charlene_beckman

I was looking at these a while back, and I would say now the best thing is to go to a store and try both of them out and see how you like the interfaces. I personally liked the Canon interface better but that's probably just bc I'm used to using Canons-- you can see others like the Sony interace better.

 

I actually ended up not going with either of these and bought a G7 instead. Tried it out in the camera store and absolutely fell in love with it; loved it MUCH more than either the H2 or S3. I'd give it a try if I were you... it doesn't have the ultrazoom but it does have a respectable 6x zoom which is enough for most of my needs.

What about Berry Bell, or Berry & Bell, or Bell-and-Berry? I know that was suggested on your other thread and I really like those names... I'm actually kind of jealous that the two of you have such cool-sounding names :)

 

Anyway, if you do go with dejavu (which I don't like nearly as much as some combination of your names) I would say "relive your moment" is the best slogan... all the others don't give the right image, for me, to someone who's still *looking forward* to her/his moment.

I totally like the name Mooselight Photography... but we had a moose and cow on top of our wedding cake, so we're not exactly the norm.

 

I also do think it's a good name for nature photos... though not so much for weddings. So, like others are suggesting, what if you kept it for your other work, and had a new name for your wedding business?

Ow, I'm sorry about that. When my best friend got married she was also annoyed that the photographer didn't get table shots. Our photographer specifically said that they didn't take table shots unless the B&G specifically asked-- so we did.

 

I think a lot of photographers don't really like taking table shots and it is certainly true that our friends and relations didn't come out as particularly flattering in those table pics, and our photographers probably thought they were terrible art, but we absolutely loved them because they were OUR friends and relations. I think photographers may tend to forget that a lot.

Rhonda, I think it is great that you are so enthusiastic! I have to say though (I hope this is not too harsh) that as someone who was recently a bride I would not hire you based on your portfolio on the website.

 

-Some of the pictures seem awfully dark. Do you do any post-processing at all? Even running them through Picasa's "I'm feeling lucky," which would take about two seconds of your time and requires zero knowledge on your part, would I think improve them enormously. If you wanted to mess with them even more in PS that would obviously be fine too.

 

-Totally agree with the poster who said not to post out-of-focus pics. This alone would have made me, as a potential bride, say, "She doesn't know what she's doing; I don't want to hire her." Even if you DO know what you're doing and that pic was just an accident-- don't let us see the accidents!

 

-I agree with the poster who said "too many spot color pics" - the actual portfolio pics seem fine, but the first flash pic that loaded onto the website was spot color, which is a bit much I think.

 

-I don't agree with the poster who didn't like the black background, although I do think that the stylishness of it (if that's what you're going for) is somewhat marred by all the white cheerful text. Also, your pics are more in the "cheerful" mode than the "stylish" mode, so... okay, never mind, I agree with nixing the black background, although I will just note that I HAVE seen wedding websites with that theme and it has worked.

 

-The title of the webpage (the thing that shows up at the top of the browser) was wayyyy too long and had too much superfluous information. Instead of listing everything you do, just say 'Rhonda Jenkins Photography, MD,DC,[whatever, I forget].' They can figure out that you do civil unions and children and whatever, and it's pretty obvious that you are supposed to be not an amateur.

 

-This is really minor, but it's weird to me that some of the pics have both a watermark and a corner copyright marking. Not being a professional, I have no idea if you need both of these, but if you can now get rid of at least one of them the pics would look better to me.

I know that the Canon G6 has a 2.0 lens, but a) it is no longer available new, and b) is a little bulkier than maybe you are looking for (although definitely smaller than an SLR :) ) That's the only one I know of though. (Not to say that there might not be others, and if so I'd like to know as well!)

Amateur. Almost all aperture or manual, split about 50-50, occasionally shutter, never program. I like having control. Often I'll take a pic in aperture mode, be annoyed that it didn't turn out the way I wanted, and retake it in manual.

I am actually in the market for something very similar to what you are looking for-- we've got a film SLR but it's so big and heavy that I usually don't ever lug it around, so I want something that is easily manually controllable (i've got an ELPH that drives me CRAZY because I can't adjust the aperture) but not quite as much trouble.

 

Here are the final contenders where I'm concerned (all Canons, because I've had good luck with them, but other manufacturers have other similar ones). I'm looking at a slightly higher price bracket than you are so maybe the A710 is the only one that is applicable to you?

 

S3 IS: 12x zoom! Takes AA batteries, which I like. Its cousin S2 is cheaper but the S3 has a live histogram which I really like.

 

A710 IS: has a very good price, is very light, and takes AA batteries. I'm only concerned that it's more marketed towards P&S people so doesn't have quite as much support for manual operation as the G-series, e.g., no live histogram. Also if you don't need image stabilization you can go for the A640 which is even cheaper I believe.

 

G7: This is the one I'm leaning towards. It's the most expensive of the lot - $540 US so probably not going to work for you - and doesn't have RAW as the G6 does but otherwise is relatively light and has some cool features and got some pretty good reviews. It has a hotshoe.

 

G6: It's got a faster lens than the G7 - f/2.0 - which I find kind of appealing. And cheaper than the G7 obviously. It also has a hotshoe. You might also consider the other G-series. Does not have image stabilization, unlike all the other cameras on this list, which is a big strike against it where I am concerned.

 

All of these have pretty small lag time, though obviously not as small as an SLR.

 

I'd be interested as well to see what people have to say about these because I too am interested.

Ishmail,

 

I was a future bride looking for photographers a year ago. Your story sounds kind of familiar, actually, as we really "clicked" personally with the first photographer we met with, and we wreally liked their work as well. But we wanted to meet with at least two more to make sure (the other two were also different styles). Sure enough, we met with the other two and although we liked their work, our rapport with the first was great enough that the next day we called them back, set up a second appointment (just to make sure that we really did like their work) and gave a deposit at that second appointment.

 

The point is, I'd agree with the others who said don't push at the meeting. Brides are totally scared of making commitments before they have considered several options-- it's a lot of money! If you have hit it off that well, don't worry, they'll be back.

 

(I think it actually makes MORE sense to shop around with photographers than for a new car. With a new car all Honda Civics are about the same, but with photography both the photographer and the pictures are wildly varying.)

Formals: This may be included in your "B&G" formals, but (speaking from experience as a bride) be sure to get formals of the bride alone, at least one of which is suitable for going in a newspaper. The bride probably doesn't care, but her mom almost certainly does :) You also didn't include groomsmen in your list, but I presume you meant to.

 

We did most of ours before the ceremony, which was a lot more relaxed and which I was really pleased about, and then extended family shots after. But lots of people do all the formals after so B&G don't have to see each other beforehand. Sounds like your couple is pretty laid-back and therefore may not have that issue.

 

Otherwise, sounds great -- good luck!

Honestly, as someone who was born six weeks prematurely, I'd be more worried that some sort of medical thing (like a premature birth) would happen and that you'd miss the wedding, or that due to some complication (are you sure it's not twins?) you would not have the energy to run around as much as a non-pregnant person.

 

...But having a pregnant lady running around taking photos wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

 

congratulations!

<delurks, as finally a question that I can actually contribute to>

 

I just got married, and am probably in your target market, and I can say that photo 1 is the one that would grab me in. Photos 2 and 3 didn't give the same visceral response.

 

I do agree with the other posters that photo 2 is perhaps the most interesting one, but... that's not necessarily what will grab brides' attention. Especially since most of us don't know very much about photography :)