Wedding Fright

[Retief]

I dare you to start photographing birds in the wild!



Paul

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:

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......

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 )

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:

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.

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?

 

[PLPhoto]

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

Bingo

 

[Contourrob217]

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:



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 )



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.

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?

Very much so. My wife will be in contact with them when they return from the honeymoon and I will have access to the proof site when the photographer posts the pictures. Hopefully they come out great for them, as they were a wonderful couple and I hope they get some shots that they can frame and treasure for years to come.

I sent the link to some (~40 pics) that I grabbed to the bride's mother last night. She sent a wonderful email back stating how great she thought the pictures were. At a bare minimum I'm glad I shot some pictures that they're happy with (I think they came out pretty good, but I don't know too much about this stuff).

 

[Silenus]

I myself shot as a guest at a friends wedding not too long ago. I had a D40, 18-200, and my SB-800 on camera. Interestingly while the offical photog had an SB-800 on a bracket, a D200 body, he was ALSO shooting with the 18-200 (He had a 28-70 f2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 in his bag which he never used). I was shooting for fun and for practice to see what I could get. In the end I gave the bride a set of prints.

I was embarrased to hear later that when was looking at them with friends the others with her kept saying how much better my pics were than the official photog. Embarrassed for her really. Seeing as she paid for the other other photos and didn't for mine it sure would have been more considerate to keep their mouths shut. On the other hand it did make me feel like I did at least something right! :biggrin:

 

[Omar]

I was embarrased to hear later that when was looking at them with friends the others with her kept saying how much better my pics were than the official photog. Embarrassed for her really. Seeing as she paid for the other other photos and didn't for mine it sure would have been more considerate to keep their mouths shut. On the other hand it did make me feel like I did at least something right! :biggrin:

While I don't doubt that your pictures were better, I wonder if there is an explanation for that? When I shoot, it's for fun. I can shoot or not shoot, and no one cares. If a situation around me starts looking promising, I can get ready for it. If I were shooting at a wedding (haven't had the opportunity since I got serious about this camera thing), I probably would discard 70% of the pictures and only give the couple 10%. I wouldn't feel any obligation to make sure all the key guests have been represented, or the key moments either.

The official photographer doesn't have that luxury. If all the pictures he takes of the cake cutting are crappy, he can't just edit them out of the pile. I can.

Again, not to say your skill wasn't at least as high as the photographer's, but I suspect you had some advantages he didn't.

 

[Silenus]

While I don't doubt that your pictures were better, I wonder if there is an explanation for that? When I shoot, it's for fun. I can shoot or not shoot, and no one cares. If a situation around me starts looking promising, I can get ready for it. If I were shooting at a wedding (haven't had the opportunity since I got serious about this camera thing), I probably would discard 70% of the pictures and only give the couple 10%. I wouldn't feel any obligation to make sure all the key guests have been represented, or the key moments either.

The official photographer doesn't have that luxury. If all the pictures he takes of the cake cutting are crappy, he can't just edit them out of the pile. I can.

Again, not to say your skill wasn't at least as high as the photographer's, but I suspect you had some advantages he didn't.

Certainly I did! And for just the reasons you said. I took over 400, but only gave them a fraction of those that were the best. It's nice not to have that pressure to get everything. Furthermore I did some tweaking, color correction, croping, ect to get them a little more polished. So I don't doubt these things were a major player in why the photos might have seemed better... my skills aside. :smile:

PS- funny you mention cake cutting. As it turns out the official photog was hired on a time basis and left before cake cutting! I was asked to get some shots of that for them, which was a surprise to me. Funny how quickly that relaxed guest feeling disappears when the situation changes! If it had been anyone other than close friends I would have been mighty uncomfortable. But I just grabbed what I could and had the leeway of being able to give them only the best of even that set of photos.

 

[Joseph]

What's with the 18-200 and weddings? This weekend I was passing by a small church and the wedding photog has a.. you guessed it, an 18-200! If I was a wedding shooter, the only use I have for the 18-200 is to ward off "uncle bobs with their Canons" who are getting in my way :wink:

 

[Hovmod]

That is of course nonsense. I had a free photographer for my wedding...

We gave everybody disposables. :biggrin:

 

[BBrat]

I think wedding photography is changing?

I can only speak of my experiences, especially this year. I have done 3 weddings this year, all are either friends or acquaintances of my wife. I am NOT a wedding photographer. In all 3 cases the B+G didnt care about their photos of their special day? They did ask me to shoot their weddings, I was honest up front, and told them that weddings wasnt my thing and that they would be better off hiring a pro. The bottom line in all 3 was money.

One bride wanted 8 photos, one didnt care what she had as long as I had a photo of the happy couple, and the last one was 11.5 hour day done for free, and the Bride made an agenda for me to follow, and wanted every photo under the sun.(not to mention I had to use a vacation day and pay a baby sitter)

I think people break down the cost of a wedding and in the end when they are trying to save a bit, the photographer gets the boot. I see more family members or friends being asked to do the shooting with DSLR's or P+S.

 

[jonh68]

I think the wedding photographer is going to have to change their model from pricing prints to shooting for facebook and myspace for most weddings. Good enough is good enough these days.

 

[Paul Dunlop]

I think wedding photography is changing?



I think people break down the cost of a wedding and in the end when they are trying to save a bit, the photographer gets the boot. I see more family members or friends being asked to do the shooting with DSLR's or P+S.

I would cut the DJ and many other options from the equation, long before I would cut the photographer

 

[joey]

I would cut the DJ and many other options from the equation, long before I would cut the photographer

Unfortunately, that's not the typical decision most couples take nowadays.

IMO, there will always be wedding couples who do not have the budget for a qualified professional photographer that is why "fly-by-night photographers exists." Then, there are couples who are content to just have a photographic record of their wedding. They don't really care if it is artistic or technically excellent. So long as images come out that is fine w/ them.
A professional w/ pro equipment, talent and attitude, owes it upon himself to know what market he should be in and what is not worthwhile for him to even bother about.

 

[MikeG76]

I think the wedding photographer is going to have to change their model from pricing prints to shooting for facebook and myspace for most weddings. Good enough is good enough these days.

I think you are correct, and the pricing structure will have to change. There will always be those who want the artistic/traditional/elegant wedding storybook. But the sub $1000 market is the up and coming one that you mention.