david_eicher

<p>With divorces being as they are now adays. I started contacting my former Brides within 5 years of their Wedding dates and offering to sell there Negs to them for a small fee. Probably 50% of them bought their negs. With less and less labs around, I am not so sure this would go over as well now.</p>

<p>I could never see giving a Bride 1000 to 2000 images to look at. Most of my weddings were shot with film, but even then showing a Bride 120 to 160 images brought comments of "how am I going to choose with so many to look at?" Somehow 25 shots of a Cake Cutting, 30 shots of the First Dance and 50 shots of the Garter toss seem a bit much. It makes me think anyone showing that many photos obviously are not culling their shots.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When I was a kid, I was given a camera. I took it apart to see how the aperture and shutter worked. When my father got a top-of-the-line AF SLR (one of the first made), I read the manual cover-to-cover and taught <em>him</em> how to use it (and he's an engineer). I was an 11 year old GIRL!<br /> I read Strobist. I have a four-year degree in photography from RIT. I have spent more time in darkroooms--my hands immersed in fixer-- than is probably healthy. I don't use auto anything, I light off camera, I own more bodies and lenses than I can count. Oh, and I HATE generalizations. Except perhaps that one above about men and nude photography ;)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Alex for every one of you at 11, I would say there were probably 20 boys doing the same thing back then. I am not saying a women/girl is incapable of learning the technical side of photography but 25 years ago, I am sure they were quite the minority. My question was more on the Digital end and was THAT the magic door that opened up photography to a larger mass of Women who now are taking photos and wanting to be Pros? I believe it was, some have learned as much about it as they can and others still shoot in Auto. Of course, I am sure there might be some guys doing the same. Either way, I say Digital was the magic door for Women and them getting really serious about photography.</p>

<p>Ryan - total nonsense.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm amazed that thinking still pervades. I can point you at women who are combat fighter pilots and men who can't figure out how to tune their TV set. Seriously, let's get a bit more enlightened, please.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>A combat pilot has been Professionally trained to fly and to do a specific job by the Military. Far different than someone who picks up a DSLR and then calls themselves a Pro Photographer.<br>

Some of what Ryan states I can see when talking to some of the Female photogs I have met. Their way of analyzing their photos is pretty much by looking at the LCD. Apertures and F Stops have little to no meaning to them. Of course this is not all of them, but alot of these Part-timers fall into this way of thinking. Still it is fun to help educate them some as a few of them have quite a good eye for a photo, but then some rush right out and buy the biggest megapixel camera they can afford and then stick it in Auto mode. Of course I am sure there are some males doing the same thing. I think anyone, Male or Female, that were lucky enough to learn Photography with Film first, will do much better when learning Digital than someone who starts out with just Digital.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>As far as weddings go, I think it's inevitable (and understandable) that a Bride will prefer a female photographer to capture the more intimate moments of her preparations. I've noticed that a lot of male-owned photography businesses have introduced female co-workers for this reason. The same could be said of female physicians - there weren't many of those twenty years ago either. It is not simply the case that 'women hire women', as the OP has suggested. There are other occasions and many reasons why I (or a client) might sometimes prefer to work with a man. I hope this allays the OP's fears that we're putting you 'guys' out of business.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No fears Lindsey, as I said I am pretty much retired. Just query those still having to work ;-)<br>

I do remember seeing husband/wife teams of varying degrees back when I was working and agree that a woman would have better access during certain parts of the wedding days. Portrait Photography, especially Kids seems to be another area where they are making very strong gains. Part-timers in particular. Being they have their own children and can use them as models, it is easy via sites like Facebook, to show off their talents to other women. Since women do a majority of the hiring, I still tend to think they will look at more women to consider, than men, unless the man gets good referrals from others. I have no qualms about them being in the business, as they do bring a different point of view. It would have been nice if my wife (girlfriend at the time) would have been interested in joining me for some of my gigs, but she was not.</p>

 

<p>I know 90% of the time I did them after the Ceremony. Most of the request to do them before the Ceremony were asked by people from the North (USA). Seems to be more popular up there. It was kinda nice to do it then. A lot less pressure having to achieve all the shots before another Wedding starts in the Church. Problem of course is getting everyone there and will the Bride want to be seen by the Groom.<br>

I think the 110mm will be a better choice for your Formal groups. A 180 is more a Portrait lens. Most of my groups were done with an 85MM.</p>

<p>I will try not to make this sound Chauvinistic. Actually I am pretty much retired after 35 years of Newspaper work along with 28 years of Wedding Photography. Most, probably 445 out of my 450+ weddings, were done on Film. During this time, out of say, any 10 Photographers I saw, only one was a woman, if that. Now a days it seems like it is almost all women. Of course I have since left Orlando and moved to a small country town. It seems the big influx did not start to show up until the advent of Digital Photography. Otherwise I think it might still be a male dominated business. Was wondering how it has gone with the current Wedding Environment? The Brides usually do a majority of the hiring when choosing a Wedding Photog, so have the males of the industry noticed a marked drop in their business since more and more Women have showed up? Women tend to hire women is what I have noticed more and more. Since I retired from Weddings, I've settled into shooting Little League and enjoying the little ones. Just wondering how other Photogs see it now adays in the Business world?</p>

<p>Well to my embarrassment all the leg clamps on this tripod are broken. Now I can see the low price. Are these even available anymore? Worth fixing?</p>

<p>I couldn't use the AF-On, if you have small hands, the buttons are alittle too far apart, atleast on my D200 they are.</p>

<p>I would be surprised that ALL of them (6) would be like this? But I will give it a look. Thanks</p>

<p> I have a chance to pick up the old Slik U212, which appears to actually be in great shape. My old Slik, can't even tell you which model it is, has seen better days. I like that the U212 can go really low profile for some ground shots. But, I do have a problem. My old Slik, when you secure the Leg Clamps, you can press down on the pan head and the legs stay locked in position, rock steady. No leg shortening. With this U212, I can lock down the leg clamps and with minimal pressure, the legs will shorten up and collapse. Is there something I am missing from my old Slik to this one? Why will the legs not stay secure when locked?</p>

I am almost ready to end my 30 year career in Wedding Photography. Digital has brought a huge amount of weekend warriors with little knowledge, but "great prices". 1000's of photos on a CD. I wonder what they take for the average 3 to 4 hour wedding in this small town. 75 shots of the Cake Cutting?? 100 of the Bride dancing with Dad?? I shoot 120 format and always take 15 rolls with me, rarely shooting more than 13 to 14. Now, it seems to be "Supersize me". People would rather have quantity instead of quality. There are some very good digital photographers out there, but it won't be long and I'll be clearing what I use to make back in '89 after cost. Glad my Pension check is kicking in next month ;-)

Talk to Art Faulkner...."Works of Art"

Thanks Gerald, that does seem to be the simpilist route.

Well, after 30 years of doing this, I have run into a bride that we seem to

have lost our communication with each other. Alot of "he said, she said" going

on with the engaged couple. At any rate, as of today I have decided to return

their retainer. Since the wedding is not until October, I should be able to

get another booking. Of course Sale Tax was collected. Should this sales tax

amount be returned to the Bride also? Just not really clear on this since this

not MY money, but the states.

Thanks Jon and Dan. Unfortunatly I am limited on lenses. Main lens is a Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 APO and a Nikon 28-200 4.5-5.6. So no real professional glass. Most images are done at night on High School ball field with much post processing. During the day they are fine. Since the fields are not well lit, I know this causes alot of my dilema.

>>OK, I have a pic posted and all the info is under the Tech. heading but I will post here as well.<<

 

I'm sorry, where is the photo?? Tech Heading??

Wanted to get some opinions on using the AF-C with my D50 Nikon. Although it

would apply with most sports, specifically baseball. When a player is attempting

to steal second base, second baseman on base......do you try to gain focus lock

on the runner or do you lock at the base and wait for runner?

Seems if you stay at base, when runner enter frame, will that throw the focus

lock off and give you an OOF shot.

Also, since I was weaned on shooting sports with an Olympus Point and Shoot, I

had to anticipate the action to get my shot, being able to click off one image

did not help. With AF-C and burst mode, I can take many shots. Does AF-C

continue to atempt focus lock thru out the burst mode, allowing maybe some OOFs

and some sharp images?

there are free ones out there. Click Image is one.

>>Responses like Ken gives just aren't answers. <<

 

Plus, he doesn't know how to spell. ;-)

Almost all the churches I have shot in would not allow flash during the service and even if they did, I would not use it until the Alter Returns. Since I worked alone, during the ceremony it was a tripod and slow shutter speed during the service. There not hoping around up there so 1/8th to 1/4 second sufficed. As to the large group, wide angle, drag the shutter, nail them with a big flash. Atleast that's the simple way. Otherwise, you'll need to set up some lights.

I still use a Gateway 19 inch on one of my computers. Looks great. Head down to the local Flea Market, you'll probably find alot of them.

Can't see many times at a wedding where it would be useful? Maybe the garter/boquet toss or running for the car? I suppose there may be instances, but overall I don't see continuous mode being needed very much.

The diopters are different depending on the cameras. I have both Mamiya and Bronica, and one will not work in the other.

 

To John Stockdale, thanks so much for your help. Got my astigmatism glasses done and the world sure looks sharper and clearer. Tried to email you, but never got an answer.

Quicken for Home and Business. Pretty much have used it for the last 25 years or so. You'll find 80% of you business falls under Office expenses, supplies, equipment and mileage. I no longer use a CPA, but use Tax Cut to do my taxes. Of course, having two old friends that are CPA's helps if I have a question.