wedding-photography-denver

<p>If you hire someone without really knowing what you will likely get, it will be what you likely expected. Unknown.</p>

<p>I too have seen some wedding photographers work that I would not consider to be in the professional realm, but their clients love their work. I don't think, therefore, that you should say anything at all. If pressed I might simply say "yes, he did get a some nice shots" and leave it there.</p>

<p>I find it to be an oddly attractive image. While not my style, the use of the lane makes their posing work, but the use of the chair and the 'Humph' body language of the groom is not so appealing in general. I find the lack of some interesting light to be the only real let down here. I would love to have seen a modeling light of some kind used.</p>

<p>Nice work Buffdr.</p>

<p>I think you already have it in the 24-70. Much wider and you will encounter wild distortions.</p>

<p>I think you already have it in the 24-70. Much wider and you will encounter wild distortions.</p>

<p>I would say about what Henry said. Most judging for photography is done by photographers of some sort, but often not "the best" photographers make for the best judges. It's one thing to be great at capture and another entirely to be a great judge of work you did not create.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Two words come to mind: Smug Mug ;-)</p>

<p>You can set the galleries with a rating system that allows your couple to rate with stars (I think), which they like best. You simply go grab those images and build your book.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Perhaps one of the two lenses I loved most when shooting with Canon.</p>

<p>One sweet image. Very Jeff Ascough esq.</p>

<p>@Michael Chang, that report is bogus. It ONLY takes into account a bunch of wedding pros opinions. Total nonsense in terms of true stats IMO.<br>

That guy has been tapping a ton of us for years for info. I don't contribute any longer as it is just his way of making money and has a jaded view point that does NOT take into account the reality of the wedding industry due to its totally "I think this year will be like this" way of asking its contributors. People just tell what ever they feel like. Once I realized that is what the core of the information was, I stopped reading it, and contributing to it. The wedding report has NO foundation in reliable facts. NONE.</p>

<p>Hey Ben, you might try FM as there are more "second" shooters around there. I have found a couple of great shooters for LA there over the years.</p>

 

<p>I have one cam using a flash, generally with a wider range lens, and another with a 50 or 85 fast prime an no flash. <br>

<br />Perhaps if you were using the 85II without flash and shooting at f1.4-1.8 you could do it. That is how I do it. Your SS needs to be around 1/60th for most uses since its people you are shooting and they move. That's what I aim for and higher SS if possible. I will regularly let my exposure drop to -2/3 if I can get the shot and pull back later in post.</p>

<p>Most paid sites are "farms", like chicken farms.</p>

<p>Two things I believe are worth while as online resources.<br /> 1. Your own site/quality of work and<br /> 2. Being a part of specialized groups who have a process of approval for their members. A process that ensures a bride/couple they can get a decent chance of great wedding photos.<br /> However, still the most effective ad is the one from a referral/wedding vendor/venue, etc.</p>

<p>I think this is indicative of changing times.</p>

<p>Most brides are "joint tenants" in a modern marriage…. So, I think the idea of a bridal portrait is because (frankly), they just look better than us men. ;-)</p>

<p>I think its good to be prepared for some time flux on a wedding day. I have rarely been to a wedding that started AND finished on time. So I recommend being a little less worried about the exact timing.</p>

<p>However, if you end up more than say 30 - 45 mins past your contracted time, you may want to ask if they still want you to stay, adding that there will be an extra charge for the added time if they would like you to stay. I usually approach this by going to them ahead of the time I think reasonable to stay over, and mentioning that I will be preparing to leave soon, and are there any other photos they really want before you go.</p>

<p>Not everyone is perfectly happy, but most clients are very nice about it all. </p>

<p>One answer is to increase your iso a little so your recycle is pulling less juice. The other suggestion is get some power packs (nikon brand for safety) and have one for each off cam then make those the main lights.</p>

<p>Original used 5D or the new 60D. I would probably get the 60d for its abilities with the higher ISO and the tilt screen (c'mon Nikon). And the crop will afford you some ability to "extend" what you can do with the same lens set. Just my $0.02cents.</p>

<p>Keep the cash and wait for a time that you have a need. Add to it (save) and get the best you can when that need arises.</p>

 

<p>Pete, </p>

<p>I will generally swap bodies when they are about 60 - 70% spent (based on manufacturer specs for the shutter reliability), or when there's an improvement that makes sense to the images I can get.</p>

<p>Lenses are about 5 - 10 year cycles with some measure of maintenance. </p>

<p>Flashes I wear out (generally), but will add one now and then to help with the off cam creativity.</p>

<p>Flash (memory) I have upgraded about every two years, keeping the older stuff to use for non wedding shooting (studio, maternity, kids, seniors etc.).</p>

<p>Bags, and sundries are when I need them, or when the no longer fit what I need.</p>

<p>Batteries, about every three years for rechargeable.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>WOM (word of mouth) is best, especially as a startup. I would suggest getting your name out to as many friends and family/ co-workers, etc., as you can. </p>

<p>Beyond that, google is the number 1 way to get business IMO, but more so for better established photogs. Craigslist is a place for many "low" price photographers to get a start too.</p>

<p>The Knot is Knot a favorite and while it will bring you leads, it can be cost prohibitive for the amount of business it generates.</p>

<p>Join some pro organizations and get qualified by the PPA. List with them and enter competitions often.</p>

<p>Best, D.</p>

<p>If you want flattering, compressed perspective, the longer the better generally. Approx 135 on FF is great.</p>

<p>If you want a "street" type portrait, a 35mm FF is good.</p>

<p>If you want an exaggerated perspective, I like to use either an FE or a 10-24 on a crop.</p>

<p>Just a couple thoughts,</p>

<p>Learn how to drag the shutter. (searching here will help a ton as there are several threads on the subject). Use this technique as the light gets low.</p>

<p>Learn how to fill flash for the daylight outdoor portions (in general, meter your ambient and set your SS as high as you can for sync. Usually around 1/200th then let the aperture fall where it will). Test a couple shots for getting your ambient right, then turn on your ttl flash for fill. I think the evaluative metering is best for Canon flashes when you want fill.</p>

<p>Look at planet neil dot com for more on those topics.</p>

<p>Yikes. That is pretty much scary to me. Craigslist on steroids.</p>

<p>My rule of thumb is that the original capture should be 120px per inch (min). So if your original image is from a 12mp cam., the file will likely be printable to around 24x36 with great results.</p>

<p>As to ISO, that depends on the cameras ability to handle noise. I can print 3200 iso images from the D700 up to 20"x 30" wide. However, images from my D300s' at 3200 will not be great past around 1250 iso when printed at that size (IMO). The D7000's do fine up to the same as the D700 in print, so it really depends a lot on the body used, and your comfort. That's my maximum size per body/iso.</p>

<p>I use single shot AF (focus recompose) most times. I use it in conjunction with AF-on. and have for many years.</p>

<p>I like my Tamron lenses. The do very well compared to their Nikon counterparts.</p>

<p>Here is a thought.. If you shoot weddings and want a lens that is sharp, light, and with great VR, try the Tamron 70-300/Vc. I know its not a 2.8 lens, but for the church and portraits in even halfway decent light, it rocks. I have been using it in favor of the 70-200/Vr that I also own.</p>

<p>Another thought: the original VR1 from Nikon is now selling on FM for around 850 - 1000 in great condition (depends on the seller). That would be money better spent than the Tamron new, IMO.</p>