ian_cooke1

Great thoughts everyone.

 

<p>

Mary, I actually said "a few years <i>or so</i> ago".... there's no definitive date as you

imply. It's been an 'evolution' I guess maybe from about 16 years ago up to "a few years"

ago.

<p>

I also love what Marc said. Observing "human emotion and interation"... Capturing the

real stories and moments are what it's about. The poses, the lighting, the photoshopping,

etc.. are all enhancements to the real deal. <p>

I think when a photographer is able to "dig deep" enough (of themselves and with the

couple), that's when those magical, real moments and expressions of emotions are able to

come out and be captured consistently. That is the type of photography I enjoy most...

the "real life" images... <p>

...What I'd like to see is for photographers to explore their own styles more and create

unique interpretations, but all the while remembering what it's really about.

I'm sure quite a few people on this wedding forum are familiar with the old traditional styles of posed

wedding photography with all of the standard looking formal portraits... and most other photos derived

directly from a standard "shot list"... very 70's / 80's looking wedding photography... maybe not all

wedding photography was like that... but mostly that's what was out there.<p>

Fast forward to a few years or so ago..... a somewhat different style of wedding photography began

gaining popularity and became more of the main stream. Maybe this was because of a younger generation

of photographers shooting weddings, or because of the advent of digital photography, or because people

just got tired of the traditional styles, or some combination of the above. In any case, wedding

photography started becoming somewhat "cool" or at least "more cool" (I'm not saying it wasn't already

cool) and more popular. Obviously there's a lot of people wanting to shoot weddings these days so the

popularity (as well as ease of entry) seems to have risen.

<p>

My point..... We moved from generic traditional poses and shot lists to (arguably) more creative, unique

and photojournalistc style of wedding photography. However... are we perhaps coming full circle? The

majority of wedding photographers are shooting with Canon DSLRs, processing images with the same or

similar Photoshop Actions, sharing ideas, copying each other's techniques and ideas for shots....<p>

...It's all good, but I wonder if people have become more interested in copying another photographer's

"look" instead of developing their own unique style (which everyone has in them). When I look around at

wedding photographer websites, I see so many people with the same compositions, set up shots, poses,

and overly Photoshopped images, they all start looking like bad imitations of each other. I've gotten a

little tired of all the overly saturated, high-contrast, vignetted, textured images I see every day. I'm not

saying it's all like this. There are definately some very creative and talented photographers doing original

stuff and excellent candid and documentary style work. But there is a lot of imitation going around. And

most of the people who claim to be "photojournalistic" are really not. <p>

Whether the set up shots are old-school traditional Monte Zucker style poses or "modern" 2007 style

poses... if anything is overdone it will start looking cheezy and boring..... <p>

So where do we go from here?

Photo Mechanic will let you download multiple cards simultaneously from multiple card

readers (up to 4, I think). You can have it copy all the images to the same folder, while it

renames them all and takes care of duplicate filenames for you. It's also possible to copy

everything to 2 different locations so you have an immediate backup on a different hard

drive... I just load up the cards and let it go instead of babysitting each card individually.

It's really sweet and a nice time saver.

This may be too general of a question with too wide a range of results (dependent upon location, personal

priorities, bank accounts, etc.), but I was wondering what percentage of a bride's budget is typically

allocated to photography. I've seen a couple of "guidelines" on other websites, but am curious as to what

some photographers might think... 5%, 10%, 20%...?

I use Photo Mechanic and it is an integral part of my workflow. It is simply the FASTEST

image browser around. Bridge, Lightroom, Aperture... don't even come close. For me, it's

definately the fastest way to edit a shoot that contains thousands of images.<p>

On top of that, I can download multiple CF cards simultaneously from multiple card

readers... to 2 different hard drives (immediate backup)... and at the same time have the

files renamed to my filenaming convention. All that in one step, instead of having to

manage downloading each card one-by-one and then sort / rename everything

afterwards. Saves me a probably an hour or two each shoot with the work that I do just in

these initial steps... on top of the faster editing I can do. For me, it was well worth $150

for all the time I've gained. <p>

To answer the original question, yes, the latest version of PM has a compatible rating

system with Bridge. You have to enable writing to XMP files if your dealing with RAW

images though. For JPG, it obviously writes directly to the JPG file.

Not a good situation. You should learn to book clients that want to book you. If you are

desparately chasing after clients as you did in this case, then there are big problems with

your business model.<p>

For all you know, the contract has been signed by both of you. One might be able to argue

that you are committed to providing services. If that happens to be the case, you need to

show up ready to shoot. Or do something to make sure you are in the clear.

AA's :-)

 

<p>

PowerEx rechargables are good.

<p>

Why does it matter if you use a 5D or any other camera?

Stills from a video camera are not up to the quality of regular cameras. I've seen that advertised at a bridal shows and the guy had albums and prints from images taken from video... pixelated and not very good quality, but maybe good enough for some brides.

This may sound strange, but I'm wondering if anyone knows of a resource online

for "real" wedding photography horror stories... actual stories (anonymous or

not) where the bride & groom hired some beginner or shady photographer, ended

up with bad photos or some bad experience, and looking back they regret not

hiring a capable professional. <p>

Anyone know of a website like that?

<p>

I don't want this to sound like I in any way take pleasure from that type of

thing happening. Quite the contrary. But I recently had a few people ask me

why wedding photography costs so much and why they should hire an expensive

photographer when they could have one of their friends/relatives shoot it. I

don't think they ever really "got it" even after I tried to explain. I also

read the occasional thread here on this forum about some bad experience from a

bride or a photographer, but I don't know of a way to search and have all

those come up.<p>

I know there's no way to avoid poor photography, but it would be helpful, I

think, to be able to point brides to a reliable source of actual "true

stories" and real examples that make them think twice about investing in an

experienced photographer.

Sounds a bit sketchy to just "crash" a wedding. I would at least talk with the hired photographers to make sure it's okay with them. Seems like there are better ways to practice, such as shooting other events, portrait shoots, etc. where you would have more freedom to experiment.

Another resource... <a href="http://www.fotoquote.com/fq-overview.html" target="blank">http://www.fotoquote.com/fq-overview.html</a>

Her <br>

-got the client lead<br>

-handling the booking<br>

-taking care of an assistant<br>

-letting you use some gear<br>

-doing all the post production<br>

<p>

You<br>

-shooting the wedding.<br>

-handing over files<br>

-wanting and getting for more experience and portfolio material

<br>

<br>

It depends a lot on how it is your market, as well as the amount of time and travel you'll

do, but for a $4000 wedding job (in my market), I think you should

ask for $600 to $800 max. if you are producing excellent shots right out of the camera.

<p>

You say you've done second shooting, but have you shot a wedding on your own? I've

never done second shooting and jumped right into shooting my own. But I hear that

there's a notable difference between being a second and being the main shooter. Make

sure you can handle it, because it takes more than good camera skills.

As long as they are not rude to you or cause hassles, then why does it matter if you think

she is "henpecking" to the groom? Maybe he likes that sort of thing. <p>

You're just doing a job, and while it might involve a lot of personal contact and

communication, you're not "really" a marriage counselor (although it may seem like we

need to fake it sometimes). Unless you truly don't like these people, then just suck it up

and do the job.<p> I know there are a lot of people here with other sources of income

and the

money isn't as important, but when photography is your family's only source of income,

it's hard to turn down a good day of work. <p>

As a professional, you will have to deal with all sorts of situations and personalities, and

being able to turn the potentially bad ones into good ones will often determine how

successful you will be in the long run.

Hi,<p>

I've been seeing a lot of recent examples of people working with textures in

their wedding & portrait photos. It's not a new thing of course, but seems

rather popular at the moment and kind of like a little trend for now.<p>

Anyway, it's just kind of inspired me to play around a little and I'd be

interested if anyone has any good tips or knows of a good online tutorial for

different techniques on how to do it. <p>

I know it's just layering patterns and/or other photos, playing with the

opacity, the type of layer filter, some selective painting, etc... and I know

like everything in photoshop, there's probably countless methods and

variations, but I'd like to see some great examples and learn some new tricks

from those who are really good at it. Post here or email me. Thanks.

I agree that it is certainly possible, but that you will have to work on developing a very strong and marketable style. The Lacour website is awesome - I haven't seen them before - amazing work. I happen to think some of the people who have replied above have some very strong work also, PJ or not. I think a lot of it has to do with timing... observing, anticipating, waiting for, and capturing those very quick split seconds of magic. Myself, I am far from photojournalistic in my shooting, but it is something I certainly love. <p>

Without repeating the above advice, I would also suggest throwing in a bit of color. Photojournalism doesn't automatically mean classic black & white. And while your black & white processing is decent, but I think could use a bit of "punch". Part of that is the lighting and use of flash. I would recommend seeking out and working with the available light a little more.

Wow Steve, with that kind of competition you must have more clients than you know what to do with and be raking in the dough!

<p>

Frankly, I wouldn't even call that type of work "competition" . Competition is someone who is in the same market and vying for the same clientelle as you are. So maybe you have no "competition" then, which is great! Gee, I sure wish I was in your position!

<p>

<br>

I'm sort of like Anne. I used to mention it a lot, but have stopped. Every once in a while I get asked by someone about how I learned or if I went to school for photography, and then I explain, but I rarely volunteer the information. <br>There's not much point in bragging about how much you know versus what your "competition" doesn't know :-)

Jan,<p>

The advice on the pockets wizards already given is good.<p>

As far as the other lighting questions, it would be helpful, I think, to perhaps post an example image of the type of lighting you would like to achieve as well as in what type of locations & ambient lighting conditions you will be shooting. That will help people here tell you the best way to achieve the desired results.

- "Except when you manually set the lens to it's hyperfocal distance"<p>

 

Well, if one is taking the time to calculate hyperfocal distances in their head then one can

certainly visually judge that distance and autofocus to it as well :-) It might be about as

accurate as using the distance marking on your lens, which many lenses today don't even

have.<p>

It's not "how" you get there, but that you "do" get there, right? Either way, it's still the

hyperfocal point.<p>

Then again, how many event/wedding photographers even know what hyperfocal distance

is, much less make use of it during a wedding or event? Certainly not the original poster.

Even when I used to shoot landscapes, I never really bothered. <p>

Is this hourly rate you speak of for shooting only? Or does it also include post-processing,

travel, and other time? If you book an "8 hour wedding", do you only bill for 8 hours or do

you tack on the time you spend processing images and everything else? If NOT the latter,

then I would say definitely raise your prices. Even $200 and hour is not that much (in most

U.S. cities). Out of curiousity, why bill "by the hour" rather than by a day-rate or package?

<p>

I view one's pricing as not only an indicator of the quality of one's work and their level of

experience, but also an indicator of one's level of confidence in their ability to deliver.

First of all, manual versus auto focus have no effect at all on depth of field. <p>

Second, you need to know that there is ALWAYS just one single plane of focus where your

lens will be focused. Everything else will be out of focus to some degree. The further away

from that plane of focus, the more out of focus it will be. The larger your aperture, the more

out of focus. The closer you are to that plane of focus the more the out of focus areas are

exaggerated because of the relative distances involved.<p>

You have to determine what is "acceptably sharp" for a given subject and set your aperture

accordingly.

I only looked very briefly. My first thoughts were...

<p>

Use bounce and fill flash rather than just pointing directly at the subject at full blast.

<p>

Don't tilt the camera so much.

<p>

Do at least some post-processing to correct the exposures and color.

I believe one would need some insight into your business model in order to give a good answer. For example, how much is the overall wedding package and what is included? Are you providing them any hi-resolution files from the wedding and/or engagement session? Are you planning on making a significant amount on reprints? Have you done 5 weddings or 500 weddings?<p>

Answers to such questions will determine if you should just give them the rights, or charge them some usage fee. If you want to get on their good side because you need the referrals, you may opt to give it for free. If you have a healthy business, you may want to charge them something in line with what you would typically charge for one or more prints (whatever that price may be). <p>

Also consider if you need to do any additional post-processing to prep the image and if you will be doing the printing/design or if they will. Keep in mind also that the image and the quality of the printing will be an indirect form of advertising and reflect good/bad on you.

All I know is that I'm glad I won't be you on that day. After about 8 or 10, it gets to be a

drag. I couldn't imagine 45 ! Do they really need all those shots?

When you start dealing with thousands of photos a week, the "delete" key quickly becomes

your friend :-)

<p>

As I've heard mentioned here before, you'll probably have better luck if you contact your local

photographers directly rather than broadcast an impersonal request on a public forum. If

you are looking for experience and portfolio, then you could also post on craigslist where

you're sure to find some of those $500 or under wedding couples. Just be sure they know

what they'd be getting.