out there who do photography full-time who have specifically set up their business to be more boutique in styling and handle low-volume/higher-quality/better customer service/all the bells and whistles. These are your "Hermes" photographers and services range more then in the $7K-$20K depending on your area.

You also have photographers who fall in-between those two categories.

The rub is not that these ranges of people can't exist in the same market. They TOTALLY can.

But what we have out there right now is a breed of photographer who falls into neither of these categories. You have people who picked up a Canon XTi or Nikon D40 6 months ago and now decide they want to shoot some weddings because they are pretty handy with the camera. They have no insurance, they don't pay taxes, and they don't have any business or shooting experience. They go out and undercut all the other legitimate business people out there in order to score a job. Most of the time these people work a full-time job during the week and just do weddings on the weekends in order to supplement their income and/or fund their photography habit. They do 20-50 weddings before they realize that they aren't making any money, they are actually loosing money/time/life, and then stop doing it. In the meantime, they have pretty much screwed over 20-50 brides....

Let's face it. Planning and producing a wedding is expensive. Period. I could go into why people can't afford wedding photography (not because they aren't rich, but because they just value other items higher than photography and invest their money into that instead of photography), but it's a long philosophical thought that doesn't transfer well over the net.

But it sucks that brides & grooms are even investing a single dollar into a photographer that won't be able to meet their needs or even produce good imagery. A lot is about managing expectations. If you are on a budget and only have $750 to spend on a photographer, don't expect them to be there for 10 hours with a second shooter, edit 1000 images, give you enlargements and and album. Manage your expectations and realize that you might only get 2-3 hours of coverage with one photographer (enough to catch some formals and major events of the day), they might only get a handful of prints and then maybe 100 digital files. There is still a market for that and still photographers who can produce great imagery inside those constraints.

I do realize that clients who hire fly-by-night photographers are not my clients. And that is totally ok with me. I enjoy the fact that my clients hire me because they love ME and love my IMAGERY and that they are willing to pay my prices. My beef is seeing all the people out there who spent money that they worked hard to earn on something that shouldn't even be out there in the first place. You feel bad for people who were taken advantage of in that way.