wedding-photography-denver

<p>I have and love my Tokina 50-135/2.8. I have been shooting it in the studio a bunch lately with the Nikon d7k. </p>

<p>I like it for weddings except for the fact, I also like OS/VR/VC etc. So... if this lens is similar in weight/size to the Tokina, it would be of interest to us... then again, its a Sigma and they don't have a great rep. with me as they are yellow images and erratic AF performance. The ONLY Sigma that I have owned that was consistent in the AF dept. was/is the 20/1.8. Silly distortions, but a great prime for crop bodies.</p>

<p>Hi Inna,</p>

<p>FF is a great product, but I have just recently moved to ID as it is far more flexible. FF does not require much in the way of prior knowledge, but is also a little limited. I have used it for years and its bullet proof IF YOU USE A PC!!! I had been in touch with the owner of lumapix some years ago and he kept promising a MAC version would be immanent. I got fed up with the wait and finally went to ID which is serving me better anyhow. ID takes some learning, but is so worth it in the end.</p>

<p>B&H have it for about a 100 less than adobe.</p>

<p>Most clients (IMO) are looking for "clean, bright & happy" images of themselves and their friends. Beyond this, some clients are very discerning and want more "style" to their images.</p>

<p>If you can observe people and be prepared to get a well exposed, nicely composed shot of them, you will likely be getting exactly what they want. Add your flavor to the composition, including elements you think make the images have more story and you will be getting what they want plus some.</p>

<p>:-)</p>

<p>Firstly, I applaud your effort to have integrity on the subject, but you will have to lay in the bed you choose in the end (pun intended). This is business and what sells is what someone wants to buy. You can be Saks 5th, or W* mart. You have to choose to whom you will "sell" your wares and market yourself appropriately IMO.</p>

<p>One cannot expect the masses to readily accept changes in society, especially when those changes are perceived as "different".<br /> However, I think there will likely be a time when that walk of life is "normal" and "different" will be some other orientation the is perceived as a threat to the society.</p>

<p>Nope. give it a try and see what happens. :-)</p>

<p>Focus like a laser on the job at hand. Get some education, and a lot of practice before the day.</p>

<p>Preface what I say here with the idea that I would like you to succeed by the standards of the couple in question.<br>

So, I looked at what you show on your website (biker stuff) and frankly, it is not pro level work. Some of it has balance regarding composition, but largely its snapshot work. Competency and consistency will be key for you, so learn how to compose, light and "see" the things you need. Get a handle on the learning side before their day. That's what I think.</p>

<p>As a side note: Perhaps uploading some work between now and then for P.net members to critique for you will be a good way to learn?</p>

<p>Hi Dan,</p>

<p>I have a few of these now. They are a great body for wedding work. The only let down (slight) is the AF speed, and the buffer size.</p>

<p>The lenses we are using with them are the Tamron 17-50VC (solid performer), Nikon 50/1.4 (decently good, but slow to acquire focus in low light) and Tamron 70-300VC (also a solid performer).</p>

<p>I have one body set up (at this point) with a 17-55 Nikon for the formals/posed family shots. I use it b/c it has the 16mp for enlargements.</p>

<p>My other bodies are D300s' and D700. The D700 is only used for portrait and low light stuff really. I have an 85/1.4 glued to it. The D300s' mostly have a 10-24 or 17-55 on them. </p>

<p>I used to have the D3's for main bodies, but then the D300s' came along with dual cards. I don't like the size of the D3, nor that I have to stop down an extra 1 - 1.5 stops to get similar DOF results. The shallow DOF is great for some stuff, but not for the whole day. So for me at least, the DX format will remain my main body (I expect) for a long time. Consider this when you go FF.</p>

 

<p>Sorry, posted an image that was too large. Here is the smaller version..</p><div></div>

<p>I have shot with the D7k a few times. It's a tad bit slower to acquire focus in very low light, than the D300s, but its worth waiting the split second more. I only noticed it when using a 50/1.4 though. With the 17-55, it was about the same.</p>

<p>I get bodies based on their weight/size as much as the files they produce. I find that any modern digital body can do what is needed. Having come from a film background, these are way more capable in most regards. Here is a file from the D7k with a Tamron 70-300VC...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I always let them come to me. I only want clients that really want my style. If they have any reservations, I would genuinely prefer they go to someone they feel good about. So, my answer is no, I would not call them.</p>

<p>HRH is a reputable firm.</p>

<p>Photo.net had, or has an affiliate program with them I believe.</p>

<p>Hi Athanasios,</p>

<p>Firstly, I shot Canon for about 5 years. I tried to use both systems for about a year as I liked having the 24-105 on a 5D. Could not make it work too well.</p>

<p>I now shoot Nikon exculsively for 35mm. I use a D700 with and 85 and love that combo. The only thing it lacks is a dual card slot, IMO. I always shoot with two bodies and when the D300s came along with dual cards, I let the D3 go (never liked the larger bodies, never had to have them with film).</p>

<p>My current setup is (most of the time) a D300s (or the D7000, which is in test mode) and 17-55 for general use. Then the D700 with and 85 for the short tele, and either a 70-200vr for the longer stuff or a new lens that I am enjoying a lot for back of the church is the Tamron 70-300 Vc.<br>

I would highly recommend the Tamron for your longer tele, and an 85/1.8 for the shorter and low light work. As for a backup body, if you stay FF then your only option is the D700 in the Nikon camp. Canon will of course allow you the 5d used, but I would sooner get a used crop body/lens and stay on the Nikon side. The price would likely be similar.<br>

YMMV.</p>

 

<p>Hi Nikolay,</p>

<p>The best place to advertise is with those whom you have worked for. Beyond that, using google to search your city along with "wedding photography", will likely give you some ideas of how others are getting seen. Study their ways of getting up in the rankings and you will likely have some basis to get started in that area. Giving other vendors images (flattering ones) of them/their work also helps, especially the wedding planners, wedding venues and caterers. </p>

<p>Your website is decent looking, but your into image is not one I would consider the strongest you could come up with. As for functionality; everything works but the menu buttons below AND above the body of the image galleries is a bit odd.</p>

<p>All the best, D.</p>

<p>Usually, the outdoor (esp. if it incorporates what they imagined for their day) full length drama shots. Some like more traditional portraits, but not as much as the big sky/vista type shots.</p>

<p>With my clients, and considering the use is as a wall portrait; 16x20/24 are the most purchased. 20x30 on occasion, 11x14 often.</p>

<p>About 1+ years is normal. Early is 18 months or earlier, and 6 months is late. That's my part of the world at least.</p>

<p>Lovely Sergey.</p>

<p>And I love the low contrast film look. Reminds me of early the 1900's portraiture. Classy.</p>

<p>Hmmm. Wonder what (if any) changes they will make to the way they have done things?</p>

<p>Just to see how it would look on google:</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>"I have done over 20 weddings so far for free and clients loved their photos."</p>

<p>That is a self explanatory statement/comment. I would be pretty happy if I got halfway decent images and paid nothing.</p>

<p>I hate to douse the flame, but you need to get brutally honest, however hard that may seem.</p>

<p>While there are many variations of on cam. flash diffusers/bounce cards, they all offer only marginally better results when the flash is aimed at your subject directly.</p>

<p>Bounce your bare flash from things if you can, set up off cam lights if you can, in fact I would suggest trying to get non flash images if at all possible before using direct flash. That said, if you can balance it well, it can be ok in a pinch.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"IVE JUST SPOTTED THE tamron 17-55 2.8.vc....IS.........has anyone used this lens?"</p>

<p>We have this and use it. It has done about 6 weddings so far and performs close to the Nikon 17-55 in all aspects. Great catchall lens for DX bodies.</p>

<p>I used the 24-105/4 when I shot canon and loved that lens.</p>

<p>If I don't give the photography as the gift, I would get them a gift as normal.</p>

<p>Do if you want to, but I would not if you don't. I would do everything but that if I did not really enjoy weddings and love the challenge.</p>

 

<p>While in NY, go to B&H (IMO) and talk to the staff. They are very good and will help you try stuff till you find your "fit".</p>

<p>Once you find some photographers you like, ask to get references from the last 10 brides. If they refuse, so do you. If you get the references and you like what they say, go ahead.</p>

<p>Consistency is key, whatever you think of their style.</p>