rt_jones

<p>I don't know people... with some photographer's remote flashes firing I've seen first dances lit up like the mother of all thunderstorms. Hard to say which is more distracting and "intrusive".</p>

<p><strong><em>its not about the money for me, i really enjoy taking wedding pictures.</em></strong></p>

<p>Therein lies your problem. If you place no value on your work than why should anyone else?</p>

<p>Unless you offer this at a loss, I don't understand the appeal. This is obviously for high-end clients and they already have the means to own an iPad.</p>

<p>These new gizmos always lose their "luster" but bound paper lives forever.</p>

<p>Just crop until you think it's expressing what you want people to see. If that means trashing half the image, so be it. I certainly wouldn't give them both versions.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong><em>She said since I do have my own website, with so many images, she tends to want to believe me, but that you just don't know these days on craigslist what lengths people will go to scam someone.</em></strong></p>

<p>If she really believes that then why didn't you ask her what the heck she is doing on Craig's List to begin with?</p>

<p>I believe everything is "buyer beware" these days and that you've done much more than I would have. I can only guess how much time you put into this for the very small return a CL wedding will probably net you.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em><strong>were portraits of extended members of the family... without the bride and groom.</strong></em></p>

<p>I actually agree with the OP on this. Yes, I suppose it shouldn't matter what we shoot if we're there already but to use a wedding as somebody's personal portrait studio is kind of tacky IMO. I rarely (if ever) take posed portraits of people without the bride, groom or both in them during the family formals.</p>

<p>My advice to the OP is to never ask for a shot list.</p>

<p>At the risk of going against the grain here, I've been using the 28-135 a lot. It's fine for wedding work if you know its limits.</p>

<p>Mine came with a 50D and I had it packed away because it was a "lowly" kit lens and I couldn't dirty my hands withs such a thing. A while back, after getting tired of the "focus dog" (85/1.8) hunting again at a reception I pulled out the 28-135 just for grins. It performed quite well and the focal range is just so convenient.</p>

<p>Outdoors it's no problem (any lens works outdoors) and I will use it if my 17-55 doesn't have the reach. Indoors is no problem either because I use flash 90% of the time. I just wish it had a constant aperture.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Child labor laws will limit your working hours and depending on your state they can be even more restrictive. Depending on where you are, even after turning 16 many of these restrictions may still apply.<br>

I could hire you but I'd have to have you home before 8 P.M. on a school night.</p>

<p>I get on average $200 to 2nd shoot. (Yee haw... party at RT's house. I'll fly you all in).</p>

<p>50 cents per mile, one way if over 30 miles. But I shoot for different folks so it varies.</p>

<p>All in all, it works out so I'm not complaining.</p>

 

<p>A tiny light source will always be harsh - it's just the physics of the thing.</p>

<p>You can use a cheap $50 Vivitar to achieve what you want if, like Nadine says there is a large light-colored surface to reflect it from.</p>

 

<p>Well, with all of that out the way now...</p>

<p>As photographers, I still don't see that we have any role in influencing this tradition one way or the other on the basis of inciting emotion just so we can shoot it.</p>

<p>Am I understanding this correctly? If so... it sounds ridiculous to me.</p>

<p>The only role I play in helping with this decision is that of "time keeper". If the bride wants to stay hidden and have me do things separately that's fine. But if there are too many family members to shoot after the ceremony (in addition to the wedding party) and we only have 30 minutes to do it... that's not going to happen. Not to mention, most of our family formals are taken inside the church. This means the couple has to exit after the ceremony, board the limo, circle the block a few times and get back inside. Not very efficient.</p>

<p>Under these circumstances I have to advise the couple to make a choice. Honor the tradition and get less photos or do the opposite and get more. 95% of the time they opt to get most everything done before the ceremony. And amazingly, I haven't seen anyone burst into flames for violating this tradition.</p>

<p>I've never had the need to do this in LR. I always sync the timestamp on my cameras before shooting. (Using EOS utility for Canon). It only takes a few seconds.</p>

<p>But with 2 separate shooters maybe showing up at a venue separately and at different times... I can see the problems this might pose.</p>

<p>Another observation. Tamron doesn't make a 17-55.</p>

<p>I almost bought the PW flex system until I read the 580exII needed a sock for them to work. Glad I went with the cybersyncs instead. No eTTL frills but they just work every time.</p>

<p>I use them just like Nadine describes (less the girly hair things).</p>

<p><strong><em>Since I've had nothing to do for the past few weeks (can't edit their pictures) </em></strong></p>

<p>If this failed drive is a "backup" then why can't you edit photos? I suspect this is your only copy which means it's not a backup.</p>

<p>I don't understand why offering additional items should be considered a public service. Everything you sell above the shoot is money on your bottom line and you should be happy to do it. (Assuming you've priced things correctly).</p>

<p><strong><em>The Facebook copies or any other copies you receive from the photographer are not to be a edited or altered in any way without consent of the photographer under any circumstances. </em></strong></p>

<p>We're talking about just run-of-the-mill people here. They mean no harm and as long as their version of the photo can't be traced back to me I really don't care.<br>

So no, I'll pass on this. Nothing good can come from enforcing this kind of stuff anyway.</p>

<p><em><strong>and were pleased to hear that I had a Facebook page.</strong></em></p>

<p>That's so they can do a proper background check and scrutinize every word and analyze the "paper" trail you've left. :)</p>

 

<p><strong><em>The original looks a little too faded for comfort. Maybe that's what prompted them to do the b/w version?</em></strong></p>

<p>Could be. The cropped image is a part of a 1st dance sequence and the "haze" you're seeing is from a remote flash off to the side. I often include a lot of harsh off-camera flash in my reception shots. I doesn't always work though.</p>

<p> </p>

<div></div>

<p><strong><em>If I was upset about clients using my images for facebook and "mangling" the pics, I doubt that I would post photos which personally identifies them on an international online forum and makes them the subject of public ridicule.....</em></strong></p>

<p>David, I'm certainly not upset and if anyone here is ridiculing the actual people in the photo I must've missed it. I'm not even sure if the client did this to their pic... for all I know one of their Facebook pals is responsible for the embellishments which I've seen before.</p>

<p><strong><em>Dave H: Maybe we should listen to what the clients want, as opposed to giving them what we think they want.</em></strong><br>

Exactly. I mainly wanted to hear if others have similar experiences (perhaps not to this degree though).</p>

<p>I often wonder if one can learn from client PP but based on what I see is being done that would be a difficult transition for me. One thing I have learned is my clients really (and I mean really) like B&W. Much more than I. And many don't like "tilt". I've seen a few where they have leveled "em out.<br>

So Nadine, to Dave H's point... social networking sites can be revealing but the interpretation of what they reveal can indeed be confusing. </p>

<p> </p>

<p><em><strong>As Roger Smith said: The client paid you a compliment. I understand why you cringe but, hey, they liked the photo.</strong></em><br>

Oh, I'm not complaining WP. This has been going on in my world for some time so I'm used to it. Frankly, I think "facebookers" are so accustomed to processing every snapshot they take it must just feel like something they need to do.<br>

<em><strong>Don't like that type face you used RT ;)</strong></em><br>

And I didn't leave enough room on the sides. If somebody orders an 8x10 It looks like I'll lose some of that text. :(</p>

<p>And this:</p><div></div>

<p>Try this again:</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I find a lot of my clients like to mangle the images I give them. I'm starting to take it personally. :) I pulled one of these off a facebook page. Can you guess which one?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My take?<br>

For somebody just starting you need to figure out what your wedding prices are and give that a separate menu in plain site. I don't know what your site traffic is like but "pricing" is generally what people are looking for.</p>

<p>I doubt you're targeting $3k and up so IMO putting pricing in plain site can only help in this regard.</p>