Bride Unhappy about everything - how to handle her?

[jimstrutz]

Mike: "I am pretty sure that there is camera movement here due to too slow of shutter speed..." "...that is something that unsharp mask won't do much for."

 

I don't doubt you're right, but it's hard to tell for sure what's going on with such small images to look at. If an image is only a little blurred adding unsharp mask with a high radius can help - depending on the image. I didn't see any seriously blurred images when I looked, but I didn't spend that much time going through them all.

 

"Adjusting jpegs corrupts the image!!"

 

Yes it does, but sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do. In this case it's certainly worth trying.

 

I agree with others. Shoot all weddings in RAW. If you're really good, and always on top of your game JPG's are an option. But if you are not one of the gods... RAW is the choice of safety for us mortals.

[michaelging]

Carrie, what a great lesson you are being offered here by the people who answered your forum post, and I am extremely impressed with how you are taking and learning from the experience. I have no doubt that you can and will be successful one day as a wedding photographer, or what ever you decide to be, attitude and the willingness to learn from mistakes, is what makes people good at what they do.

[mark_fasano]

Hi Carrie, when my wife and I recently decided to get into wedding photography, we began shooting events for free, even though I have shot professionally for newspapers for about 6 years and my wife is an estimable nature photographer in her own right.

 

The reason? Weddings are incredibly challenging events to shoot, and even though right now we're pretty good, pretty good isn't good enough in my mind to demand money from clients.

 

With wedding photography you're faced with a genre that combines the least forgiving aspects of photojournalism and fashion photography, under the broadest gamut of lighting situations imaginable.

 

One of my clients who loved our images and booked us to shoot her wedding asked me why anyone would pay thousands of dollars for a photographer when they could get someone like me or some art student to shoot their wedding for peanuts.

 

Simple, I told her: consistency. I don't charge anything right now because I make my clients sign a contract that states they expect absolutely zero from us.

 

Maybe we get Richard Avedon-like results, maybe we f*** everything up. Personally, I think it's rather appalling that someone would entrust something so vital as the recording of their wedding day to someone like me. It's hard to imagine someone going to a free mechanic and agreeing to let the amateur grease-monkey fart around with their car with no expectations.

 

Clients pay thousands for consistent excellence, and when I feel comfortable that we can provide that every weekend, then I'll charge. Maybe you'll feel that way too after this experience. Good luck.

[Leonard-just-Leonard]

this was a very intelligent and entertaining thread. it has encouraged me to NEVER consider doing wedding photography. if I want to spend countless hours wandering through the wilderness and snap photos for the pure pleasure of it, then I am happy. whatever works, works and I have no one to report to. good luck to those who do enjoy weddings and other planned events.

[carrie_zylka]

(Leonard...if only I'd found a thread like this before I booked a single wedding....)

 

Well, I look at it this way, I totally screwed up, I realized that, and that is why I posted my questions, I thought I would get a lot of "you are totally dense and you totally messed up this poor woman's day" which would have been totally justified.

 

Unfortunately I'm not an unintelligent person and honestly want to be a better photographer. I figured if I got a bunch of "you're are totally dense and you totally messed up this poor woman's day, now you have to fix it by doing XYZ" I would accept the criticism and focus on the fix it part.

 

Of course I didn't set out to be the "hack" photographer on her wedding day. I had been extremely successful at a wedding in March that my clients just raved about. I suppose I relied a bit too much on my camera and not enough on my brain.

 

I sent her an email offering to totally redo everything for her, I will wait and see what her response is.

 

P.S. the book publisher I use does not offer all those fancy inlays/overlays, fading and fancy graphics.

Can anyone recommend a good coffee table book publisher?

[elnoralouisa]

Carrie, are you going to post-process the pics you have? Really, a few minutes on each of these, and you could have some really nice pics.

Leonard--I am sort of with you, in that the animals and flowers, and trees, don't talk back, yet there is just something special when people are happy with pictures of their family, wedding, etc.

[michaelkh]

I'm full of admiration for people who shoot weddings and people who take criticism as

well as Carrie.

 

Carrie, I hope you consider still shooting weddings. You've had a bad experience and you

recognise it; this is the best way to learn. Print out this thread, follow the kit

recommendations, get out there and practise low light and indoor photography until your

zooming hand aches, and make a determination never to repeat this early experience, and

I think you'll be the right person for the job. Better cautious than overconfident!

[sandy_labana]

Hi Carrie: Wedding memories are very precious to bride and groom. Looking at your photos,

my suggestion is that you stop doing weddings till you have learned the craft. The photos

are just not up to professional standard. Few (not many) that are good are lost in the jungle

of bad ones. It is cruel to do this to a bride. Please be merciful. Sandy

[carrie_zylka]

Debbie: Yes, I am going to do a lot more post processing on these, I wish I would have asked for some advice before I sent them to her!

 

Michael, I have done a couple weddings since them and have been very lucky, they ahve all turned out very well and everyone has been extremely happy. I am working on editing one I shot a very upscale resort, beautiful bride, handsome groom, fairytale location.

 

Ahh, I wish they were all like this!!!!

[mike_barrett2]

Carrie,

 

You just touched on the thing that is in my mind the problem with the wedding photography industry these days.

 

Yes, cameras have gotten a lot more technologically advanced. Shooting on program mode and auto white balance does produce better results than ever before. However, in some (many)circumstances the little computer inside your camera gets fooled. When you rely on technology over intellect you are asking for trouble. For example, in a church with low light, your camera will have you shooting WAY too slow to be handheld. You need to know what the limitations are, move up your ISO, get on a tripod, try to shoot at times with minimal subject movement, etc.

 

As a professional it is our job to know what our camera is doing and how to make it behave when it gets real stupid. Personally, I shoot everything on full manual. I think of a digital camera as just another camera. Therefore, I tend to shoot the way I did when there was no auto settings and the camera didn't even have a battery! In addition, I shoot RAW as to give myself some wiggle room on exposure and white balance.

 

Shooting a portrait were you have control over where you shoot and the time to look at the back of your camera and adjust as needed program mode can work. However, in a wedding setting often you need to make the best of what you have and do it very quickly. In this case, you better know how your camera, flash, etc function and how to make them do your bidding!

 

I do not have a problem with someone who loves photography and wants to enter the wedding photography market. Actually, I spend a fair amount of time helping them. However, I do have a problem with anyone that poo poos training, doesn't even take the time to read the manual, shoots on auto everything and has no desire to change. They are cheating the brides, the industry and themselves! Carrie, I am not saying this is you. I am speaking in generalities here.

 

Anyone can take a few good shots, post them on a website and call themselves a professional wedding photographer. Brides on a budget will seek these people out in an effort to save the money. But, in the end they very possibly will not have the photographic memories of one of the biggest days of their lives. This will be sad a month after the wedding. The real tragedy is 25 years later. When there own child is getting married, you can bet these couples will insist on hiring a true professional. I have heard this story from my clients parents a hunred times or more.

 

Mike

[dave_thielen]

Carrie

Was the bride that tiny, or was everybody else that big?

 

The bride was right in that the entire wedding looks like it was taken by Aunt Martha. Having said that, you know the real difference between the pro and Aunt Martha - the pro throws out the garbage (garbage is anything a paying customer shouldn't see) before they show it to the client. Aunt Martha shows everything. You showed everthing.

 

You have enough useable images to create an acceptable finished package, you just have too much garbage inbetween which creates the impression that the whole thing is bad.

 

You don't need 521 images to tell the story, before digital, a 36 page wedding album was huge, so cherry pick the very best, work on fixing them with better cropping and composition and present a much smaller finished set of work, and you will have a happy bride.

 

Something I tell my shooters, when shooting action shoot loose but crop tight - that means don't crop as tight in the camera, because when action is fast you dont' have time to check, but later in the lab, you have all the time in the world to crop in tight and get just the right portion of the neg.

 

An example in your wedding would be the bride with whoever shots just after the ceremony -(very akward posing by the way, you should have found away to bring the bride up to their level rather than having them bend down) and now crop them to a square or vertical with the vertical edges just coming in on the shoulders. That tighter crop will totally change the impact of the photo.

[mike_barrett2]

Carrie,

 

I am bored. Family is out of town and I don't have to leave for todays wedding for a while.

 

Thought you might like to see a corrected image. Of course, I am dealing with a really low resolution image here. If you want a high resolution image, email me a pic and I'll adjust an post.

 

Mike

[sublimeimages]

You got a lot of great advice here but I didn't remember seeing something about taking some photo classes at a local college. Very worth it. I too am a newbie and have stopped photographing weddings so I can focus on perfecting my skills in rough lighting and under enormous pressure. I enjoy photographing weddings but also believe good ain't good enough in photography. Being upfront with my 4 wedding clients have prevented any differing expectations. I think you shouldn't let this discourage you if weddings are something you want to do, just come correct on your next wedding.

[colinsouthern]

Just one tiny additional point to also keep in mind - when you send off a CD another BIG variable is the customer's monitor that they're being viewed on - if it's already somewhat subdued then shadow details (even several stops of them) can easily just "disappear".

 

On a personal note, I hold wedding photographers virtuous above all others - I can't think of a higher-pressure situation in what is potentially some of the worst photographic conditions possible ("war zone" comes to mind!) - so congratulations on having the guts to give it a go. Try to remember: "What doesn't kill me, makes me stronger" - your confidence will have taken a hit - take the time to learn from your mistakes then "get right back on the horse".

 

A few "food for thoughts":

 

* I'd suggest shooting in RAW mode - it gives you massive opportunity to correct a wide variety of issues without degrading the image quality - JPEGS on the other hand can easily "fall apart" under post-procesing if you have to make big corrections.

 

* Church light is often cr*p - if your only option is to go with natural lighting then a camera that has good high-ISO performance (like the Canon 5D, or better still the new 1D Mk3) can be your best friend - noise reduction programs like Noise Ninja can go a long way towards rescuing images too.

 

* If you have to hand-hold in low light situations, consider firing a short burst of shots (2 or 3) - often the first may be blurry, but the 2nd or 3rd can be a lot better.

 

* I'd also go so far as to suggesting you invest in a copy of Photoshop, and get up to speed in post processing - for basic corrections (white-balance, levels, sharpening, saturation etc) it's a fairly easy learning curve - and there are many here who will fall over backwards to help (or drop me a private eMail if you'd like some help).

 

Hope this helps!

 

Cheers,

 

Colin

[carrie_zylka]

Colin, you're very right about my confidence taking a hit. I feel about 2 inches tall (and rightly so). I would like to say thank you to everyone who posted more than the "get out of the business you are an a$$" type of a post. I understand I totally deserve to be raked over the coals, but I appreciate those with a lot of sound good tips.

 

Last year (on another forum) I had asked a pretty basic question that I just couldn't wrap my brain around, I was asking for a "professional" to put it into lay man's terms.

 

Well, I never did get an answer to my question but I was called every single name in the book.

 

I'm sorry I let a bunch of jerks dissuade me from posting more questions.

 

I have had more offers of advice, mentoring and tips than I ever expected. And while my confidence took a blow (and maybe that's what I needed) at least I don't feel like I should jump off a bride anymore (I never would- I just felt like I should!)

 

I just wanted to say thanks to everyone.

 

Carrie

[steve_c.5]

I think everyone in this thread has overlooked the beginning of Carrie's initial post. Remember the part about how she had only shot one wedding-type event and tried to meet with the bride and show her portfolio, and all the bride had seen was her website with one event, etc.? I think Carrie went out of her way to make the statement to the bride that she's a newcomer to this. The bride clearly glossed over all of that, and said, "I've seen enough, you're hired". This, to me, was a mistake on the part of the bride. The bride had obviously been to wedding shows and had a romantic image in her mind of what her wedding photography would be like, and for whatever reason, was convinced that Carrie would be able to give this to her. She was wrong. I think the bride must accept a good portion of the blame if she's disappointed, and Carrie should make this point to her clearly. I know I would.

 

Now, Carrie, I've looked through your images, and I think they're really not bad for a first effort, and for a less-descriminating bride. These are really not BAD pictures at all, and you should not be ashamed. I think a lot of the issues could be fixed with some good post-production by someone who knows what they're doing (white balancing, de-noising, etc.).

 

You don't have to spend over $600 on Photoshop, but it's a great thing to have for more high-end work. A lot of these issues could be fixed with a product I use called ACDSee Pro (www.acdsystems.com). It's around $130 for the pro version, and is excellent at color corrections, pumping up the contrast and colors, lightening shadow areas without blowing the highlights, de-noising, and lots more.

 

Please don't beat yourself up too much over this Carrie. You did all you could and then some, and I don't think you should be chastised. Again, it's really not bad for a first effort.

 

I would stay away from the more contrived cutesy shots (like the groomsmen all in a row with their jackets over their shoulders). There is a real art to doing creative posing with groups of people, and if you're going to continue with weddings, you need to read every book you can get your hands on that illustrate great wedding photography. Learn from the masters like Kevin Kubota, Dennis Reggie, Monte Zucker, Joe Buissink, Yervant, and others. Then, develop your own unique style.

 

Study the art of good lighting and photojournalism. Before you ever shoot another wedding, be sure you are well-versed in the art of wedding photography. Experiment with your equipment extensively by asking friends or family to act as subjects in difficult lighting situations (bright sun, dark churches). Learn to use your location and backgrounds to your advantage, not a disadvantage.

 

This business is not about what equipment you use (although the right equipment is essential). It's about being prepared for anything. It's about people skills. It's about problem-solving. It's about your reputation. It's about marketing and selling yourself to others. It's about opening your eyes as you walk into a foreign situation and looking around you, and using your skills to capture the event beautifully. And, it's about so much more than I have room for here.

 

One important tip: invest in fast, high-quality lenses. I use Sigma exclusively. Don't shoot in a church or dark room with anything slower than f2.8 (f1.4 is even better). Image stabilization is VERY helpful too (I use the Sony Alpha with stabilization in the body, so every lens I buy benefits from stabilization. You can handhold low-light shots without a tripod).

 

One other tip I have for wedding photography is go to www.garyfong.com and pick up one of his Lightsphere or Whaletale products. These are worth their weight in gold, and will give you better indoor light in difficult situations than anything else. Watch the videos on his site and you'll see what I mean.

 

Good luck to you!

[mike_barrett2]

Quote-I think everyone in this thread has overlooked the beginning of Carrie's initial post. Remember the part about how she had only shot one wedding-type event and tried to meet with the bride and show her portfolio, and all the bride had seen was her website with one event, etc.? I think Carrie went out of her way to make the statement to the bride that she's a newcomer to this. The bride clearly glossed over all of that, and said, "I've seen enough, you're hired".

 

The images on her website was what she trusted. Blaming the bride for believing what she saw to be a fair representation of the quality she could expect is just wrong. If Carrie was not able to produce that result consistently, the images shouldn?t be there. Period. I have booked dozens of wedding from brides who never meet with me personally. They trusted I could deliver as advertised. We want our clients to trust us! Should we use a disclaimer on our website that says ?photography on this site is in no way a reflection of the work you can expect on your wedding day??

 

 

Quote- Now, Carrie, I've looked through your images, and I think they're really not bad for a first effort, and for a less-descriminating bride. These are really not BAD pictures at all, and you should not be ashamed. I think a lot of the issues could be fixed with some good post-production by someone who knows what they're doing (white balancing, de-noising, etc.).

 

Please- sometimes you just need to call a spade a spade. These pictures are a far cry from professional. There is nothing here that isn?t riddled with problems. Can they be made better with a lot of work? Sure. But if you have to FIX every shot you take there is indeed a problem. I have NEVER meet a bride who was paying $1000 that would have called this a reasonably professional job. With training, I am sure Carrie can do better. But as Carrie said, ?You can?t fix it if you don?t know it?s broken?. This is broken. I was honest about that for Carrie?s sake. I also offered practical advice for improvement.

 

Carrie, I tried to give you a realistic appraisal of the situation you found yourself in and help you out as much as I could. I do not sugar coat or bash. I do believe if you are hard on yourself, life (and your clients) will be infinitely easier on you. I think that is a Zig Ziglar quote.

 

Learn from this and move on. We have all screwed up, it happens.

 

Mike

[mike_barrett2]

Hey steve, I noticed you do not have a website.

[colinsouthern]

Carrie,

 

Your "swimming lessons" start here ...

 

http://www.aljacobs.com/NEW%20WEDDING.pdf

 

Download and have a read - I'm sure that it'll be an eye-opener (and seem strangely familiar! - you are NOT alone!).

 

Again, if you need any help - especially when it comes to post-processing, don't hesitate to get in touch.

 

Cheers,

 

Colin

[steve_c.5]

Mike, my only point was that Carrie seriously tried to make the bride acutely aware that she was a newcomer at this, and the bride (from what I read in the post) knew this full well, and hired her anyway. Her expectations should have been lower. Most newcomers who know they don't know what they're doing try to hide their inexeperience and Carrie brought it right out in the open and got the job anyway. I have to give Carrie credit for trying to be honest.

 

Plus, I don't think you can compare what Carrie produced on her website with the situations she was faced with at this wedding. Every event and every client is different.

 

I guess I always try to be encouraging to newcomers, because we were all newcomers at one time. If you want to be brutally honest with her, that's your right. I'm not saying you can't. I just gave my take on it.

 

I've seen some truly HORRIBLE wedding photography in my time and Carries really wasn't as bad as some I've seen, so I went easier on her than you did. My perspective, not yours.

 

It seems that in addition to being critical of Carrie, you want to be critical of me too for giving her my perspective. It's really not your place, at least not in the context of helping Carrie (which is the objective of posting in this thread). You've said your piece, now I've said mine. Let's let Carrie decide what she wants to do from here.

 

BTW, I'm temporarily not posting my web address here because everybody and their pet fish hits my website from here and it affects my tracking data. I'm evaluating web traffic based on specific marketing efforts I'm doing right now, and I don't want the data swayed by non-wedding traffic.

[zackojones]

Carrie and everyone,

 

This has been a wonderful discussion. It's convinced me to stay away from trying weddings -- unless I could try it as 2nd photographer. Good luck getting things resolved and making the bride happy with your photos.

[colinsouthern]

Zack Jones wrote: <i>"[snip] This has been a wonderful discussion. It's convinced me to stay away from trying weddings -- unless I could try it as 2nd photographer. Good luck getting things resolved and making the bride happy with your photos."</i><p>

 

I think that when it comes to weddings the old "sink or swim" analogy is a good one. There are some (like myself) who simply have no burning desire to swim in those kinds of waters, and in those kinds of conditions - there are others who train hard and do well on the day - and of course a lot who sink, but who also (hopefully) get rescued - get the additional training they need - and then put in a much stronger performance next time.<p>

 

At the end of the day a "sinking" episode is distressing for all - but that can't be changed (although it could possibly be mitigated to a large degree with extra work, and perhaps some free portraits?), so in the end one just has to pick up what's left and stubbornly move on - in this respect I'm a big believer in "what doesn't kill me makes me stronger".<p>

 

I have a feeling that Carrie will be one of the ones who will probably learn more from this than at any other point in her photographic career - and I suspect too that despite having her confidence sent tunbling, she'll rise to overcome next time.<p>

 

I too wish her all the best!

[zylka.photography]

<p >Please note, this user account was created maliciously by an ex-employee whose employment I terminated in 2006.

<p >He got most of the facts correct, other than Zylka Photography had not been in business for 6 years in 2007, only 2. She received the proof CD-Rom in 4 weeks, not 2. etc.</p>

 

<p > </p>

</p>

<p >He created the post "Bride Unhappy about everything - how to handle her? - Photo.net" and uploaded the photos HE shot at that wedding, this was the third wedding in which he produced substandard quality - thus resulting in his termination of employment from Zylka Photography.</p>

<p >I am assuming he was trying to get some "you did nothing wrong" type of responses that he would be able to show me in an attempt to save his job. Obviously upon reading the posts he was not provided those responses.</p>

<p >It's really quite amusing as he never was in contact with her personally, before or after the post, and she was provided a bookstore quality coffee table book that she emailed me gushing about how much she loved it.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Luckily he was dumb enough to use his own Zylka Photography email address to set up this profile, unfortunately, after several emails back and forth with the administration of this site, they refused to delete the malicious posting and in turn helped the ex-employee smear me.</p>

<p >It is really not cost effective to hire legal counsel to pursue deleting this profile as if you visit www.zylkaphotography you can see the true nature of my work.</p>

<p >If you have any questions or concerns, please email me at carrie@zylkaphotography.com.</p>

<p >The true photo.net profile is : www.photo.net/photos/Zylka.Photography</p>

<p >Thanks, Carrie</p>