dmcgphoto

<p>We have a DJ who does this kind of thing here in Baltimore-just as bad and he ups the ante by actually coming to the weddings to take pictures. He has been approached personally by myself and I've pled the case of why to NOT do this. Not that he can't, but why he shouldn't.<br /><br />His response is that - it's all part of the marketing of the client and the event, that it really doesn't do us any harm, and while he would love to post the photographers pictures, they tend to take to long to get to him, he's had to wait for up to 3 weeks for those pictures!<br /><br />His problem is he simply doesn't get it, he truly is convinced of his own ability to do something despite the complete lack of measurable data to reinforce his point.<br /><br />What can you do? in short- nothing, simply be certain not to refer his business, be conversant with clients before - never during- the event if you know this person is going to be the dj and ask them if they want his additional-and he markets it (I'm sure) as a free add on-imagery, or if they would rather wait for your pictures first.<br />9/10 times they will opt to allow this guy to continue doing what he's doing, the 10th time however I would suggest you arrange a conference call between the clients, yourself and the dj...be professional- be the bigger person- acquiesce on some of the table shots for his agreement to not get in your way and spoil the images elsewhere.<br /><br />Finally, and I say this as a wedding and event photographer- the reception pictures are the least cherished pictures of the event. Yes it goes by in a blur, but after 50 pictures of people waving their hands in the air like they don't care, do you really think they care about the pictures elsewhere?<br />People aren't buying table shot images any longer because for free they can take the pictures with the phone in their pocket, it can't be a significant percentage of your after event revenue anymore and if it is better than 1% of your total event, I will 2nd for you for free.<br /><br />Best to blow the couple away with your portraits, your ability to capture their wedding, the quality of light and so forth that really show your craft. You will NEVER win a head to head competition with someone who has no care for what you do, and really doesn't actually keep you from doing it.<br /><br />The copyright thing...well once again, I'm with you here, remember that person I referenced in Baltimore? Well I did a series of portraits for a charity event, comprised of our members, staged and composed 100% by me in different areas around Baltimore- to be displayed at the charity event.<br /><br />Well, this clown PHOTOGRAPHED my pictures and then had the unbelievable temerity to put his watermark on his picture of my picture...and the really pleasant punch in the gut of the worst post production on top of my image for the lovely yellow glow like an easter peep.<br /><br />I did get him to quickly retract those pictures, but I feel you, it's galling, purely galling.<br /><br /></p>

<p>While you may not have an actual contract per se, ANYTHING you have that is written or sent to you, even if it is a text or FB screen picture capture, is admissible in US courts as evidence of liability for service. Not being a lawyer-and not pretending to be- precludes me from giving you any more advice than has been given me by actual contract attorneys, but they all will say that given the state of technology today, there are other means in which either Party can enter into a binding agreement with one another. Barring the actual existence of a contract you may be entitled to your money, but I would not hazard a guess on the state of your images.<br /><br />While that's all fine and good for your legal prospects, I suspect that barring any of the things you've mentioned, unless the invoice has a business name or address-physical address where a summons may be served, you are truly out of options.<br /><br />I would say that it's a terrible place to be if you are the cautionary tale, but you can take some small "greater good" satisfaction over warning others around you from the path you took.</p>

<p>I am with Michael Chang on this.<br>

I know of at least one story Gary Fong has created regarding a very well know wedding photographer and circuit speaker, the story that he took his wife and children out of their home in the dead of night due to bankruptcy.<br />To declare bankruptcy one has to go to court, have it entered in the public record, and thus easily searchable. Also, the dead of night drama I think is also excruciating in that bankruptcy evictions are known well in advance, and not performed, even in California, in the dead of night.<br /><br />No, I fear Gary Fong reading a letter that comes no where close to sounding as if anyone who even watched a legal television show, would prepare as a demand. The letter reads as extortion, it makes fantastic drama. Finally, the letter and case only appears through Gary's introductions.<br /><br />I'm seeing this as a rather crude way to sell his book. He no longer shoots professionally, but has discovered the hidden riches of getting photographers to pay him oodles of money about how to be better photographers.<br />Sad</p>

<p>Jeff sums up my thoughts well.<br>

Though I do make a point to let me 2nd's and assistants know I do NOT expect 50 shots of the same thing, I tell them the second most important button is the delete. 10 pictures of bouquets are not trying to get the shot, it's someone not being prepared to take the time to compose 1 picture.<br /><br />That being said, Bob Bernardo, while that's a humorous picture of the guest, why mess with the hot spots?<br />I may be a bit of a stick in the mud here, but investing time in images that the couple may enjoy, but ultimately forget, IMO seems a bit of a waste of time. <br /><br />I concentrate on the 1-200 images that will be considered for the album, walls, and gifts. After that I consider anything with 2 eyes, in focus, game for color correction, and correct exposure and horizon, then I leave it.<br /><br />This is not an attack, but an honest to goodness question, was that wild haired man a close relative or principal at the wedding or just a guest who ultimately won't be part of the memories, just part of the day.<br>

d</p>

<p>Oh, want to include<br>

D700 <br>

24-70mm<br>

1/160th f2.8<br>

Strobes are 3 Alien Bees triggered by Pocket wizards. <br>

**the light is coming in from the sides, further away from the subject, it allows much more diffusion, being less than 20' and using on camera flash, whether pop up or Sb600 doesn't allow the light to expand and fill, try turning the head to the far wall, put it on Manual-Full power and bounce that puppy</p>

<p>Hey Barry, it's been a long time since I've posted, but good for you for taking the plunge and asking for advice.<br>

To start, let me ask what YOU don't like about the picture?<br>

I don't do any fashion work, but do lots of wedding and portrait, I'll see if I can post an image from one of my shows, so a grain of salt will be helpful with what I'm going to try and say.<br>

1. Composition- camera (head) height is below the subjects knees-seems about foot level and you are almost under the subject. You will always get an unflattering shot up the nose this way, think about being another 10 feet back if you must maintain this angle. This angle can work, just google Arnold Schwarzenegger on skis in Aspen, it's a heroic angle, but it requires a heroic pose..this subject isn't there, they are sort of smiling, with eyes half open and arms hanging at the side, I'd watch the subject, see what they are doing and anticipate some element of movement, something interesting for the viewer to experience. Composition makes the art become a statement, even if it's a young adults fashion show.<br>

Second point on composition...tap dead center, little room at the top to show the ceiling tiles (not very attractive, but it is what it is) which if you pull back a bit you may get a geometric pattern to frame some aspect of the subject, I wasn't there, I don't know the particulars of your shooting position.<br>

2. Improvement via Post production (Lightroom) "I'll fix it when I get back" you do know you can hear the groan of all the more seasoned photographers right? Do it right in the camera, not in post. You may start to try and add contrast or sharpness, angles or lack there of, or even clone the curtain over the ceiling. These are all possible, but they all still don't make a silk purse with this particular...ear now does it? <br /><br />3. Lighting- it's flat, seems a bit diffused, whether light sphere or bounced from the ceiling, it's not doing her any favors, fashion, implied or real, is so often about the clothes not the model, you are lighting for the model, not the model in the clothes, I prefer either a bigger amount of light, or a harsher glare of flash as you would expect to see from any fashion show **caveat here, "real" shows have a lot brighter overheads which reduce any flash to a fill..you have no control over how this show was lit"<br>

4. How to improve...#1 patience, #2 make another 10000 bad images and THEN see what happens, #3 Look at work you want yours to look like, study it, look at the shadows, the angles, the positions #4 Recognize that photography is in the eye of the photographer, not the computer #5 inverse to #4 post production is inevitable in photography, the goal is so it doesn't look as though it has been altered. #6 Finally, work with others who do what you like, the way you like it, do anything to get involved with their studio, listen, learn, absorb, repeat....always repeat</p>

<p>Good Luck,<br>

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

<p>Different perspective,<br>

Question first, from which angle are you trying to direct the light? Bounced from ceiling? wall? or direct flash (or fill) or diffused with something like a gary fong light sphere?<br>

-to respond to the first two with bounced light, I aim for the nearest wall, if it's far away, I put flash to full power, manual, and pump up the ISO to about 1600 (I use a Nikon D700) max out at 2500 for ISO. If you have an assistant they can hold a bounce card/scrim, but this is hugely ungainly and an impediment to the fun, so do that carefully.<br>

I don't do direct flash, and if your metering is trying to fill in spots either light or dark, you're going to have problems. Diffused flash tends to be more consistent, but IMO still looks like direct light during a photo.<br>

Is there anyway you can get 2/3 flashes and get them up off the ground and aimed at your subject? Radio Poppers/Pocket wizards, etc to fire those strobes at a general area, or bounce from an 9-15' ceiling will help with all but the largest reception sites, an higher of a ceiling, you can't bounce, you might think a diffusion sphere aimed at the center of the room.</p>

<p>Finally, other than the Bride and Groom first dance, or parents of, there is an awful lot of overshooting by new wedding photographers at the reception. Really, after 6 pictures of waving hands in the air like they just don't care, people really stop caring about those.<br>

There are of course, notable exceptions during the reception, Hora, Parent dance, cake, bouquet and garter as well as important interaction of the principles, but for all of those, my advice, beyond what I've said about the flash, is to sit and wait for the shot to come to you, or position yourself in the most advantageous position relative to what you are trying to get done. Very true much of the reception is off the reservation when it comes to planning it out, but there are ebbs and flows you will see, like timing the swaying of the couple in front of you with the music so you can focus on the b/g dancing together, then fire the camera (and flash) when the couple in front of you sways to the side.<br>

Good luck.</p>

 

<p>Ditto again with what Marc said, if you are that popular it's time to raise rates.<br>

Also, hire someone to do post production, that's a really important step too.<br>

Before you say, "but I have to control the output" I cry foul, do you think ANY movie director does every aspect of their work...i.e. Steven Spileberg does NOT do the editing, or the post<br>

If you think photography is different, go and visit any higher end photographers studio and look at the army of people they employ to keep their "vision" intact and consistent.<br>

Can't afford post production staff? go back to what Marc said, it's the difference between being a professional photographer with a business and a really good photographer with a hobby.</p>

 

<p>Little late coming to this party Rocky, keep this in mind, depending on how many vendors are at this show, your work, your albums, everything will be forgotten due to information overload, you must instead make an IMPRESSION.</p>

<p>You want clients to be impressed and to remember you.<br>

So,<br>

1. Be prepared to talk to someone as long as the conversation seems shared, don't pitch them, connect with them, they will remember people they can be friends with, not someone who politely hands them a card and moves them off quickly<br>

2. Be aware you can't talk to everyone and the law of diminishing returns is very much in affect here. Communicate, and talk. Do NOT try to talk to as many as you can, instead make an impression to people who want to talk with you...with a few caveats..that person who just wants to talk and talk about things not related to photography, they can be politely shuffled to the side.<br>

3. Remember the contact information thing is important, but they may not want to give it, they know they will be bombarded, and people don't answer the phone of numbers they don't know. Figure a way to work in the question about sending them a text. People don't read emails with lots of info from someone they don't know, won't listen to messages from mystery numbers, but they WILL glance over a text...this dear friends, is the new way to connect to your potential clients, the least intrusive, and the most visibility.<br>

4. DON'T CALL, you risk being a pest and you know what? Lots of people call, it's annoying to them, how will they separate the persons calling after the event any better than with business cards..<br>

I get about 50% of my weddings from bridal shows, I'm a full time wedding photographer, so I do practice what I preach and it's been very successful, I hope it's the same for you!<br>

Best,<br>

Daniel</p>

<p>I guess the question for me is "do you really need the money that badly" I can see absolutely no other reason to take 1/3 of what you normally charge, which I'm guessing if your new to the industry with 3 years and 35 weddings is about what...? $900-1200? So they want to pay between $300-500 right?</p>

<p>So what you're saying is that what you do can be distilled down to an hourly rate, for say $50 an hour.<br>

I hate to say it, this client couldn't care less about your artistic vision or skill, they want a monkey with a camera and would be happy, or unhappy, with anyone.<br>

They will say they can't afford it, and they may have hit the outside of their budget, but you know, they could pay your full cost, and cut the bar from the wedding and ask their friends to bring beer and wine. ...(or the food) obviously that's not going to happen so they will ask you to just shoot and burn.</p>

<p>Change the title to Creative Client Consultant, and see how that works.</p>

 

<p> Alex DC is correct, the bride I work with, and him, book us based upon referrals by high end event planners, that demographic knows the difference between a one stop shop and hiring a professional.<br>

As for asking the chain about portfolios, they will show a generic bunch of great wedding pictures, most likely culled from stock photo, and then the business model will break down because brides will want to meet the photographer-not all but many.<br>

Then this business model goes "Bella" meaning they will have a cattle call out for photographers, and those who will answer, "don't want to market or sell" meaning weekend warriors.<br>

I simply don't want a client, and let's face it won't ever get one, who simply wants to get it all done in one fell swoop. What I (we) do is considerably different, and will last longer than the bricks in their house.<br>

As for competing on price, you can't, you never will. There will always be someone cheaper than you, offering more, making better promises. The business that competes on price will be out of business in this sector. </p>

 

<p>Folks, while I'm all for a new Nikon set, nobody, and I mean NOBODY knows when "soon" is for the release of the next Nikon series.<br>

That being said, Full frame for weddings-the noise, the speed of the focus and size of the print more than make the argument for why to move up to full frame.<br>

Can you do the same thing on a crop frame? yes and no, you could back up 30% further for the same scene in wide angle, or photograph every portrait in landscape position and crop down.<br>

As the happy owner of 2 D700's, (and 2 D200's and a d7000) I reach for them every time, BUT, I would trade one of them and the d7000 for aD3s-the low light focusing ability is even BETTER then the D700, no real fan of the dual card slots-it's nice, but eh, I haven't had problems with CF cards<br>

Which, if the new nikons are SD, I'll be looking to buy everybody's D3s and have a stockpile of those until something better then SD cards are available, to flimsy, to persnickety, give me Compact flash every time.</p>

<p>just my thought!</p>

 

<p>That is very sad, while never having met him, I'm very familiar with his work and teachings.<br>

Our lights burn a little dimmer today</p>

<p>Jasmine Star-She updates regularly has lots of inspirational stuff to say, her work won't change the photographic world, but she photographs "romantically" and I really like that<br>

Michelle Lindsay Photography-she was in Boston until recently Vail-beautiful, beautiful work<br>

Joe McNally-not a wedding photographer, god no, but one of the bestest and very inspirational<br>

Pixelated Images-David DuChemin, keeps my feet grounded, shows that I always have to round out the edges.<br>

Bob and Dawn Davis-married wedding photogs and all gooshy about each other and first rate photographers.<br>

As for my own...thank you Vail, you're making me blush, I personally am trying very hard to remove the "me" from my pictures and experience, and make it more about my subjects, their experiences and their wedding day stories.<br>

United with Love, a great blog that takes submissions from all over the place.<br>

Creative Live kicks butt because of the warmth and generosity of their presenters.</p>

<p>I am also moving very much into my local photographer friends work, I like to see what's been done, and read their thoughts....you know, get into their head</p>

 

<p>Martin, I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't be happy that luck was on your side. I just don't see any real acknowledgement that skill and craft were part of the results.<br>

That being said, and this is important.<br>

1. I haven't seen the photos<br>

2. I haven't seen the photos<br>

3. Did I mention 1&2?<br>

You may be a hands down great wedding photographer, and I'm hoping that your post is more a metaphorical wiping of the brow and saying "damn I was lucky" as David suggests but there is something that the more seasoned of us worry may be "damn, why all the fuss?" I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because<br>

4. I haven't seen the photos</p>

<p>Hmm, as a friend who wasn't going to be held to the same standard as someone paid, and contracted, I'm going to offer respectfully, that the bar was held pretty low.<br>

Crying at ones wedding photographs is a good thing, but hardly a portfolio review. I will NOT say the client shouldn't be happy. I would say that YOU shouldn't be satisfied. Nadine is right, Murphy had his own destination wedding, or was tired from causing 200+ brides on the Eastern seaboard to have to cancel their weddings due to Hurricane Irene.<br>

I've said it many times. I'd rather be lucky then good,</p>

<p>but when luck isn't around, I want good in my back pocket.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Worked with Bella for years, as a company they started out with the tag to hire photographers. "Created by photographers..for photographers" they paid well, offered generous flexibility in their business. Essentially they did a portfolio review, Bob Davis, one of the original founders was on the board.<br>

Fast forward, the 411-<br>

1. They pay between 50-75/hour depending on the depth of the photog pool in your area, bigger pool smaller $$<br>

2. They do NOT require any kind of non-competes or that sort of thing, they DO require you to go to one of their giant "certification" classes<br>

3. They do NOT want you to shoot jpeg instead of RAW, they want the export in jpeg<br>

4. as A.Davis points out, they do minimal processing which results in some pretty lame images.<br>

5. They hire a number of budding photographers, and if you want a lot of shots (at a lot of shots) at some decent to very good locations, this is a good place to start<br>

6. They got hammered in the wedding boards about not allowing photogs to meet with their clients, they have updated that process a bit.<br>

7. Their original business model was to NOT respond to clients who were going to spend less than $25K on their wedding in total, their lowest package used to be over $3K, NOW they get a large budget clientele with their Studio Blue side business, $800-$1800 for wedding day coverage...yeah this cuts into the Craigs list market in a big way.<br>

8. More is more with their mindset, they would love a ton of pictures as they cull and chip away at whatever you send...which by the way is now by FTP<br>

9. I haven't shot a wedding with them in a couple of years, but I do stay on their mailing list and get all of the information I just shared with you updated about every 6 months or so.<br>

10. Their entire pitch now is based on the fact, that "You just can't trust your private photographer to show up now can you?" give some horror stories about clients missing the photographer who skipped town. Then they say they GUARANTEE a photographer, as if the car accident happening to their photographer (god forbid) on the way to the venue is somehow connected to their switchboard. They make the client paranoid about their money getting away, and at the price point I mention, that's not hard.</p>

<p>They deliver an honest product and have been in business for a while, they just aren't the arthouse they purport themselves to be. Lots of subcontract, part time, weekend photogs who want a shot or some extra beer money. <br>

Any client looking to spend more than $3-5K now wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole.<br>

and yes, they are making a huge push for more photographers because the cyclical nature of what they do needs constant replenishing.<br>

<br />Oh, one other thing, they don't give raises, ever..they changed this after 2009 and never went back.<br>

If you're a pro, enjoy the weekend, if you are a newbie, this is a great place to practice</p>

 

<p>I'm not sure if it's a malfunction with the AF, generally I've found that low, low light plays havoc with focus, even the best wedding photogs will have their assistants hold a flashlight on their subjects for outdoor and night portraits where the light is not sufficient for a af sensor to lock on. In the Nikon, there is a setting for a modeling light to assist, I use to think it a pain, but I'd rather have a little light shining then tons of out of focus stuff.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that sunset, the best images that is, are when the sun is down below the horizon. It's called "nautical twilight" its the time when the sun is more than 5 degrees below the horizon. It's at this time that the sky is more colorful and you aren't battling against a bright source.<br>

Be aware that the sun falls quickly so you had best do a test shot or two with a stationary guest or assistant.<br>

Best bet is to set up the strobe on light pole, with softbox-held by assistant. if you can create a gobo around the light to focus it on the couple, that's the best. just a little beam of light. have your assistant hold the light pole...**tell them to hold it from the most expensive part....the flash itself" if your assistant knows how to dial down the power then call out those adjustments during the shoot.</p>

<p>What will be hard is if they are in the gazebo, which I encourage you to get them to avoid, it creates a huge technical difficulty and is usually best played as an abstract geometrical point. However if you must use the gazebo, go inside with them, and either bounce the flash off the wall behind you to soften up the light, or have the assistant to hold the light. What makes the sunset fill flash successful is when it surrounds the subject in a delicate directionless glow. I've seen tons of harsh fill flash because of lights set to high power, or just to dang close to the subject.<br>

Remember, you want to expose for the sunset, a little dark is better than a little light, and use the flash to illuminate the couple smoothly. Again, this is a situation that all portrait photographers are familiar with when battling for time.. set up a model to pose in the light, make adjustments, insert couple, remember the falling light may want you to raise the power of the strobe..don't, increase ISO, or slow the shutter speed, keep the light constant.<br>

Good luck, and post those results.</p>

<p>My input is that you would be better off contracting a professional who knows these places, work with one business rather than involve 3 work flows, three contracts and three sets of expectations. It may prove to be more pricey, but I truly doubt it.</p>

<p>I have to simply change my name to "what Nadine said" it might be faster.<br>

My question to the original photographer "what does it matter?" I mean really? Sure it's bad form to a degree for the "sidekick" to post, but I'm not sure it harms anyone's bottom line. I mean do you think there's a lot of work out there for photographers who show lots of work where the couple is looking elsewhere?<br>

Are there print sales or album sales that went to this other person, that would somehow have been sold to the b/g were those other pictures not in existence?<br>

My belief is that the other photographer just is missing the etiquette and having known the b/g felt that they were expressing their affection for them. Guests are there because they love our clients, they were invited to be a part of their day, they are not nuisances to our profession. They may stand in the way, take their own pictures and jack up the timeline, but they are not, in any way shape or form trying to be in our way. This person may very well be trying their own hand as a wedding photographer, one day they will know the same situation, they will hopefully remember and be chagrined, or not. It is just another aspect in the time in which we live. Adapt, overcome, and our craft will improve because of it.<br>

At least I believe that,<br>

d</p>

<p>Nadine, I'm going to say not to use a door, use a body, where the curves forward and back don't represent a single surface. With a door that's straight and white, you're getting a flat return of the light, this will influence your outcome vs a bride in a gown.<br>

It may be I'm assigning an effect to an event that isn't accurate in my verbiage, but I do think in terms of reciprocity, and btw, I'm not assiduously insisting on 1/4000th-8000th, but a variation based upon the needs of the scene. I will vary between 1/1000th and 1/4000th most often in sunlight in this region.<br>

Again this is meant as to avoid using fill flash, which I find more often then not, less then aesthetically pleasing, that's for certain my axe to grind, but I will say that I am pleased with the results. I've a wedding in the sunlight tomorrow. I'll throw up a few and maybe we can figure out what I'm doing, catalog it and provide another tool in everyone's bag.<br>

Deal?<br>

Thank you WW and Nadine lively topic, though quickly veering off I might say. I hope I can post you both shortly.<br>

d</p>

<p>Reciprocity failure, that's what I was looking for William.<br>

As for the person, I observed the data, copied it, repeated it many times, same outcome.<br>

Scratched my head<br>

Went back to "The Negative" tried to make heads or tails<br>

Arrived with the Digital Reciprocity that you, much more eloquently and succinctly btw, put together here.<br>

I'm sure I merely rediscovered the wheel, but it's been accurate each time I call on it.<br>

Now if I could depend on my batteries that way.</p>

 

<p>Just to be clear, Sarah, you seemed to have done absolutely everything I would and I applaud you for your tenacity. it's a credit to our profession.<br>

As to being cheeky about the email and the hacking, c'mon I was just being cheeky.</p>