william-porter

August 5, 2013

Thanks for pointing that out Rob. Before asking if I was missing something, I actually reread the original post trying to see for myself if I'd missed something. I didn't (see anything). But I did (miss something). The charge for the groupon. Never used Groupon so I'm not very familiar.

Well, that would cause me to ask, HOW MUCH was paid? If the amount was relatively small and there's more where that came from, I'd still be inclined to let it go and find another photographer. Life is short.

Will

August 5, 2013

So, a photographer came and took photos of your infant, but

<ol>

<li>you haven't paid ANYTHING yet;</li>

<li>you haven't received your photos;</li>

<li>you have been told the photographer "left the country"; and</li>

<li>now you can't get a response from anybody at the studio?</li>

</ol>

Is that right?

If so, I can't think of what reason you'd have for suing them. If you'd paid them and not gotten your photos, well, you might have a small-claims court claim to file, although odds are it would just waste more of your time to do so. I think you'd want to sue for what the law-jocks call specific performance (you don't want money damages, you want to get them to give you the photos). But if you haven't paid them anything, I'm not sure if you've got grounds. You could waste more time and money and talk to a lawyer if you felt strongly enough about it.

But I'm wondering why you don't just let it go. Well, I might write a short, carefully word (not nasty, just truthful) note on the studio's Facebook page, if it's still active, although they'll probably just delete it. But other than that, looks to me like the studio has either lost the photos (perhaps they are out of the country too) or they're so disorganized they can't find them. Either way, if you haven't paid any money, you've lost nothing more than a couple hours of your time. Find another photographer.

Make sense? Am I missing something?

Will

August 2, 2013

Rafael,

Funny, I just finished an article that touches on this question. Seems to be a subject about which there are strong opinions on both sides.

To me, a signature says I took this photo and I'm proud of it. It's exactly the same thing as the signature an artist puts on a painting. I went back and forth on this issue myself for a couple of years, but in the last year or so, I've finally decided that I like having my signature on my prints, at least on larger prints. No client has ever objected.

I want my signature to be (a) noticeable but (b) unobtrusive. If it's obtrusive, the signature starts to look more like an exercise in branding or marketing. Now that may be exactly what it is for a lot of photographers and I don't have anything against that, it's just not my reason for putting a signature on my photos. As I said, the signature also needs to be noticeable. And that pretty much means that it's useless on small images.

There's nothing wrong with not putting your signature on your photos. My prints all have my name stamped on the back by the printer and especially for smaller prints I often omit the sig from the front. I've never had as succinct or clear a policy about it as William W enunciates. But no surprise there: I'm never as succinct or clear as William W is. :)

Will

August 1, 2013

Great post. Does photo.net have "stickies"? This should be one.

July 24, 2013

Kevin,

Actually you seem to have a fairly decent collection of lenses. Lot of shooters like the faster 70-200 f/2.8. But somebody I took a seminar with recently — might have been Tony Corbell on Creative Live, so "webinar" rather than seminar — expressed a preference for the 70-200 f/4 because it's really almost as fast as the f/2.8, is a good lens, and weighs about 12 lbs less.

Anyway, you can only carry so many lenses around with you. Yervant, in another seminar on Creative Live, said he shoots almost exclusively with one body using one lens: a 28-70 f/2.8 (on full-frame of course). Personal style. worth remembering that he has a full-time assistant that carries his equipment around for him, along with a refrigerator full of champagne to keep his from getting parched while shooting. Life's nice at the high end. My bet is that assistant is lugging another $20K in equipment that the Maestro just doesn't use very often. But I'm just guessing.

Two questions for you.

First, is the 40D really a backup for the 6D? Does not seem like it to me. I'd regard the 40D as a sort of spare tire, an a "donut" more than a true spare, that is, strictly an emergency backup. When I moved from APS-C to full-frame I got two full-frame bodies. Moving from thinking full-frame to thinking APS-C would drive me crazy. And I like to shoot with both cameras. Anyway, just a question.

Second, do you have backup flash? That looks like something worth getting.

A 100 f/2.8 or 135 f/2.8 (for full-frame use) might be nice, especially since in that range your zoom goes only to f/4. But will you really use it? For a couple years I shot weddings with all primes. I'd put a medium-wide on one camera and a medium-telephoto on the other and carry a third lens in my back. And that was it. It was rather liberating in a way — zooming was one more thing I simply didn't have to worry about. I still have several good primes but now I shoot with the zooms at weddings, almost exclusively. I keep the primes for portraits.

I do take multiple flashes to weddings. I have had 'em break on me while working — through manufacturer's flaw and from dropping, both. Have to have backups of everything.

Will

July 17, 2013

Harlan, thank you for your thoughtful note. I was glad to hear just a little more about the circumstances of Nadine's death. It's strange: You think you get to know people well on the Internet but you can't, really. Nadine was tremendously helpful to me personally but of course I had no idea what challenges she was facing in her real life. I was frankly stunned when William W. announced her passing. I'm very glad to know that she was supported by a loving family. I know that I miss her still.

I also support the prize idea.

Will Porter

(Dallas)

July 2, 2013

+1 to what David says: second body and some flash units. It's been said here many times but I'll say it again: Equipment fails and you must have a backup. And although I know a lot of photographers who leave their backup camera in their car, I always have two bodies with me during the ceremony in particular.

For the second body, the 5D MkIII would be a great choice. But the more affordable 6D would also be a good choice. I wouldn't worry about what anybody calls a "pro" camera. The 6D is full-frame and takes great pictures.

Your lenses are okay now. A 24-70 f/2.8 is a bit more versatile but I shot weddings for several years with primes only and to be honest feel a bit like I'm cheating now that I'm relying mostly on zooms. If I were you I'd stick that Sigma 35 f/1.4 on one camera and the 70-200 f/2.8 on the other, carry them both, and be ready for anything.

Will

July 1, 2013

Jennifer,

Whatever works for you. There is no special right or wrong.

Doing portraits, I almost always use manual focus, and select the focus spot. Shooting the ceremony I might also use manual focus, but when people are moving and I'm in a hurry, I switch to single-shot autofocus, usually with the center focusing point selected and locked. I don't use continuous focusing (where the camera locks on a subject and stays with it) when shooting weddings. Just never felt the need.

Will

June 28, 2013

Rob,

Are you editing raw files? Or out-of-camera JPEGs?

My default settings for raw files are Lightroom's default settings, that is, I import the images into Lightroom and let Lightroom display them. A good bit of the time these days, the image is pretty close to ready right there. I will sometimes add a little clarity (very little, you can overdo that slider very easily!) and adjust the white or black point; plus I sometimes have to play with white balance. But I'm editing raw files exclusively.

Will

June 28, 2013

Rob,

Coupla tips.

<ol>

<li>Don't ever delete anything — at least not until after you've delivered the photos or album to the bride and you're putting the event to bed for good. </li>

<li>To speed up the display of photos, let Lightroom create the larger size previews for you. You can set it to do this and walk away from the computer for a minute or two while it does. The images will load faster. Lightroom can delete the previews after 30 days or something like that.</li>

<li>Going through my initial bunch of photos from a wedding, I simply rate them and move on to the next photo. My right hand is on the right arrow key (next photo) and my left hand is typing 1, 2, 3 or x (for delete). I don't try to distinguish all five ratings at this point. For a handful of images that are for-sure hero images, I might rate 'em a 4. When I'm rating, I'm not looking for 1s, I'm looking for the 3s (I'll definitely want to use 'em) and 2s (might need to think about it some more).</li>

</ol>

I can get through about 800 images (my normal "catch" from a wedding) pretty quickly this way.

When I'm done I can start working on rating sets. Sometimes I will create a smart album for the wedding that automatically selects everything rated 3 or better.

I've used the method you're using (tapping "b") as well. Problem is, my initial pass isn't always completely reliable. There might be two shots that are almost identical. I normally will not show both to the bride: I feel it's my job to decide which is better and show her just that one. So I want to have the entire photo set readily available to me.

Of course, more RAM in your computer will also help. When I do this, I usually restart my iMac and jump into editing before I've opened any other apps.

Good luck.

Will

June 25, 2013

Sam writes:

<blockquote>Wow, this was my first post ever to this site and I am so impressed with and thankful for the responses! I did shoot it in RAW, but I have plenty of room to grow (obviously) in post processing.</blockquote>

But unless there's something seriously wrong with your computer display, the basic problem here occurred at the time of capture, not during the post-processing.

Remember, the camera wants to make everything middle gray, so to get a bride's dress to appear white you have to "overexpose" by a stop or stop and a half. Or to put it differently, for a shot like this, you would want to "expose to the right", that is, you'd want to push your histogram as far to the right as possible without blowing out details in the bride's dress. (Blowing out a few details in the clouds might be acceptable.) Quick shot with center-weighted metering on your camera should get you in the ball park, then you can look at the histogram and make one quick adjustment. Using an incident meter is even better.

If you have the time and the equipment to add flash to this scene in order to reduce the exposure range, that of course is the best option — but it may add considerably to the effort involved. However, it's possible to do a shot like this in full daylight. Tony Corbell did a great class recently on Creative Live where he was shooting in mid-afternoon of a bright day on the roof of a building — no shade whatever. He ended up using a big scrim AND a couple of reflectors for fantastic pictures, and of course, at a wedding you may not have four modifiers and four assistants handy. That's one of the 47 reasons why wedding photography is such a challenge!

•

<blockquote>I am struggling with not taking charge enough in my shoots...but at what point are you being demanding if both the B & G are not motivated about pictures?</blockquote>

You touch on a couple serious issues here.

As much as possible, you want to solve these problems — and all problems! — before the day of the wedding. Pick clients who DO care about the photos. If they don't care enough, you try to educate them, and doing their engagement shoot will help. Of course, you really have to be able to deliver, and everybody goes through a phase where they encounter problems and learn from them. That's how you get experience.

And on the day of the wedding, you do have to learn how to assert yourself. I'm not a wall-flower by any means, but I too have found this a difficult lesson to learn, because, ideally, I would really like to be invisible while shooting a wedding. It's taken me a while to learn that that's just not possible. You can't be a bully, either, of course, and if the bride or the bride and groom simply won't cooperate, well, you can't make 'em. But you have to try, and you have to have the people skills to make it work.

Will

June 25, 2013

I agree with what William and everybody else has said. The image is underexposed. (I wouldn't say "slightly.") We can talk later about how NOT to do this again, but for the moment, couple questions pertinent to the crisis at hand:

<ol>

<li>Did you shoot raw?</li>

<li>What editing software do you have? (Aperture, Lightroom, etc)</li>

</ol>

William's given you a pretty good demonstration of how the image should look. If you contact me directly, and send me the image file, I'll be happy to spend five minutes with it (no charge, no credit required) and do what I can. I'll be abel to do a little more if the answer to question #1 above is "yes" but I can try either way.

But you can do this yourself. It's hard to tell on my Macbook Air's screen but I'm guessing it's at least a full stop underexposed, so boost exposure by about that amount, taking care NOT to blow out the highlights or kill the detail in the gown. Shadow exposure could be increased (lightening the shadows). I don't generally do that in Lightroom or Aperture using curves: I generally use the slider for shadows. At that point I'd look and see if the image were improved by a boost in clarity (Lightroom) or definition (Aperture) and some sharpness.

Will

June 21, 2013

Marc Williams writes:

<blockquote>Fair enough ... but that was then and this is now. ...</blockquote>

<blockquote>To wait and see what may develop in such a ferocious environment, even with hard work, leaves a lot to chance and luck ... not to mention the very ability to even recognize it when it happens. Taking command of your destiny by actually thinking about what "voice", what your creative contribution may be, how you as a person will define yourself as a photographer ... are basic attributes of every successful product, service and creative entity there is today....</blockquote>

<blockquote>Old think, old methods, don't cut it these days ... tomorrow's success is made by those willing to define it on their own terms, with their own voice, with their own thinking ... and the more at the front of your career than the end you are, the more this is true.</blockquote>

Marc,

I've been shooting as long as most folks here but I am not a life-long pro. I only started getting into the business a little more than five years ago, in the digital world. Trust me, I know very well how tough it is to break into the market now. I'm also painfully aware that I'm handicapped by my age and my reactionary habits of mind. :-)

But I don't think that invalidates anything I've said or that has been said by the more experienced old-timers. Some of the advice I'm giving I've heard — recently — from young pros on top of the world like Hiram Trillo and Roberto Valenzuela, as well as eminences grises like Tony Corbell.

There's absolutely nothing with young photographers or, hell, old photographers, asking themselves what sort of photographers they want to become, or wondering how to make their work distinctive. That's not only natural, it's inevitable.

All I was saying is, you can't calculate your way to a style. There are no angles to play here, at least not if you want long-term success. God knows, we all need to be computer experts these days. But in photography, style isn't something you achieve on the computer, in Photoshop or Color Efex Pro. Photography is what we do with cameras, and style in photography must be — almost by definition — achieved in the handling of the camera by a human being with a heart and a mind and a really good pair of eyes. Style arises naturally from what the photographer sees that other people don't see, in how the photographer handles light distinctively, in how the photographer poses subjects or sets up shots.

And none of us can achieve a distinctive vision because we want one or think it would be a marketing advantage to have one.

Will

June 20, 2013

Don't feel silly, Tammy! You asked excellent questions and in fact this is the best thread here for a while. And these practical questions are ones we all had when we started. Actually I still have questions like this all the time.

That's why photo.net is so helpful — and also why I get so much from spending time every month with other photographers. I was at a seminar recently given by one of the top wedding photographers in the world (winner of the WPPI "best photographer" award and many others). He was talking about how he's constantly learning new stuff from other photographers. Learning isn't just for newbies: it's for everybody who cares about what they're doing.

Will

June 20, 2013

Tammy,

My earlier reply was kind of theoretical. Let me offer a practical comment or two.

You said, "I worry about post production, I really don't [like?] doing too much to a photo. I'm always asking what percentage should I have of Black and White etc."

Ideally, the answer to these questions comes from the client. I always ask beforehand whether the client likes black and white, as well as "creatively processed" photos. I don't ask if they want those treatments, I just ask if they like. Sometimes they don't know and that's fine. But if they respond, "Oh yes I love black and white!" then I'll be sure to include more black and white treatments in my initial gallery for the bride. If they say, "No we hate black and white" I'll still include a couple black and white treatments but not many. Know your client. This goes back to what I said about knowing who you're trying to please and know what will make them happy.

You should know of course which photos make for good black and white treatment and which don't. I think I've seen a few photographers who specialize in digital black and white. I wish I could do that. But I generally do more black and white for myself than for my clients. If the bride's wearing red satin shoes, she wants to see the red.

In the initial gallery that I show to clients I try my best not to show heavily processed images. There's no point in removing that odd blemish on the groom's cheek in 400 photos, most of which aren't really going anywhere. For the initial gallery my aim is to make the photos look good in a web page and nothing more. When they order a print, I process with a little more care. And if they order a 20" x 30" canvas wrap, I process with more care than I would give a 4" x 6" print. Be aware of your output medium and process accordingly.

•

Finally — and forgive me, this is getting a bit theoretical again — you talked about yourself as an artist. That's great. I have a master's degree in creative writing (poetry), so I can wear my beret and eat my brie with the best of them. I'm an artist, you're an artist, we're all artists. Good for us! Now, the question is, do you want to make money with your cameras? The answer does not have to be yes! It's a very respectable thing to be content to shoot for yourself, for gallery shows, etc. But if you do want or need to make money at this, then you'll have to become a business woman as well. And in my opinion, you'll make things easier on yourself if you stop thinking of yourself as an artist and think of yourself as a craftsman. You may love taking photos but the person who hires you doesn't care about that, just as they don't care if the caterer likes cooking or waiting on people, just as they don't care if the musicians are really having a good time.

Will

June 20, 2013

I agree with Wouter Willemse: this was a brave topic to start. Good for you for daring to ask it.

You seem to be having two problems that in my view are completely distinct: first, finding your personal style; and second, knowing when you're done post-processing a photo.

•

<h4>Finding a personal style</h4>

This is the easier problem. You solve it by not worrying about it. I think David Haas's comment is excellent. He wrote:

<blockquote>"In 30 + years of doing photography - I've never given more than 20 minutes of thought to my 'Style'. Instead I've let it develop over time."</blockquote>

Simply don't worry about it. The best styles are not self-conscious gimmicks, they're a reflection of how you like to work, what you love to photograph, essentially, who you are. A handful of people develop a readily identifiable style: think Avedon, Diane Arbus, or, outside of photography, Salvador Dali. But most photographers participate largely in the style of their times, and that goes for the great geniuses, as well. Be yourself, be as good as you can be, and let style worry about itself. Artists who become self-conscious about their style start imitating themselves and, while that's sometimes a good commercial move (give the public more of what it wants), it's death to art.

•

<h4>When are you done post-processing a photo?</h4>

There isn't an answer to this question, really, but I can offer some hints.

First, unless your goal is to become a computer graphics specialist or Photoshop guru, I would urge you to approach post-processing as a necessary evil, and not really as part of the creative process. Cartier-Bresson is famous for not being interested in the process of making his prints; today, he'd probably send his raw files to a service for processing. How could he do that? He got everything that mattered to him exactly the way he wanted at the time of capture. That's my goal, my ideal, my dream.

I don't achieve my goal very often, for a couple of reasons. I'm not good enough to nail the shot every time. Or, sometimes it's not quite a matter of me and my theoretical abilities, but me and the limitations imposed by the circumstances of the shoot. Weddings force us all to take shortcuts. Then there's the fact that shooting raw (which you should do) more or less imposes at least some small amount of work in post on us. And of course, sometimes, you know when you're shooting that you're going to need to do work in post—say, to eliminate a blemish, or clone out a garbage can, etc.

Anyway, my first suggestion is: If you want to be a photographer rather than a photo-processing expert, then do everything you can to get it right in the camera.

•

<h4>Who are you trying to please?</h4>

But there's another large can of worms here, and it gets opened when we ask ourselves the twin questions: (a) who are we trying to please? and (b) what will it take to make them happy?

Most of us, of course, do our own post-processing, and it's simply a fact that we have way, way too many options. We can use Photoshop or Acorn, Lightroom or Aperture or Capture One or DxO Optics Pro, Photo Ninja or RPP. Each of these programs offers a slightly different interpretation of the raw data. I can do things in each one of these apps that I can't do in the others. Then there's the fact that they keep getting better. I'm going back now and reprocessingfive year old photos because Aperture 3 or Lightroom 5 or Photo Ninja find things in those raw files that I'd never seen before.

So, with all those options, how do we know when to stop?

Years ago, my brother-in-law, who was a very, very successful businessman, gave me some advice that I was frankly appalled by at the time. He said, Do the job just well enough to keep the client satisfied. I was appalled—but the thought stuck with me. And I've come to see that he's right, at least about business. If you are shooting for a client, you stop when it's good enough to make the client happy. You might go a wee bit beyond that and try to make them very happy, but beyond that, you're wasting your time and that means you're losing money. The proof of this is that many clients don't want perfection because it wastes their time and money. Doing a commercial portrait of an executive chef yesterday, I took two light stands, two umbrellas, and four lights. I used only one because a more elaborate set-up would have been a serious problem for the client. They just wanted a decent shot—not a work of art.

So for your clients, you do the very best you can do—given the circumstances and their needs. And then you stop. This is tough especially at first, because most of us have at least a spark of the artist in us and artists don't think this way. That's why it's so important to think of yourself as a craftsman first—and let the art (like the style) take care of itself. If you can't make peace with that compromise, you may go on and become a great photographer, but you will have a very hard time making money.

•

<h4>Enter Paul Valery</h4>

And what if you're not shooting for a client? What if you're trying to make real art and you're shooting for yourself? That's where a famous quote from the French poet Paul Valery comes in: Un poème n'est jamais fini, seulement abandonné. A poem is never finished, only abandoned. Ditto for your photos. You will find almost always that there's a very steep curve of diminishing returns in post processing. You get the photo knocked into shape pretty well in five minutes, then you spend fifteen minutes making it slightly better, then you might spend another hour making changes almost nobody will notice. At some point, you'll either run out of ideas, or, very often, realize you have become obsessive and gone too far. That's when you throw it all away. Restore the image to its original state, then step away from the computer for a day, or at least, make a virtual copy (another "version" in Aperture) and start from scratch.

But the point I really want to emphasize is: We've all been there and felt this way and it's not our faults. We have too many options readily available. You have to learn to be fairly ruthless about not taking advantage of all of them all the time.

Good luck.

Will

June 13, 2013

Michael Chang writes:

<blockquote>Contractual relations is formed between the venue and BG as well as between the BG and photographer. It's outside the bounds of authority (and mandate) for the photographer to form further contractual relations with the venue especially when it involves the BG's consent in order to fulfill his initial contractual obligations.</blockquote>

I never said anything about "form[ing] further contractual relations" with anybody. I just said, figure out first if there's really a problem here.

•

William W writes:

<blockquote>IMO, the MOST important point and best advice you have mentioned is: "be nice"

Can we “Williams” do a deal on all of that?

</blockquote>

We can indeed, sir!

Good luck to the OP—and if you get a sec later (maybe after the wedding) let us know how it turned out. I'm crossing my fingers for you and hoping I'm right that it's a simple misunderstanding.

Will

June 13, 2013

William W:

I almost always defer to your wisdom and experience and I hesitate to disagree with you now, since disagreeing with you always seems like a bad bet.

I absolutely agree with your statement that maximum leverage lies with the bride and groom. Where I disagree is on the matter of what the OP should do first. I don't like to burden the bride and groom with any problem that I can potentially solve myself. We're paid to deal with problems ourselves, as much as we can.

So while I would certainly respond to this problem "immediately" (to quote your adverb), my first and most immediate response would not be to run to the bride and groom. It would be to speak — and speak immediately — with the manager of the venue. I really think there's a misunderstanding here. I think the OP made a slightly out-of-the-ordinary request and somebody in the office at the venue completely missed the fact that OP is shooting a wedding with one of the venue's already-contracted clients.

I bet a personal phone call or (ideally) face to face chat will resolve the situation quickly. And if it doesn't, then I'd contact the client (bride and groom, father or mother of bride, whoever is appropriate). Contacting the venue quickly first in no way squanders the leverage that the bride and groom have.

And to the OP: When you contact the venue, I'd be very nice, no matter what happens. Let's say it's a worst-case situation and the manager of the venue is both stupid and hostile. I would absolutely not react to that. I hope this goes without saying to you. I say it because I don't know you personally and I do know that, now and then, it needs to be said.

Will

June 13, 2013

Never heard of this happening, either. I've occasionally and voluntarily offered an image or two to a venue for their use (if they want to use it) on their web site. I ask for a small credit, that's all. Seems like good business.

I've never before given a moment's thought to the legal questions arising from my shooting a wedding at a private venue. Their contract is with the bride, and my contract is with the bride. They know that there will be a pro photographer taking photos. There may be "reasonable restrictions" upon what the photographer can do or where the photographer can go. But to ask the photographer to sign a special contract and to grant rights to his images, that's odd.

This issue only arose after you asked for access to the "additional areas", right? What additional areas were you asking for access to?

Be interested to see what others have to say in response to your question. All I can think of right now is, time to drive over to the restaurant and have a friendly face-to-face with the manager. I can't help but think there's been a misunderstanding somewhere.

Will

June 2, 2013

Kathlynn,

Sorry about your nephew's situation and it's lovely of your niece to move her wedding.

I wrote a short piece for TechHive (an online extension of Macworld) on the subject that'll give you a quick overview:

<a href="http://www.techhive.com/article/1167832/get_started_with_wedding_photography.html">http://www.techhive.com/article/1167832/get_started_with_wedding_photography.html</a>

Perhaps after flipping through that piece you'll be in a better position to look at some of the info on photo.net and the Web generally that's addressed to first-time wedding shooters.

•

At the risk of repeating some things I say in the piece I link to above, let me add a few more notes.

I agree with David H's advice that you hire a pro if you can. This is much harder than it looks and you don't get a do-over.

If that's out of the question, then David's equipment suggestions are absolutely solid. But I would make an exception in your case and say, if you don't already have all that equipment, and assuming you're not trying to build a wedding practice beyond your niece's wedding, then use what you've got.

•

Two cameras?

I always shoot with two cameras, mostly so I can have two different, high-quality lenses by my side, and partly so if one camera malfunctions, I don't have to run to my car to get my backup. But shooting effectively with two cameras takes practice and skill that most photographers these days don't have, plus, you're carrying a lot of stuff around. I've been meaning to ask some of my wonderful female wedding photographer friends if they shoot with two bodies; might be more of a guy thing.

Anyway, overwhelming odds are, your camera will NOT malfunction. And shooting with one camera and one lens will be easier for you and will allow you to focus on the composition of your photos, which is far and away the most important thing. You're going to be trying to take good snapshots, that is, just good, basic photos. I actually would NOT advise you to start reading books on wedding photography, lighting, etc., because you simply don't have time to digest all that info.

•

Lens(es)

I'm not sure what kit lenses you have, but they're probably okay. Pros generally use only very expensive, high-quality lenses with f2.8 or better max apertures, like David H suggests. But you're not a pro and you can't become one by buying equipment. If you had a budget to spend a little money, getting a 50mm f/1.4 prime lens might be a big help at the church, since you'll probably not be able to use flash, and your 550 is okay but not a super-performer at high ISO. And a 50 f/1.4 is a nice lens for anybody, amateur or pro, to have in their kit.

But I wouldn't recommend spending more money on lenses — not even renting. Lenses aren't magic. It takes knowledge and practice to use them effectively. You could spend a couple hundred dollars to rent a top-quality 70-200 f2.8 lens and still get lousy photos, in fact, the weight of the lens might be a problem for you itself.

•

Flash

I do strongly suggest that you purchase, rent or borrow a proper hot-shoe flash for your camera. If you have hundreds of dollars to spend, by all means, get a Canon flash or at least a Sigma. But you don't have to spend hundreds of dollars. I've never used any of these flashes, but there are pretty well-rated and very affordable flashes for Canon cameras available on Amazon, for example, this $40 flash from Neewer, which has hundreds of customer ratings and an average 4.5:

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Neewer-TT560-Speedlite-Digital-Cameras/dp/B004LEAYXY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1370192554&sr=8-1&keywords=flash+for+canon">Neewer TT560 Speedlite</a>

This will help you more than any other simple purchase you can make. Light is more important than anything else, and the easiest way to improve your light is stick a flash on your camera. It's all very well to think that you "prefer" natural light, but the truth is, getting really good pictures at a wedding without the help of flash requires extraordinary mastery.

Now, using a flash also requires skill. Order the flash immediately and as soon as it arrives, start practicing. Learn you to put your flash into TTL mode. You might also want to get a basic flash modifier like this Lumiquest Ultrabounce (which I use):

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007S02GQQ/ref=oh_details_o05_s00_i01?ie=UTF8&psc=1">LumiQuest UltraBounce with UltraStrap LQ-116S</a>

Practice!

•

Keep it simple

And when the day comes, the key thing is, keep it simple, go slow, and think about what you're doing. Getting good photos means looking, seeing what's in front of you, noticing people's expressions, moods, postures, etc. If you're confused about your equipment, well, you won't be able to do a good job. This is why it's not uncommon for complete amateur guests to get better photos than rookie "pros": The guest leaves the camera on P and doesn't think about the camera at all, where rookie pros are trying to do fancy stuff they've read about (shooting in A and constantly adjusting the aperture, dragging the shutter, bouncing the flash, getting flash off the camera, selective focusing, etc) and they trip themselves up. Keep it simple!

The final tip I have is personal. If you're there as The Photographer, then you pretty much can't be there as The Aunt or A Guest. You're there to work. As much as you can, be invisible except when you have to be assertive, be objective. That's a sacrifice you have to make.

Good luck.

Will

May 31, 2013

Bob Bill: I fully understand your tact in not sharing the photo and apologize if I sounded pushy. I understood your excellent point even without the photo.

•

I've been thinking about the replies here a lot in the last week and am very grateful to all of you for your perspectives. All the posts have been helpful to me. I want particularly to note Marc W.'s comments.

Most clients, and actually very few wedding photographers actually grasp any of the above. True journalistic images with telling content are washed over by the Tsunami of snapshots ... from those taken with the now ubiquitous smart-phones, to most "candids" taken by the wedding shooters themselves....

Personally, in past, I never had any issues with my clients grasping what I was selling because almost all of them were ... people in creative industries of some sort. As I expanded outside that circle of influence, there was less and less appreciation of well seen content, and more expectations of what could loosely called "fashion".

</blockquote>

Yeah, this really hits the nail on the head.

I keep reminding myself that those of us who are trying to do this as a job (even a part-time one) are vendors, service-providers, and primarily craftsmen. Now and then a product of craft rises above craft to be recognized as art. I'm confident that, in the 47 million photos taken by guests and amateurs at weddings last year, there is at least one photo by a complete newbie that is fantastic. When I was working on my M.A. in creative writing, one of my teachers opined that practically everybody has one good poem in them. I think the principle also applies to photography. But "I took a pretty good photo once" isn't a resume, and "get lucky" isn't a business plan.

•

We're also dogged by this pseudo-syllogism:

<ul>

<li>You need a great camera to take great photos.</li>

<li>Larry has a great camera.</li>

<li>Therefore (a) Larry can take great photos.</li>

<li>Therefore (b) Larry is a great photographer.</li>

</ul>

It's amazing that anybody at all thinks this, and yet lots of people think this. In fact, this view is so dominant in our culture that I really would hesitate to show up at a wedding with, say, a micro-four-thirds camera or the Sony RX1. If you aren't familiar with the RX1: it's a fixed lens, 24MP full-frame camera with a prime 35 f/2.0 lens. Assuming I could work with just a 35mm lens (and it's not impossible), I would be afraid that nobody in the audience would respect me because I wasn't carrying what they thought was a "serious" camera, you know, with a big honkin' lens, perhaps a vertical grip, etc.

Perhaps the way to be a great artist of wedding photography would be to stay amateur. Don't charge. In fact, scout upcoming weddings, contact the bride and offer to pay to attend as a guest. That way, you'd basically be under no obligation to take any particular shot. You'd be free to pursue the shots. And if that meant staking out a spot where the lighting and the scene is marvellous and waiting ten or twenty minutes for something visually interesting to happen there, well, you could do it. If you came away from the wedding with just one really good shot, you'd consider it a day well spent.

In the past — before the PJ trend — wedding photographers were hired not just because wedding guests didn't generally have cameras with them, but because the pros knew how to do something that the non-pros didn't — take a few good formal photos — and the amateurs knew this about the pros, they regarded the pros as pros or experts in a difficult craft. I wish I knew more about the history here but my impression is that, mid-twentieth century, the wedding photographers were not typically working for 8 hours at a wedding. Digital photography has not just put a camera into everybody's hands, but given a lot of people the unearned sense that they're good. Why this should be is a bit of a mystery to me. I mean, just about everybody has and knows basically how to use a stove, but few people want to become caterers. Most of us realize there's more to catering a wedding than being a "good cook" at home in your own kitchen. Maybe it's that we see cooking as work, even when we do it for ourselves, while taking photos is fun and absurdly easy.

So it does seem that we who want to distinguish ourselves, who don't want to remain amateurs, must make it obvious that we can do something special, and something that our clients will recognize as special, as something they couldn't do themselves even if they got lucky.

And, almost by definition, that's harder to do than it looks.

•

By the way, I got an alert from photo.net in my email, with a post that included an obviously-staged but rather nice photo of a couple kissing sweetly (PG) on a bed. But the post is missing here. Maybe poster deleted right after posting?

Will

May 30, 2013

Well, I agree it's different.

I wonder if the bride and groom will buy the large canvas wrap of this one? :^)

Will

May 28, 2013

Kelly,

Several possible answers here.

<ol>

<li>Talk to the bride and groom before the ceremony and suggest that they take their time walking down the aisle.</li>

<li>You'll be standing at the back of the church and nobody will be looking at you, so if the bride and groom do look at you, put up a hand to say "Halt!" Usually they'll know this means they should stop for a sec so you can shoot. But you need to be ready to shoot! You can't have the bride and groom stopped in the aisle for 10 seconds while you fiddle with your camera.</li>

<li>Spend more time mastering your camera's settings and practicing your shooting skills. Figure out how to turn on the continuous tracking feature of your camera's autofocus. Then make sure, as you're shooting, that your shutter speed is fast enough not just to prevent camera motion blur but also to freeze subject movement. To prevent camera motion blur (camera shake) the rough rule of thumb is to use a shutter speed equal to or faster than the reciprocal of the focal length; so if the focal length = 70mm, be sure to shoot at 1/70th sec or faster. But that's just taking care of camera shake. If the subject is moving, you have to take that into consideration, too. A couple walking at a normal speed toward you probably need at least 1/125th second shutter speed, if you've got the focus managed properly. They're coming right at you so the problem is really more that they're constantly moving the focal plane, and less that they're moving so fast. Unless of course they're doing cartwheels down the aisle.</li>

<li>If you're allowed to use flash for this shot of the couple walking out, flash should help you freeze the shot.</li>

</ol>

I generally shoot in manual mode, so I can set the shutter speed and aperture exactly the way they need to be and know that they'll stay that way; but I'll use Auto-ISO and allow the ISO to adjust so that I get a good exposure. But if you're uncertain, put it into shutter priority (the aperture is less important for this shot) or even P. Whatever works.

But practice. The key thing is to nail the focus. I'll be honest, I don't usually have my camera on continuous autofocus with tracking enabled. My cameras all autofocus fast enough. If you're using spot focus, do not point the camera right at some nebulous part of the bride's gown or some flat black part of the groom's suit or tux. Remember the camera needs contrast to focus.

I always talk to the folks in the wedding party at the rehearsal the night before, ask 'em to walk slowly (it's good advice anyway and a good wedding coordinator may say the same thing to them). I'll warn them about my "Halt" hand signal (although I've done it a lot to people who haven't been warned and it's pretty obvious what it means).

Will

May 23, 2013

Bob,

It's a cruel tease to describe that photo and not provide a link. I'm a modern man and can always use a good cry. ;-)

Will

May 16, 2013

John D. writes:

If memory serves (again), I saw a video with Jerry Ghionis and someone had asked his approach to family formal shots and such. And his reply was that he doesn't do them! He has is assistant do them.

</blockquote>

Who knew that was even an option!! Now, if only I had an assistant. ;-)

.

And who knows how much of that is marketing or perhaps "in my top package I do this". I also think region plays a HUGE role that is often overlooked. We shot a destination wedding in Punta Cana a fews years ago. OMG: the light was beautiful virtually all day. I could very much see being an available light and/or photojournalist photography when the world is cooperating like that.

</blockquote>

Fair point. I've never shot a wedding where I didn't find myself fighting the light all day long.

I only started shooting weddings five years ago. Maybe I'm wrong, but my impression is that in the old days when wedding photographers were all using medium-format film cameras, the photographer's job was mostly about the formal photos. The photographers weren't going to the reception to take candid shots, or hanging around the dressing room, or shooting much of the ceremony. I'm glad that wedding photography has branched out a bit.

But I dislike the idea of the photographer being the main event at the wedding. I want the bride and groom to have a beautiful day, and to be present for it, rather than having to wait to see my photos to know what happened at their wedding. I just want to be a witness with a camera. But then we run into the matter of what the client thinks she wants prior to the wedding. I am pretty sure that I know better than the client does what she's going to want in a year or two, based on my experience. I think it's my job to know that. Based on what people buy prints of, almost none of my clients turn out to be as interested in the formals as they think they're going to be. But it's a hard sell prior to the wedding. And gosh, if Jeff Ascough is finding it a hard sell, well, that's kind of depressing.

Ascough is very widely admired, not least by those of us in the wedding photography biz — including Valenzuela. But my guess is that Valenzuela is more successful.

Will

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by william-porter