gene_b

I had a similar dilema and I decided to wait for the D3x with increased MP. I am not doing this because I need more than 12MP for the wedding work but because of potentially being able to use the new higher MP camera in DX format and get the 12MP that would allow for nice enlargements and crops. This way I can use the camera with whatever lenses I need whenever I need them. Switch to the 20-25MP for fine art work, large portraits, landscapes, commercial work, etc.

In my opinion the D3x is worth waiting for.

Jenny, why are you talking about club DJs here? Look at the top of this page and you will see that is says "Wedding and social events photography"... You can use a large format camera film too and the results will be spectacular but they stopped using those cameras at weddings sometime in the early 1900!!!

 

About your comment that it's very hard for some people to save up enough money to go with upgraded (read: digital) equipment, when they can spend their money as they have it learning film again that is extremely shortsighted. I just checked B&H for prices:

 

Canon Rebel film camera = $259.

 

Nikon D40 Digital = $499.00

 

We are talking here about a $240 difference which is about 15-20 rolls of film developed at a cheap lab. You easily can go through 15 rolls of film in a weekend of shooting. After that you will keep paying again and again and again for more film and before you know it you will be spending several times the amount you would have spent on a digital camera.

 

If money is really tight you can always get a great used Nikon D70 (great camera to learn on) for about $330!!! Don't tell me you do not have the extra $70!!!

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-D70_W0QQitemZ300150054320QQihZ020QQcategoryZ107912QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

I always wondered why do people who do not have money make such poor financial decisions? I guess the answer is in my question: people who make poor financial decisions do not have money.

 

Brandy, do not be one of them.

On second thought, you are right Jim, let her suffer! We did it so should she! Why would she have the luxury of looking at the data attached to her shots and get an instant result when she can wait a good few days? Why would she spend just a few hours understanding the "complex" relationship between f stops, shutter speeds and above all the... ISO?

 

She should spend all her spare money on film and developing and waste weeks learning a little at a time, getting frustrated, etc. She should take the film can out of the one camera she has to change ISO too when she shoots indoors and swap it again when she goes outdoors. You really gave her good advice! That will teach her to want to learn! Like I said, she should suffer like we did! That will build character... Yeah Brandy, we urge you to do that! Nothing worthwile should come easy even if we need to get complicated for no reason.

 

And Jenny, what in the world are you talking about? "real DJ's still use vinyl!!" WHERE??? When was the last time anyone saw a DJ lugging around 400-500 LPs at a wedding??? What you may refer to is club DJs that still use vinyl for live mixing and scratching. We are not talking about clubs here, we are talking wedding DJs.

You seem to know that your decision to buy a film camera was a bad one but you justify it by telling us (and yourself I am sure)that you did it for budgetary reasons.

 

Unfortunately your decision to buy a film camera as a learning tool is very shortsighted. You saved maybe less than a couple of hundred dollars by not buying a digital body but you will be spending twice that amount on film and processing in the next few months if you are serious about learning photography. In addition, the learning process will be very unsatisfying and painfully slow because of the time it will take to develop the film and process the prints. Furthermore, you will not have easily available one of the most important tools in learning photography, your exact settings for every shot, unless of course you run around with a notepad and write down the information on every shot you take. Take the film camera back and save for an entry level DSLR.

 

Yes, there is nothing wrong with film, I shot film for 25 years but this is 2007 and there are much better tools to learn the craft of photography than myself and others like me had available to us decades ago.

 

You just bought yourself a nice cassette player to start a music collection instead of an mp3 player.

Epson R380 is a great low volume CD/DVD printer. $80 at amazon.com!

 

http://www.amazon.com/Epson-Stylus-Photo-Inkjet-Printer/dp/B000I98XZC

This is actually funny: "we are coming back home for the great day , his actually from the Uk while am from the states". So you got a Brit and a Yank going "home to Calgary"... LOL!!!

 

This cracks me up: "we want you to try and be understanding as regards the prices cos its not really easy to organise occasions like this especially when you are making all the arrangements from abroad"...

 

Can you hear the nigerian accent?

"Flash drives also have a limited number of write cycles before failure."

 

... yes that's true, you can only write and erase about 100,000 times...

Peg, let him also know that the basil (fawlty) mode always works better than the manuel one for this "cammeras".

 

:)

David, I am sorry to be so blunt in this post but you may thank me some day. If the pictures you have in your gallery are an indication of the extent of your expectations it may be wise to hire a real photographer. Years from now you will look at those pictures and you will know what I am talking about. Don't go cheap on what may be the most treasured pictures of your life. It's not the equipment that makes a photographer, it's the artistic eye and the experience that from the few examples I saw need a lot of help.

El Fang, I just love the example you are showing. Beautiful work! This is EXACTLY what I was talking about! Is it video, is it photography? Who cares? The end result is a great way to tell a story. I guess that everything else is irrelevant.

El Fang, your paper only makes you carry both video and still cameras because your Canon is not good enough yet to shoot 25-30 frames per second and your Sony is not good enough to capture 12MP frames. It's just a matter of time before the line between the two will blur and they will become one. It's called the future and it will be here before you know it. The beauty of this is that you will not have to be confined to a single end product, a photograph or a video. you will be able to get both and more.

 

 

 

 

I beg to differ. I use today a camera that shoots 8 frames per second. Why do I need this? Because there are times when you want to capture a moment that comes at you in a fraction of a second and unless you have the luxury of time to go back and stage the shot capturing video at 12mp per frame at 25 or 30 fps would be wonderful. Your paper makes you cary two cameras just because the Sony is not there yet in terms of quality and the "frame grab" looks like a "frame grab". Thank you taking the time to explain what a frame grab is, you know what I was refering toand any grabbed stills would not look that good. Now imagine your Canon taking 35fps... would you still need to cary the Sony DV?

Great post Todd! I see the move to high end video such as the Red cameras becoming the norm for wedding and event photography in the near future (5-6 years). The use of PL lenses will make the industry so much more exciting and will open huge creativity doors.

 

There will always be still photography used for portaits, print, product, advertising, etc. but for wedding photography the still photography days seem limited to me. The future looks bright and we should embrace it and look forward to it. There are those that keep saying that the digital cameras are a fad and film is still king but those are the same guys that still buy vinyl records for their better sound quality.

 

Frame grab at 4520x2540 is not really a frame grab anymore is it, El Fang? And Ken, why is it so hard to believe that storage of about 200GB per hour of video is so hard to come by? Even with today's technology that would be relatively inexpensive.

 

Gene

Wow! Now I am speechless!

 

:)

Mark, I got a $500 budget for photography wedding. Would you shoot it for me? No? I didn't think so. Then why should we create all these false expectations in the consummers's mind that great solid professional photography can be done for that kind of money? Even Tom, Dick and Mary from central Alberta have to make enough money to pay for their shiny new cameras let alone pay their rent, buy their insurance, cover travel expenses, do post production work, buy computers, software, etc., etc,. from it.

 

I agree that paying $2000 for a 5 hour shoot and burn is not a guarantee of great photography but at least it should bring them closer to their expectations for the end product. People are educated enough not to walk into a Mercedes dealership with a $200/month payment budget and expect to drive off in a shiny new car. Why should they expect our industry to work any different?

I just looked around the web and saw some decent photographers in your area charging much less than in LA or NY but still in the $1800-$2000 to start. Also if photography is very important to you and you cannot find a local good photographer available, you could hire someone you love and reimburse them for travel expenses. There is a large number of great photographers that will travel to your event.

 

Regarding the scrapbook, I have to disagree with you. The scrap book is something cute and by definition amateurish in nature. You say that you "hwant to tell a story" with your scrap book. Well you won?t see any good photographers offering heirloom scrapbooks because they can and do tell the story of your special day with their photography and use design skills to put together your album and print the end product using professional services that do cost more but will last you generations. Professionally printed photographs are supposed to last 100-150 years while prints printed on a consumer printer will last 2-3 years before fading changing colors etc., etc. That is ok if you use them in scrap books and the pictures you got for your $500 are just perfect for such use. Not that good if you are aiming for a classy, artistic and professional look.

 

One more thing, the "professional" photograph you posted as one used in a scrapbook is really not that great. It's a beautiful location (reminds me of St.Martin in the Caribbean) but it has the same amateurish look. The slanted look may be the photographer?s attempt to take a "hip" photojournalistic style shot but it is taken at a very unflattering angle for the bride (she looks HUGE to the point of making the viewer feel sorry for the poor groom holding her).

The answer to your question is YES! $500 to cover a full wedding is cheap anywhere unless you work in New Delhi, or you are doing it as a hobby. Looks like you got the guy with the hobby.

 

I thank you for posting here. My hope is that other brides will read this and get it. If you want pictures for a scrap book, you hire the $500 guy. Between him and the disposables from the tables you'll get plenty of snapshots to print on your home printer and glue in your book.

 

If you want artistic, professional photography that your great grandkids will look at and go "wow", do not look at the price first. Fall in love with a photographer's work then ask for the price and pay it.

 

Out of curiosity, what is your area...?

I think that the best lesson you get from this is that you usually get what you pay for. I looked at your pictures and was going to criticize the photographer for doing some really sloppy work then I read your next post that stated you paid $500 for the whole job!!!

 

If you are willing to trust the most valuable memories of your life to someone that charges $500, you have about the same right to complain as someone buying a used Yugo who is mad because the car does not come with a factory navigation system!

 

I have been reading a lot in this forum about how someone can get lucky and land excellent photography for close to nothing. I strongly disagree. You don't! What you get is either someone who is so bad that only people who do not care about photography hires them or you get an "up and coming" talented photographer that may have a good eye and can take some nice shots but is very inexperienced and will most likely screw up a lot of what may be considered "must have shots".

 

To sum it up, I think you got just about what you paid for. Don?t blame the photographer. Blame yourself for going cheap.

Geez! It looks like a lot of people have been spending way too much time around lawyers and forgot what common sense is. Someone even said you should provide the pics to the florist because they are EVIDENCE! Evidence of what? Of slander??? That post would be quite laughable if it was meant as a joke... or WAS IT???

 

Eric, this is really simple: you have a contract to the B&G. Period. Anyone else that wants pictures you took to use against your client can have them too. All they need is a simple document called a subpoena. If they get one, you give them the pictures. It's that simple. You cannot ride the fence on this one. You have to pick a side and unless you are going into the florist business you should remain loyal to your customers. Don't forget that whatever the florist did or didn't do on the day of the wedding made your own job a lot harder taking pictures of an overstressed bride instead of a calm, happy and relxed one.

Do not stress about it too much. I am sure you will do a good job because you seem to really care and will try your best. Even if your pictures do not come up perfect, they get what they pay for and by their comments it looks like they really do not care about photography at all. paying for a reception for 130 people and not budgeting anything for a photographer should tell you how much they appreciate photography. I would take the comment about not taking pictures at the reception "because we have disposables on the tables" as an insult as it pretty much assumes your pictures would not be any better so why waste time covering that area too.

 

Just do what you are comfortable with in terms of shooting techniques. Trying something new may backfire. And remember, if you do better than what guests with a disposable camera would do, you will do great :)

At first glance it may look like you have a point Alec but please note that I suggested Jan to buy a nicely designed template she can afford instead of paying for a similar "one of a kind" site designed from scratch just for her by a good designer. A nice site costs at least $8,000-$10,000 to build while the same site designed by the same graphics designer would cost just $200-$300 or even less as a template. Granted, there might be another photographer that will use the same template for his/her studio in Perth, Reykjavik or Vladivostok but since templates can be easily customized, the chance of her customers running into the same exact site, especially in her area are slim to none.

 

For web designers selling templates they already created is a lucrative business. There are not that many customers out there that can afford the $10k sites but they can make a decent residual income from selling duplicates for a lot less of the same site they already worked on and created.

 

Templates for graphics designers are a lot like pictures of guests we shoot at weddings that they get to buy for $10 and we are glad to sell them a dozen copies if they want. They get something very nice for what would cost them $200-$300 in sitting fees alone if they would have hired us separately just to shoot a portrait of them. So it's not really "sauce for the goose" as you call it, it's more like... gravy for the designer :)

Jan, you don't need to spend a small fortune for a decent site. There are a lot of good flash templates out there you can buy that will give you a professional look. You do not need to get an expensive hosting company, you can get decent hosting these days for about $100/year. Remember that your site will also represent your graphic design eye and talent and someone looking at your site can imediately form an opinion of you and your photography skills. That said, I just had a look at Dave's site, the one that "gets over 20,000 vists a month, and 80% of the people that visit bookmark it" and I can see how one may draw the conclusion that he will show up on the wedding day with a 1.3 megapixel, 11 year old point and shoot camera. Sorry Dave, but my eyes are still hurting...

Thank you all for your great recommendations. I guess one of these days I'll have to go scouting some of the locations you mentioned.

Graphi is it for me. I cannot find anyone to even come close to their quality.

Bill - Santa Monica is nice but a bit far from OC and not really a perfect "beach" location for pictures. Thank you for the suggestion to just go west but here in California we are a bit spoiled and what I was are looking for was something a bit nicer than the mere definition of a beach (end of land, beginning of water).

 

Susan - I shot many times at Little Corona and though it is a perfect beach location with a lot of nice rocks, sand etc., it is very crowded with photographers in late afternoons during the "golden hour". One time I must have counted 8-10 sessions going on at the same time. Though it never happened to me I heard that they are cracking down on photography permits lately just because this location is so popular.

 

I never shot at the Montage yet. You mention that parking may be an issue. Where is the beach access? Would it make sense to park the car at the resort and walk to the beach?

 

I used to shoot a lot at Victoria Beach and the location was simply ideal, nice sandy beach, great rocks, castle looking building right on the rocks (actually a beach access staircase for the owners of the house up on the cliff) however in the past 6 months the beach eroded so much it is practically impossible to reach the rocky area. Too bad because it was also not a very well known location and rarely I saw other photographers there.

I am looking for new beach locations for engagement photos in Orange County

California. Anyone knows any good ones out there?

 

Gene