william-porter

<p>The obvious question — the one you're probably asking yourself is: is the camera broken? There's an obvious way to answer that question, too. Switch out of M mode and shoot in your camera's Auto mode, or P. Something to keep in mind.</p> <p>"Chimping" every photo is inefficient and amateurish — but looking <em>now and then</em> is a good idea. Reviewing your shots very quickly when you're done, also a good idea. That way you can catch problems early and make adjustments. Or if you're camera's actually broken, you find out before it's too late.</p> <p>But I suspect that the diagnosis already offered is correct: The shots are grossly underexposed. Of course I have no idea how dark it was in the church but I shoot manual mode pretty much all the time and my in-church manual settings usually START the ISO at 800. 1/40th sec for the exposure might be okay (although I often shoot a slower shutter speed in church because I use image stabilized bodies and because there isn't usually anything going on in church that requires a faster shutter.) But f5.6 also sounds a bit too stopped down.</p> <p>If you're going to shoot in M, you <em>must</em> know how to read the in-camera meter. As a full-manual shooter, one of the things I love about using mirrorless cameras (like the Olympus E-M1 or the Sony A99) is that you can see the exposure in the viewfinder as you're shooting. </p> <p>Will</p>

<p>Tough question. Depends on what one means by "favorite." A favorite could be a lens used frequently because it's high quality and practical. Or it could be a lens that, while perhaps not an everyday lens, still makes one smile.</p> <p>If I think back to my film cameras (Nikon, mostly) as well as the various digital systems I've used (Pentax, Sony and now Olympus), I guess the lens that I have the fondest memories of would have to be the Pentax 40 f2.8 pancake. I remember the first time I used it, to take some photos of my daughter. I put the camera to my eye and she tried to stop me from shooting. "Dad! There's no lens on the camera!" That's how small it was. But it took very nice photos. It was absurdly affordable. And the focal length (60 full-frame equivalency) turned out to be one that I found very congenial. A MUCH bigger lens and much less affordable one but almost equally memorable was the Pentax 135 f2.8, first weatherproof lens I owned and also the first I ever paid more than $1000 for. I remember when I was abandoning Pentax for Sony, an experienced Pentaxian from way back warned me that I might not miss the bodies, but I would miss the lenses. He was right.</p> <p>From the two years during which I used nothing but Sony (including both the wonderful old-school A850 and the impressive but idiosyncratic new-school SLT A99), I owned some very good lenses, but oddly, not a single one comes into my mind right now as especially memorable. The main thing I miss from my Sony phase is the A850. I'm kind of sorry I sold it.</p> <p>And now I'm using Olympus micro four-thirds and loving it. I have owned several completely manual lenses from Rokinon over the last several years, and currently have and prize the 85 f1.4. Using this lens with the mirrorless Olympus E-M1 is easy and very satisfying. I don't use it as often as I'd like as the focal length, on MFT, is longer than I usually want ( = 170mm in full-frame terms). But if I have room to step back, it's terrific for portraits. But the two lenses I use the most and like the most are the Panasonic 14 f2.5 II pancake, and the Olympus 25 f2.8. One of these is on my camera nearly all the time. The Olympus 25 is optically excellent — really one of the best lenses I've ever owned. And the focal length is nearly ideal. The Panasonic 14 f2.5 II is not in the same class optically but I like that wider angle ( = 28 in full-frame terms) and it reminds me of that old Pentax pancake. I switch to other focal lengths as needed, but either the 14 or 25 is on my camera by default and both go with me everywhere.</p> <p>Still, almost every lens has a personality. I am glad to have gotten to know them all!</p> <p>Will</p>

<p>Ed,</p> <p>I don't have my phone on me (or turned on) while I'm shooting an event so I don't worry about this. The odds of something really bad happening aren't zero, but close enough to zero that I don't think about them. </p> <p>I know that these days everybody seems to be "connected" constantly — but I don't find it necessary to live in the 21st century all the time. In addition to turning my phone off (or simply not having it with me) when shooting, I also leave my phone in the car when I go into church, turn it off at dinner, during meetings with clients, etc. </p> <p>Will</p>

<blockquote> <p>Maybe a silly question but how can you tell if this is a full frame camera or not?<br />I will try and actually see about getting that 50mm f/1.4 lens then!<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>Anne,<br /> <br /> Well, what size sensor is in your camera is something that some folks would expect you to know. It's kind of like how many cylinders are in your car engine. If you were a professional driver, this is the kind of info some would expect you to be aware of. But it's okay. It doesn't really have much to do with the quality of the photos you take.<br /> <br /> I had a very strong hunch but I didn't know for sure off the top of my head because I have never shot Nikon digital and can't remember all the models. So I too 2 secs and looked it up. Yours is an APS-C or "DX" or "crop-frame" camera.<br /> <br /> http://www.dpreview.com/products/nikon/slrs/nikon_d3200<br /> <br /> This has various implications. The main one that matters for you is that, as I said, that 50mm lens is going to be a weak or near telephoto lens. On a full-frame camera like the Nikon D3, a 50mm lens is generally regarded as capturing the scene kinda sorta the way our eyes actually see things. So 50mm on a full-frame camera is sometimes called a "normal" focal length, where our eyes are the norm. On an APS-C camera, that 50mm lens will be more of a portrait lens. You'll still be able to use it for a lot of shots, but it probably won't be terribly helpful (say) if you shoot inside the bride's dressing room (unless it's a big room).<br /> <br /> The other disadvantage of the 50mm f1.4 is that it's a prime lens — that is, it has a fixed focal length. So no zooming. In the church during the ceremony this will be fine if you can quietly "zoom with your feet" (i.e. move yourself and the camera closer to or farther from the subject). But I wouldn't suggest that you use it at the reception. I shoot a lot with primes but it takes practice and a certain mindset to make them work. You'll probably be better off at the reception with your 18–55 zoom or, if you're trying to capture a scene across the room and if the light is good enough, that 55–200.<br /> <br /> •</p> <blockquote> <p>And, I was told by the bride of the wedding that I am allowed to follow the main photographer around. He is fine with having me next to him. I was not hired by him or anything either. The bride and groom have hired some professionally and know that this could be a good learning experience for me. Sorry for not clarifying that better before.</p> </blockquote> <p>Sorry myself, because it's still not quite as clear as, for your benefit, the photographer's benefit and the bride's, I hope it becomes to all of you.</p> <p>How do you know that the photographer is fine with having you follow him around? You said you hadn't talked to him. Is it that the bride has talked to him? Even if that's the case, I still think you should call him right away and have a five minute chat with him, for at least two reasons.</p> <ol> <li>It's a courtesy that he will appreciate.</li> <li>Doing so very possibly will prevent certain problems from arising.</li> </ol> <p>What kinds of problems? Too many possibilities to itemize them. But as I said, there's a reason that most pros have a clause in their contract requiring that they be the SOLE photographer for the event.</p> <p>Some cynics here would say that it's because a lot of pros don't like competition: They're afraid that the second shooter will get better photos. There may be something to that. A second shooter who is free to roam ends up with very few actual responsibilities, and so is not working under pressure, and for that reason may get a really good candid shot that the pro wouldn't have had time for.</p> <p>But it's also the case that a second shooter not working for the pro can be a distraction, or worse, an annoyance. That was the case for me one time, when early in my inglorious career as a low-end wedding photographer I acceded to the bride's request that a friend of hers be permitted to shoot. I asked the friend to talk to me before the wedding, which he did. I proposed some guidelines for cooperation that I thought were fairly clear. They were agreed to — and then ignored. It made my work at the wedding harder. For example, during the group photos in the church, this FOB with a camera had — without asking me — pulled the bride aside to do a little portrait. This delayed us and caused confusion. Later on as I was more experienced I wouldn't have agreed to the request, or if I had, I would have been more assertive and shut the guy down. But it still would have been annoying to have to deal with.</p> <p>•</p> <p>So I urge you — as I said, for your benefit, for the photographer's and ultimately for the bride's — to make contact a.s.a.p. before the wedding with the photographer and let him tell you in advance what his guidelines are.</p> <p>And a second tip, with two parts.</p> <p>You said you were going to follow him around. I'm not sure I see the point of that. I mean, if he's there, why are you there. If you want to <em>learn by watching</em> — which is great — then leave your camera at home and offer to carry equipment for him. I've done it myself and fairly recently. It's educational.<br /> <br /> But (second part) if you are going to follow him around and shoot, and if you're going to be shooting the same subject he's shooting and at the same time, then <em>turn off your flash.</em> Your flash has the potential to mess up his pictures, by causing people to blink at the wrong time, or by accidentally overexposing his scenes, etc.<br /> <br /> Will</p>

<p>William's (typically) excellent reply came in as I was writing my own last response and I want to emphasize what HE said. </p> <p>I don't see how you could be involved in this if you have NOT already talked to the hired photographer. Trust me, if you've arranged this with the bride or groom and the main photographer has not already agreed to it enthusiastically, well, there's a real potential there for problems. </p> <p>A proper second shooter is hired or selected by the main photographer and serves as his or her assistant. In this case, obviously, the two are communicating with one another and the second shooter regards the first shooter as boss. This is what we all thought you were saying — which is why we recommended you talk to the boss and see what he or she says.</p> <p>A photographer who's been given permission by the bride to shoot but who hasn't gotten the ENTHUSIASTIC agreement of the hired photographer, isn't a second shooter. She's a guest with a camera who runs the risk of ... well, let me just say that most photographers have a clause in their contract prohibiting this, and for good reasons.</p> <p>Not trying to scare you. We are all, I think, a little unclear about what your status is, and perhaps everything is okay. I hope so.</p> <p>Still, if you want the best advice from us, please clarify your status. But above all, get in touch with that main photographer and make sure everything is okay there.</p> Will

<blockquote> <p>Everyone that has replied here thank you SO much. You all have been very helpful.<br /><br />I recently just bought some extra batteries for my camera.<br />I bought a camera external flash: DBK-DF-400 Speedlite Camera Flash</p> </blockquote> <p>Both sound good.</p> <blockquote> <p><br />I'm looking into renting/borrowing a lens at borrowed <a title="" href="http://lens.com/" data-skimwords-word="lens.com" data-skim-creative="500005">lens.com</a>. And as for lens,<br />would a Nikon 50mm f/1.4G AF-S be a good choice? Do you specify another lens? I have used a 70-200mm f/2.8 for dance photography in the past and am considering that, it's just a bit pricey.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, a 50 f1.4 is an excellent choice, because these lenses are almost uniformly excellent and because of the wide aperture. But your camera isn't a full-frame is it? On your camera the 50 will be a mild telephoto lens. Will be great in the ceremony (where the light is probably worst and you can't use flash) but a bit long for the reception. Still not a bad choice.<br> RENTING is a smart idea. I wish I'd thought of that more often.</p> <blockquote> <p>...My memory card is 16gb. My camera already has 540 photos on it so I will probably just back those up and clean out my camera.</p> </blockquote> <p>ABSOLUTELY! Go to the wedding with an empty, freshly initialized card. Be sure you initialize IN THE CAMERA. Don't initialize on your computer.</p> <blockquote><br />As for me talking to the main shooter of this wedding I have not. This is pretty much as simple as it gets where I was told I will be following the main photographer around and he will be guiding me. I am just trying to prepare for this. I have been busy and planning this last minute is definitely not what I wanted but I have no choice right now.<br /><br />So, what do you think?</blockquote> <p>Well, I'm confused. Who has asked you to do this? I mean, you really DO need to talk to the main photographer before the wedding.</p> Will <p><a name="pagebottom"></a></p>

<p>Anne,</p> <p>There are lots (LOTS) of old threads here that respond to the same question as it's been asked many times in the past. You might want to poke around — although you hardly have enough time to make any changes. Common advice given in the past: Have a backup camera. Use fast lenses (f2.8 or better). Know how to use your flash in a variety of situations. Be prepared. And more.</p> <p>•</p> <p>Your 18–55 and 55–200 sound like kit lenses — probably good but not outstanding optically, and probably not fast. (The 18–55 typically has a variable aperture of f3.5 or so at the wide end — and you'll mostly be shooting in the middle or end of the zoom where max aperture will be something like f4.5 or 5.6. Doesn't mean they can't take great photos in good conditions, but one of the reasons wedding pros use high-end equipment is that the shooting conditions at weddings are often NOT good. But you use what you got.</p> <p>Think carefully about your shots though. (That's the essence of wisdom anyway.) Be aware of your shutter speed in particular. Since your lenses aren't going to gather as much light as fixed aperture f2.8 or wider lenses, you'll need to lower shutter speeds and/or boost ISO. But there's a pretty hard limit to how slow the shutter can be and you ought to know what it is for your camera and your own abilities. So if you're limited to f4.5 and you don't want to go slower than (say) 1/125th sec (which is probably a good idea, even if the subject is pretty still) you may need to use auto-ISO and let it wander up into the big numbers if necessary. I have never used the 3200 but most camera nowadays can take very usable photos at ISO 1600 and even higher. A little bit of noise is not a big problem. But having a noise-free shot is worth nothing if it's blurred by too slow a shutter.</p> <p>You aren't going to need the filters. I'd say, leave them at home. When you ask "How many battery packs?" are you asking about the battery that goes into your camera? Or your flash? You ought to know your equipment well enough to have an idea how many batteries you'll need. The answer is: Take more than you'll need. I take 3–4 freshly charged camera batteries to a wedding. That should allow me to take close to 1500 photos. I hardly ever take much more than half that many. Same thing for batteries for flash at the reception. I'll usually have 8 or 12 spare Eneloop batteries on hand; that's three or four battery changes for my flashes. I've never run out and I've never worried about it. Be sure either to use a high capacity SD card (16 GB should do it although I shoot with 32GB) and even with a high capacity card have spares.</p> <p>•</p> <p>But you say you're going to be a second shooter. I assume this takes a lot of the heat off you. It may also exempt you from the rule that you should have a second camera. I assume that, if your camera dies on you, you can just stop shooting. Anyway, have you talked to the first shooter to get guidance from him or her? That's what I recommend.</p> <p>Good luck.</p> <p>Will</p>

<p>Bob, This would be a big, important question for me — except that I never liked Photoshop every much anyway, so I've always avoided it. On the other hand, I haven't made things much easier for myself. I use:</p> <ol> <li>Lightroom 5 to manage my photos, and for ordinary, basic post-processing, and for output (because I like the way watermarks work in LR and because I like LR's export options generally). If the image isn't important to me I'll generally just knock it into shape in LR and be done with it. But rather often, I will move to one of the options that follow.</li> <li>Perfect Photo Suite 8.5 for most of the things other photographers would do in Photoshop, including layers. </li> <li>The Nik Collections for effects, and especially for black and white processing. </li> <li>DxO Optics Pro 9 (just downloaded 10 today and will probably pay for my upgrade) for processing photos that need to save every single pixel of detail and/or need perspectival correction.</li> </ol> <p>I should list those as 2A and 2B rather than 2 and 3, because I use <em>either</em> OnOne's Perfect Photo Suite <em>or</em> the Nik plug-ins, and never both combined. But sometimes I will use DxO Optics Pro's raw conversion to generate a TIFF, then complete processing either in Lightroom, or Perfect Photo or Nik.<br> All of these will support your Canon camera. I have to use the more expensive "Elite" version of DxO Optics Pro because I got rid of my full-frame cameras and I'm shooting now mostly with Olympus E-M1 and they decided they could charge extra for that. Kind of a bummer. On the other hand, the lens corrections in DxO Optics Pro are superb. <br> I'm not using Aperture any more and don't expect great things from Apple's Photos program when it appears (probably later this year). I don't use PhotoNinja much either, and hardly ever turn to Raw Image Processor either, unless an image really stumps the other programs. But DxO Optics Pro can almost always do a better conversion from raw than Lightroom, whenever the Lightroom conversion isn't already excellent or at least good enough.</p> <p>TOO MANY OPTIONS!</p> <p>Will</p>

<p>Carly,</p> <p>I think you're asking at least three quite distinct questions here. All of them good.</p> <p>The first question is <strong>TIFF or JPEG?</strong> This one's easy. Give 'em jpegs. Your client won't be expecting tiffs, won't know what to do with them, and giving them tiff files might cause problems if they ever try to do something like insert them into their own little book, or upload them to a social networking site, etc.</p> <p>The second and third questions are logically distinct, but as a practical matter, they are linked. Question 2: <strong>What resolution files should you give clients</strong>? Question 3: <strong>How are clients going to get prints — make them themselves, order from you, or what?</strong> </p> <p>•</p> <p>Let me talk about clients getting prints first. This is, quite honestly, a very big problem for the wedding photography business right now — at least it is if you believe, as I do, that a photo that doesn't get printed is a photo that hasn't fulfilled its potential. If you want your brides (a) to have prints of their photos and (b) to have <strong>good</strong> prints of their photos, then you really need to make sure that they get their prints from you or through you, so you can control the process. You'll want to make sure that the photos are edited on a color-corrected machine and printed on a high quality printer, high-quality ink and paper, etc. The simplest way to handle this is to hook up with a service like Zenfolio or Photoshelter or one of the many others that links to an excellent printing service, and get clients to order prints through your site exclusively.</p> <p>Digression: I realized how important this was some years ago when I had a chance to visit the home of a former bride. Right in her foyer she had hung the portrait I took of her and her husband at the altar right after the wedding. My pleasure at seeing this image hanging so prominently in her house was rather diminished by the fact that the print was <em>horrible.</em> Apparently she didn't realize that they were both green and a bit fuzzy. She had made the print on her own inkjet printer. I think that was when I starting making sure that my bridges got good prints of key photos from me, without having to ask for them. (I sent her a good print to replace the bad one.)</p> <p>Anyway, if you make sure that prints are ordered through you, then a couple things follow.</p> <ul> <li>You don't need — and probably don't even want — to give clients high-res copies of the photos. You want them to get good prints, so you require them to purchase prints through your site. (This is where question #2 above comes in.)</li> <li>You will need to hang on to their images for longer than you might if you were just involved in shooting and burning. Why? So they can come back to you later and ask for prints. Good thing here to contact them before their first anniversary, put their gallery back online and invite them to order prints.</li> </ul> <p>I also decided that I needed to keep my print prices low, so they would feel free to order prints. Unless you're charging $5000 and up for <em>shooting</em> the wedding, charging $20 later on for a 4" x 6" print (which I've seen) is a pretty strong disincentive. Clients on a tight-budget (which means every client I've had) are aware that they can get prints for pennies through their local drugstore. But this is just my decision. As a business person, of course you want to charge what clients are willing to pay; that's reasonable. You'll just need to experiment to find out what that is.</p> <p>Which brings me to the final issue: <em>Convincing clients that print quality matters.</em> If you show a client a print made at the drugstore, they will almost always respond to the quality of the image and basically disregard the quality of the printing. In other words, they don't know the difference. You can't blame them, but it means that, when you try to make sure they get good quality prints, you're like someone trying to sell gourmet food to a hungry person who's used to eating at Macdonald's. What I concluded for my own clients was that I simply had to <em>give</em> them a small bunch of good quality prints automatically. I don't give them a print-order credit. I don't wait for them to make a selection. <em>I make the selection for them</em> and see that they get the prints. Then I hope they order more. The sad thing has been, they usually don't.</p> <p>Which leads me to conclude that my approach, while it makes me feel good about my own work, may not be very smart from a business perspective. A very successful businessman I know told me once that it makes no sense to do a better job than the customer can appreciate. And he's probably right. And I'll stop there because I can feel an attack of cynicism coming on. :-)</p> <p>Will</p>

<p>You've gotten one approach already. Here's another. To meet working photographers, hang out where they hang out. Two simple ideas.</p> <p>1. If there's a good camera club in your city, join it. </p> <p>2. Join your local PPA guild. You can join as a newbie for very little. Start going to meetings. Don't be shy about introducing yourself to the folks there. As soon as you feel confident enough, ask somebody how you might get a chance to help out as a second shooter.</p> <p>The second approach (via the PPA) is probably the better one. Many camera clubs have way more amateurs than pros. Not everybody in your PPA is going to be a wedding shooter, and those who are may not be shooting weddings every week, but still, it is ostensibly a guild for pros, so you should find some good folks there. </p> <p>A tip: Be prepared to do whatever you're asked. You might not right away find somebody who wants you to take photos. You might instead be asked to carry gear, or help with lighting setups or hold a beauty dish, etc. DO IT. If you're working with a really good photographer, carrying the master's camera bag will be educational, at least if you know how to use your eyes and ears. </p> <p>I wouldn't expect to get paid for this sort of thing, either. </p> <p>Will</p>

<p>Marc W. writes:</p> <blockquote> <p>... [T]oday's client tends to be influenced by the cell phone/social media mentality … meaning that they have no real world idea of what it takes to do this work well and provide a superior product. <em>Immediate need</em> is the perceptual driving force in much of today's wedding photography.<br> <br />For example, it is now common for guests to upload shots from a wedding onto FaceBook before I even get home from a wedding. Unfortunately that may also include shots of my carefully crafted formal shots that 10 people shoot while I'm working. It really does steal your thunder … and even though your shots will be much better … familiarity breeds contempt.</p> </blockquote> <p>Straying a bit away from the O.P.'s topic here, but Marc's point is profoundly important. The deepest change in the wedding photography industry isn't that there are too many people trying to do it or that we're shooting digital rather than film: It's that clients want something almost completely different from what most of us were trained to do (well, those of us who were trained in any way at all). And it's something that's nearly impossible to deliver. They want Vogue magazine cover shots, they want them taken with a minimum of fuss at the wedding, and they want them within 24 hours of the wedding.<br> . <br> </p> <blockquote> <p>I now am exploring two pronged technological answers to solve these issues. Tiny mirror-less cameras that capture RAW files while sending select images directly to my cell phone and upload to a social site …</p> </blockquote> <p>I haven't done that myself but I suspect it's going to become de rigueur in this business very soon. <br> . </p> <blockquote> <p>while on the other hand using much more sophisticated off-camera lighting with a leaf-shutter camera to deliver what 90% of my competition can't do, let alone all the wedding guests … like this shot intended for a 18" wide spread in the client's album …</p> </blockquote> <p>Now I get to the main reason I bothered to wade into this thread again, to say to Marc that THAT IS A TERRIFIC PHOTO! Bravo.</p> <p>Will</p>

<p>Seamus writes:</p> <blockquote> <p>This has all been great advice. I do have another quick question to ask, are most weddings really 10 to 12 hours? </p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Not in my experience, although my experience is more limited than many others here, as I've never been a full-time wedding shooter. But most of the weddings I've shot in the last six years have required less than 10 hours. I'd guess that my average wedding has lasted more like six to seven hours — that's from the time I arrive at the church (at least an hour before the ceremony) to the time I leave the reception to head home. Here's a typical schedule:</p> <ul> <li>Arrive church 9:15 AM, find and greet bride, shoot parties getting ready for ceremony</li> <li>Ceremony at 10:30, over at 11:30 (Catholic Mass — Protestant weddings usually much shorter)</li> <li>Shoot group portraits 11:45 to 12:15</li> <li>Arrive reception venue 12:30</li> <li>Shoot first dances when bride and groom arrive</li> <li>Follow bride and groom around for next couple of hours to photograph them greeting guests, dancing, eating, cutting cake, toasts, garter toss, bouquet toss, departure of couple.</li> <li>Leave reception around 3 PM.</li> </ul> <p>Call it six hours. That's been pretty typical for me. An evening wedding with reception at a hotel might last longer as the bride and groom don't have anywhere to go and may tend to hang around. But in my experience, for what it's worth, most reception venues want the party cleared out within a fixed number of hours. And in any case, once the bouquet's been tossed, there's not a lot left for me to photograph that's really critical. I have never stayed to the "bitter end" of a wedding reception.</p> <p>Things to note.</p> <p>First, even a "short" wedding like the one I just described is rough, or so I find. That's "only" six hours — but it's six hours typically without a break and a fair amount of pressure and stress. Sometimes I get 10 minutes to snarf down a plate of food. Sometimes I don't.</p> <p>Second, that's just the time actively shooting. There's the drive to the church, which in some cases can be an hour or more; and then the drive from church to reception venue. There's an hour or more the night before to attend the wedding rehearsal. There's an hour the night before packing your cameras, flashes, tripods, storage cards, etc.</p> <p>Third, if the bride wants you to take shots at the salon on the morning of the wedding, of course you add an hour or two or more to that schedule, because she'll be at the salon for an hour but there's going to be a gap after the salon where there's not much going on for a while. The only twelve-hour weddings I've shot were ones where my day started with meeting bride (and her bridesmaids usually) at the salon around 10 AM — and me leaving the reception around 10 PM after a big send off of the couple.</p> <p>Fourth and finally, the time spent shooting is just a fraction of the time you'll spend to earn your fee. I am pretty sure I've spent at least twice as much time processing and delivering the photos as I spent shooting them. Add in time spent marketing, talking to potential brides beforehand, taking engagement and bridal portraits, and it's easy to see how it <em>could</em> be a full-time job even if you shot only 1 wedding a week.</p> <p>Will</p>

<p>Sean,</p> <p>Too much info about your gear. It's simply not that important. You're not asking, "How do I take (this or that type of) wedding photographs?" You seem to be asking, "How do I set myself up in business as a wedding photographer? How do I get clients and make money?" These two questions have little to do with one another. Of course, you have to have cameras to be a working photographer. And you have to be at least mediocre (i.e. not completely terrible) photographer to achieve any kind of "success" at all. But <strong>you don't have to be a good or great photographer to get wedding gigs, or even to succeed. And you don't have to have super-duper equipment.</strong> </p> <p>•</p> <p>So, back to the problem of getting clients and building a business.</p> <p>As with practically every other interesting job in the world, there's a chicken and egg problem here. Hard to get work without experience, hard to get experience without work. If you want to start a business — even a part-time business — as a wedding shooter, you have to solve that problem. Possible approaches:</p> <ul> <li>Work for free. I attended a workshop with Roberto Valenzuela about a year ago. I think he said he shot dozens of weddings for free before he started charging. </li> <li>Work as an assistant. </li> <li>Get together your best photos, build a website, start marketing yourself, read everything you can about what's involved in shooting a wedding so you're as prepared as reading can make you — and fake it.</li> </ul> <p>I transitioned into weddings after doing an enormous amount of volunteer work, initially in connection with a school my daughter was attending, and then branching out from there to shoots that had nothing to do with my daughter, including events that present challenges similar to those presented by a wedding, like First Communions and Confirmation ceremonies, Fundraising Galas (not just for schools but for foundations, yacht clubs, etc), some commercial photography, etc. I also shot family portraits for a local botanical garden for years (that was for money) and learned a lot doing that. After a couple years, I had enough of a portfolio to build a website and persuade some young brides to let me shoot their weddings for free.</p> <p>My approach worked, sort of. I learned an awful lot and eventually I did transition to making money shooting weddings for strangers. <strong>But teaching yourself = discovering everything on your own. It's inefficient.</strong> If I learned X amount about photography in my first three years when I was basically just winging it on my own, I learned 10X int the next three years after I started taking workshop classes and assisting other excellent photographers (although I only ever assisted on portrait shoots, never on a wedding).</p> <p>•</p> <p>There are about 40 self-proclaimed wedding photographers available for every wedding that's scheduled these days. (I'm making that statistic up but it <em>feels</em> true.) Competition isn't fierce, it's absurd.</p> <p>It seems pretty clear that an awful lot of brides are finding their photographers <em>by accident</em> or via nearly random selection, because there are just too damn many websites to go through for anybody to do serious comparison shopping. You can get a couple gigs a year without working too hard in this environment if you have a half-decent website. <strong>But to get more than a couple gigs a year, you're going to have to work much harder at marketing. My guess is that you'd have to spend as much time promoting yourself as you'll spend shooting. And that requires a lot of work that has nothing at all to do with taking photos,</strong> I mean, doing things like driving around and talking to managers at bridal shops, wedding coordinators at churches, florists and caterers, etc. </p> <p>Of course, here again, you'll face the chicken-egg problem. Nobody's going to recommend you when you've never shot a wedding. But even after you have a number of weddings under your belt, self-promotion requires personality traits that not all photographers have — traits I wish I had to a much greater degree. </p> <p>There's also the problem of making money in this environment. With so many wannabes shooting weddings for free or for $500, it's hard to make a living as a wedding photographer and equally hard to make it worthwhile as a part-time job. Not impossible. I have friends who are doing it and a few who are doing well. But it's hard. </p> <p>•</p> <p>Final note about your physical condition. Sorry about your injury. I also have serious medical problems and have my entire adult life (i.e many decades). Most of the time I've been able to manage my disease pretty well. When I started trying to be a serious part-time photographer (in 2005), my health was pretty good and although I'm no athlete, I was in decent shape. I've hiked to the bottom of the Grand Canyon and back with my wife many times.</p> <p>Even so, shooting a wedding is a fairly serious physical, mental and emotional challenge. You're on your feet and moving for eight hours straight, without much in the way of a break, carrying cameras that will seem like lead weights before the day is over. The people you're photographing are often under significant stress themselves, sometimes because the mother or father of the bride hate the groom or his family (or vice versa, or both), or because the bride's divorced parents are both attending and having trouble behaving themselves, or because people get drunk, or (almost always) because things are running behind schedule and people you're trying to photograph are actually not relaxed and capable of being patient. <strong>It's a rough job and while you don't have to be an athlete, you do have to be able to move, and you have to have a lot of stamina.</strong> I shot one wedding when I was not in great shape (4 weeks after major surgery). My wife helped me. I took it easy and my experience made it possible for me to do an okay job. But I realized afterwards that I'd have done a better job if I'd felt stronger, if I'd been able to move faster, or assert myself more, etc.</p> <p>And on top of everything else, when you sign the contract, you make a commitment to show up and do a good job on a date certain a year from now — and if you get a cold or the flu or have a medical problem on that date, well, it can be tough to deal with. In short, wedding photography is a game best played by healthy photographers. Due to serious changes in my own health two years ago, I stopped seeking wedding gigs. I'm feeling pretty good today and could shoot a wedding <em>this afternoon</em> without a problem. But I can't be sure about any given Saturday in 2015. And you have to be pretty sure to make that commitment.</p> <p>My advice: Don't do it. </p> <p>Will</p>

<p>Sorry to hear about your misfortune, Laura, and I apologize that I don't have any good advice to offer you. I'm writing not for your benefit so much as for the benefit of other newbie photographers that show up here from time to time.</p> <p>What I want to say to the newbie is: YOU SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT YOU NEVER EVER SCREW UP LIKE LAURA'S PHOTOGRAPHER DID. It's something that shouldn't happen. </p> <p>I just have difficulty understanding how ALL the photos got lost. About the only scenario I can think of that would explain this <em>without serious negligence on the photographer's part </em>would be if the photographer was driving home from the event with all his camera equipment (including the cards where the photos were stored) and he was in a horrible car accident that resulted in everything in the car being burned, including the cameras and the cards. </p> <p>Other than that, how could it happen that the photos are all simply lost — all of them, forever? I can think of only two explanations, and neither one gets the photographer off the hook. One is that the photographer lost the card before the photos had been copied to a computer. The other is that the card was (accidentally) reformatted and reused (and thus written over) before the photos were copied to a computer. The first scenario is extremely unlikely. The second one simply shouldn't happen and if it does, well, <em>res ipsa loquitur</em>, but I can imagine it happening at a busy resort where the photographer is working under a lot of pressure and shooting three or four weddings a weekend.</p> <p>Cards do fail. It's extremely rare and good photographers use high quality cards with very very low failure rates. BUT EVEN SO:</p> <ul> <li>If the card failed during the event the photographer should have been aware of it. Even those of us who don't "chimp" every shot, do take a look now and then to see what we're getting. I might take 10 or 20 photos without realizing that there was a problem writing them to the disk. It's inconceivable that somebody could shoot a whole wedding without realizing that the photos weren't being captured. </li> <li>If the card didn't fail during the wedding but afterwards, there is recovery software that's very good. And if you can't do it yourself, there are services that will recover photos from cards and they have a terrific success rate.</li> <li>And if the card failed <em>after</em> the photos were backed up to a hard disk or DVD, well, then there's the backup.</li> </ul> <p>If the photographer copied the photos to a hard disk, and then erased the card (and reused it) without backing up the hard disk, and then, the hard disk failed, well, in my opinion, that's profoundly unprofessional. We don't have a notion of malpractice here in Texas for wedding photographers but if we did, this mistake should be recognized as one of the clear proofs of malpractice, alongside failing to bring two cameras to a wedding (and then having one camera break). It should not happen. Ever.</p> <p>•</p> <p>What every professional photographer should do is, in my view, pretty simple:</p> <ol> <li>Never go to a wedding without at least bringing two fully competent cameras. </li> <li>Don't use any camera that can't write to two cards simultaneously. (In my view, a "pro" camera is one that can do this. Any camera that can't is an amateur camera — no matter how wonderful it is.)</li> <li>After the wedding the photographer should go straight to his computer and copy the cards to a hard disk.</li> <li>As soon as possible after step 3, the photographer should back up the raw image files to another hard disk or to DVD — or (my preference) to both. </li> <li>The storage cards from the cameras should be put in an envelope and placed in a folder in a drawer and not reused until the images are delivered to the client (weeks or a month later). </li> </ol> <p>The point is simply to create redundancy at the moment the photo is taken (by writing to two cards), and then create a couple more layers of redundancy a.s.a.p. NOTE: NONE OF THE ABOVE PROCEDURES is expensive or difficult. There's simply no excuse for not doing them.</p> <p>I THINK EVERY BRIDE SHOULD DEMAND THAT THEIR PHOTOGRAPHER FOLLOW THE PRACTICES ABOVE. If "demand" is the wrong word, then at least demand in its other less pushy sense: "ask". These days, with the wedding business being what it is, a lot of questions may be a bit challenging. But I think it should be easy to ask your photographer before you sign the contract what safeguards he or she has in place to eliminate the possibility of all the photos being lost from the wedding. If the photograph doesn't respond with ALL FIVE of the practices above, find somebody else. This isn't rocket science.</p> <p>•</p> <p>Final note about my personal relationship to the advice that I'm giving.</p> <p>First, the photographer at my wedding back in 1975 lost most of the photos. The photographer (God bless him) was my brother-in-law, a shutter bug who volunteered to do the job for us for free. We were grateful to have him as my wife and I were poor students. Our wedding cost less than $1000 <em>for everything.</em> My brother-in-law says that he dropped off something like 10 rolls of film for processing and got only three or four rolls back. The others were lost at the processor. My wife and I treasure the photos we do have all the more, although I wish we did have a couple photos from the chapel. And we're grateful to my brother-in-law for his efforts. And finally, we're still married (anniversary #40 this coming December). There are more important things than the photos!</p> <p>And second, when I started shooting weddings I myself broke just ONE of the "rules" I laid down above: #2. My first cameras saved images to only 1 card at a time. But I have always worked with two (and occasionally three) cameras around my neck, so I've never shot an event where I was putting all my eggs in just one basket. I have always been a fanatic about handling the cards and backing up the images immediately after the event. I've been lucky: I never lost an image. But the procedures just seem like common sense to me. And if they're followed, you'll be okay even if you're not so lucky.<br> <br> Will</p> <p> </p>

<p>Paul,</p> <p>Are you a photographer yourself? Just curious.</p> <p>I can't promise that I can be helpful, but I'd be happy to take a quick look at one or two and, after taking the look, let you know what can be done. I suggest you contact me directly (off list). Google "william porter photography dallas" and use the form on the "connect" page. I'll get back to you quickly.</p> <p>Will</p>

<p>Mark,</p> <p>On the 60D, is there more than one raw setting? I've never used a camera that had more than one raw option, so for me, raw means raw and speaking of the "highest raw setting" sounds funny. But I think some of the Canon and maybe Nikon cameras do allow multiple resolution raw files. Anyway, if you do have a choice (like 24 vs 36 megapixel raw), ask yourself in advance whether you really need the HUGE files that the higher quality will produce. I bet you don't.</p> <p>Do not give your clients DNG images! They won't know what to do with them. Clients want processed JPEGs. If you can shoot raw + JPEG and if you're a pretty good shooter who gets the exposure right 98% of the time and if you have your in-camera JPEG settings tweaked so that JPEG output looks pretty good right out of the camera, then you can do something like this;</p> <ol> <li>go home after wedding, copy files to hard disk and backup</li> <li>open in Lightroom and make a first pass through the files, identifying and deleting accidents, test shots, etc. and making the ones that jump out as outstanding</li> <li>select some of the outstanding ones and export them to, say, 1600 pixels on the longest side.</li> <li>copy to Dropbox folder then send link to clients</li> </ol> <p>In step 3, you can watermark them if you do that; I do, some people don't. If you don't watermark them, just assume that they will very quickly be circulating on the internet without any credit to you — regardless of what your contract says.</p> <p>•</p> <p>By the way, that is not what I have done. I did start shooting raw + JPEG when I started using 32 GB cards. But as a rule I've kept the JPEGs only until I had time to process the raw files. The JPEGs were just my 'insurance' files, in case something awful happened with a raw file, I have hoped that the JPEG would be usable. Actually, I've never needed the JPEGs. I did think for a while that I'd do what I recommended above — give the couple some out-of-camera JPEGs like on Monday morning. But I never did. </p> <p>Rather, I go through the photos and start processing them all carefully. I try to send some samples — and not just of the handful of best shots — as soon as possible, within a couple of days. But they're all processed. That's me. Maybe if I shot more weddings I'd have done it more efficiently. Probably that's true.</p> <p>Good luck. Breathe, don't dehydrate. Don't panic! :-)</p> <p>Will</p>

<p>Craigh Bennett wants to know about primes.</p> <blockquote> <p>... a lot of [wedding photographers] use zooms and primes together... eg the canon 24-70mm and a 50mm 1.2. ... I get that the 50mm 1.2 is going to be good when the light is low but really I find myself using both at the same time even if the lighting is good? </p> </blockquote> <p>First, let's review the basic advantages of prime (fixed focal length) lenses<em>.</em></p> <ol> <li><em>Wider maximum aperture</em></li> <li><em>Shallow depth of field </em></li> <li><em>Physically smaller, lighter</em></li> <li><em>Mechanical reliability</em></li> <li><em>Optical reliability</em></li> <li><em>Prime lenses alter the way you SEE (the "Zen thing")</em></li> </ol> <p>Details <a href="http://williamporterphotography.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/are-you-ready-for-prime-time-or-why-would-anybody-use-a-prime-lens-these-days/">here</a>.</p> <p>#4 and #5 in this list are less compelling than they used to be. High-quality zoom lenses certainly rival primes in those areas now. I don't think most photographers will see a difference between two photos of the same subject, both taken at, say, 50mm, f/3.2, same shutter speed and ISO, framed in exactly the same way — but one shot using a 50 f/1.4 prime and the other using a high-quality 24-70 f2.8 zoom. Maybe the engineers at DxO can see the difference with their instruments. But I can't, and I've looked.</p> <p>So why do I shoot now exclusively with primes? </p> <p>Like William W., I started shooting with primes. That's how I learned and it's always made sense to me. But the real reasons that keep me shooting with primes are 1, 2, 3 and <em>especially</em> #6. </p> <p>Now that I've sold my full-frame kit completely and switched to micro four thirds, I really need primes (with their wide apertures) to get the same results I used to get — shallow depth of field, better performance in low light, etc. And part of the reason to switch to micro four thirds was to lighten my load. Using primes helps there too.</p> <p>However, it should be noted that, if you're shooting a wedding or other events where you don't control the scene — in other words, outside the studio — prime shooters will want to have two cameras around their necks, with different lenses. I've occasionally shot with three. </p> <p>.</p> <p>Now, about the "Zen thing." This really is the key element. I believe that shooting with primes exclusively makes me a better photographer. Shooting with primes doesn't make me a <em>good</em> photographer. I'll stipulate that there are many photographers better than I who use zooms. But I feel that I need primes to be the best photographer I personally can be.</p> <p>To non-prime shooters, using a fixed focal length sounds restricting. To which I reply: the restriction is more than half of the point. It's difficult to describe the appeal of primes to someone who doesn't see it for himself, because any advantage you put into words (other than 1–5 in my list above) can be disagreed with. It's like trying to explain to a pianist why you prefer to play Bach on the guitar or lute (or like trying to explain to an organist why you prefer to play Bach on the piano). So what follows is my quick effort to explain something that doesn't fully have an explanation.</p> <p>When I have shot with zoom lenses (and I have worked with them now and then) I found myself zooming in and out before clicking the shutter. I was really only seeing my shots after putting the camera to my eye and looking through the viewfinder. If you shoot for a while with two or three prime lenses, on the other hand, you 'll be able to see your shots before you lift the camera to your face. You can look at a scene and know in advance what your 28mm lens (say) will capture, if you shoot from where you're standing. </p> <p>Me personally, I find this liberating. When I'm shooting, <em>I'm not thinking about focal length.</em> I can't adjust it, so it's not a decision that I have to worry about. Instead, I've "zoomed with my feet" beforehand — that is, I've positioned myself where I know I need to be to take the shot with the lens I'm using. You ever see movie camera operators or directors holding up their hands to frame a shot? Working with a prime — when you learn a handful of focal lengths — is kind of like seeing the world that way. You spend less time worrying about infinite number of alternatives you could achieve if you zoomed in or out and/or moved around, and instead you see the shots that are there right now.</p> <p>I think it's like every kind of artistic discipline. Too much choice can be paralyzing, stifling. I have an M.A. in creative writing (poetry). In my view, the prime vs zoom choice is a lot like the choice of a fixed verse form (say, iambic pentameter) vs anything-goes free verse. </p> <p>.<br> </p> <blockquote> <p>Also why do photogrpahers sometimes use a zoom lens like the 24-70mm and then a few months down the line switch to using all primes instead of zooms at all?</p> </blockquote> <p>I can answer this from my own experience. The market now offers us lots of choices, too many choices. You can pick among three or four or more formats, a dozen or so different makers of really good cameras, and scores and scores of lenses. Naturally, different people make different choices. And if you're an old prime shooter like me, you're likely to be tempted now and then to try a zoom lens or two, because you see other photographers getting wonderful results with them. This seems pretty natural, especially if you can afford to try different things.</p> <p>Will</p> <p>p.s. Do I need to add — perhaps I do — that my choices in this matter are mine. I know lots of other really good photographers who get great results using zooms. <em>Whatever works best for you is what you should do.</em> But you only discover this through trial and error — through experience. If I could get the photos I want by shooting with a 28-200 (FF equivalent) zoom, in P mode, I'd do it. You earn no moral bonus points for shooting with primes, or shooting in full-manual, or shooting film — or for practicing whatever form of artistic discipline you practice. My clients couldn't care less whether I use primes or zooms, whether I shoot Olympus or Canon, whether I process in Lightroom or DxO Optics Pro, whether I work on a Mac or a PC. In the end, the only thing that matters is the photo.</p>

<blockquote> <p>This may sound ridiculous or obvious.... </p> </blockquote> <p>It's neither ridiculous nor obvious. It is paranoid, but this particular kind of legal paranoia is extremely common in the USA and the west generally.<br> . </p> <blockquote> <p>I know people at weddings know they will be photographed. But the hired photographers have a contractual relationship and probably know the ropes regarding photographing and dissemination of photos taken at a wedding. </p> </blockquote> <p>I very much doubt it. What they do have that you don't is the experience of having seen their photos published on the web without anything bad happening as a result.<br> . </p> <blockquote> <p>As someone who attended a wedding and took video and photos, I've been asked by the bride to provide these for her album and online display site (dropbox). Should I be concerned about the possible legal issues or are there any, given the people at the wedding did not give me permission to take their photograph nor display it for example on the web? </p> </blockquote> <p>You should not be concerned. If you are willing (and I assume you are), share your photos with the bride and forget about it. If you receive a cease and desist letter from somebody at the wedding who wants their photo removed, politely respond that they should take the issue up with the bride. But you will not receive any such letter. <br> . </p> <blockquote> <p>In the old days, these photos just ended up in a printed book. Those days are long gone. Everyone wants an image they can display to the world. I'm hoping someone here can give the real legal skinny on this topic. Thanks!</p> </blockquote> <p>It's simply not a problem. If it were, Facebook wouldn't exist.<br> <br> Will</p>

<p>Thank you to John H. for replying to Steve and saving me the time. As John correctly states, there are forms of consideration besides money. I'm almost twenty years now from my year of Contracts in law school but I recall also that there was a fair bit of talk about the legal dimensions of promises. (John touches on this by mentioning detrimental reliance/promissory estoppel.)</p> <p>But in this context, it does not matter whether you call it a contract or an agreement or both, or neither. What matters is that you have one. </p> <p>•</p> <p>I will say again something I'm pretty sure I've said here before. My Contracts professor told us again and again that the <em>primary</em> purpose of a contract is to allow the transaction between the parties to proceed to the their mutual satisfaction. It is not to give one side a cudgel with which to beat the other up in court. This is real-world lawyering, not dictionary or textbook theory. If the written agreement does its job, the question of whether it's a technically correct contract at law never arises.</p> <p>My professor went on to say that, if the parties end up in court, it means the contract <em>failed</em> to serve its primary purpose. Now the "contract" as a document becomes a piece of evidence for the court to consider. This is an important purpose, too, of course, but it's secondary. And the contract as a piece of evidence can be countered by other evidence.</p> <p>Of course, the less you can trust the other party, the more you're going to want a formal contract with lots of clarifications. But if you're shooting a wedding for a relative or friend for free or almost for free, there shouldn't be major trust issues. If there are, <em>don't do it!</em> Actually that goes even for dealing with strangers. The bigger problem in doing weddings for free is the real possibility that you may disappoint your client and that it may hurt your future relationship. It's a risk.<br> <br> •</p> <p>Anyone who is going to shoot a wedding should have at least a brief piece of writing that states each party's expectations simply and clearly. This agreement gets acknowledged (and if only by inference, accepted) by each party. It can be a simple exchange of emails. </p> <p>This is not law. It's human relations. Most of us do this sort of thing all the time, not just in dealing with clients but in dealing with family members, with friends, people we're on volunteer committees with, and so on. When you agree to do something for somebody six or twelve months in the future, if it's something significant, you don't want to rely upon your memory of a conversation. In fact, it's not just human relations. It's pretty close to common sense.</p> <p>Will</p>

<p>Personality is a LARGE part of what makes a wedding photographer successful. You need to be assertive but not threatening or intimidating, reassuring, friendly. Helps to be able to remember names well the first time you hear them. And on top of all this, you have to be <em>cool and confident.</em> There are lots of stresses to deal with shooting a wedding — many of them completely unpredictable. And during all this, you have to be able to think about taking good photos.</p> <p>Basically I think there are three kinds of photographers:</p> <ul> <li>Those who are naturals at this (I've known a few);</li> <li>those who have enough of this personality that they can learn or fake the rest; and</li> <li>those who simply don't have this kind of personality.</li> </ul> <p>I'm in the second group. If you're in the third group — and by your own description it sounds like you might be — you might seriously want to consider finding a different type of photography to excel. It's like anything. If you don't feel comfortable at it, worse, if your personality makes your clients uncomfortable, you may be a great photographer, but wedding photography may not be the gig for you.</p> <p>I don't know you and I'm not providing a diagnosis! Just a thought for you to consider.</p> <p>And learning a few one-liners won't do it.</p> <p>Good luck.</p> <p>Will</p>

<p>Marcus I. makes an excellent point: ask her what she’s missing or what she's looking for. As I said earlier, a "you won't get every picture" clause has always been in my contracts, but I did have one bride who asked me for all the photos anyway. Like Marcus, I asked what she was missing. Turns out that the only 10-minute break I took in a seven hour day was taken during what I thought was a lull in the reception when she danced with her grandmother. I had told the bride before I stepped out to eat my yogurt, so she was notified. But stuff happens. I felt bad but there wasn't anything I could do, weeks after the event. The bride was disappointed but understood, and a crisis was averted.</p> <p>•</p> <p>Michael M. writes:</p> <blockquote> <p>Thats your job to give every picture, that is what you're there for. Obviously you don't need to give duplicates bad shots and test shots etc. No one is following you around with a counter. </p> </blockquote> <p>I respectfully disagree with this. At least, it sure isn't my business model — and I don't think it's the business model of my much more successful local colleagues. <br> <br> I'm there to create a record of the event in attractive photos. I'm under contract to provide usually around 150 photos. I'm not under contract to "give every picture." Michael adds, "obviously you don't have to give duplicates... <em>etc."</em> Well, what does "etc." mean? In my case, it means I don't give the photos that I don't want to give. <br> <br> As for nobody following you around with a counter, this isn't quite true in my experience. Well, nobody is literally following me around with a counter. But, my image files are named in a way that provides a counter to anybody who's even a little bit smart. And I have in fact had a client ask where files P87035 through P87044 went. <br> <br> I've also had clients <em>remember</em> that I took such-and-such a shot. They kind of remember seeing me take it. Sometimes they're wrong — they might be imagining it, or they may have seen me raise my camera without realizing that I did <em>not</em> press the shutter. But it's remarkable what some clients remember.<br> <br> •<br> <br> Final point: Everybody does what they think best, and that's fine. But I personally never give clients raw files. Of course, occasionally a raw file provides "evidence" that a shot wasn't properly exposed, but there are several solid reasons not to give raw files to clients besides trying to hide your occasional mistakes.</p> <ol> <li>Clients often don't have any idea what to do with raw files. </li> <li>Even if you did absolutely everything 100% right in taking the shot, raw files need work being converted. That's why they're called "raw." White balance is a pretty common problem, but another common problem in wedding photography is balancing exposure of parts of the image when you've got a white wedding gown and a black suit side by side. Client <em>might</em> have a program (say, iPhoto) that has some default raw adjustments built in that will help the image, but client's probably not going to think of using an adjustment brush to darken the groom's suit. </li> <li>Nowadays I don't give them away for good economic reasons. I'm trying to sell prints and my clients know this from the start. But the raws are like the negatives and if the client has the raw files, they don't need me any more to make prints, etc.</li> <li>The raw files are also (to some degree) the proof that I took the photos. Like many in this forum, I have in fact had photos stolen on the internet. I'd hate to write to somebody demanding that they remove my photos from their website, and have them respond that they had the raw files and that I should buzz off.</li> </ol> <p>In short, I tend to think that giving the clients the raw files means failing to do an important part of my basic job. <br> <br> If you feel the urge to give the client high-res files, my advice would be: don't give the raws. Instead, do basic correction of exposure in Lightroom (sometimes as simply as a click on the Auto correct button) or whatever you use, then provide high-res jpegs. At least that's my advice. Obviously, there's disagreement among experienced shooters here, so you'll have to think this one through and make a decision that you feel comfortable with.<br> <br> Will</p>