ianivey

May 9, 2013

You might have a bit better response if you clarify your Subject line, something like "Second shooter needed, 5/27, Greenwich CT."

March 26, 2013

I used a service several times last year for weddings. I don't rely on the service for final edits, but they did a great job of culling and color correcting, both of which are a thorn in my side. I also had them do some basic straightening/cropping work. Once they were done with those tasks, they delivered a LR4 catalog back to me, and I did my final edits on the color-corrected keepers. Saved lots of time, and produced better color consistency than I would have achieved myself. I believe it was well worth the $150-$200 it cost, and plan to use them again this season.

March 18, 2013

Oh, heavens. For the last several years, I've harbored a quiet hope that one day soon my wife and I would make it to California and I'd find some excuse to shoot with Nadine, simply because I suspect she would have been such a pleasure to talk to and work with. I'm so sad, and yet so grateful to have participated on this forum when she was active here. I hope her family knows how she touched and helped countless strangers simply because that's the sort of person she was: someone who chose to be a blessing to others.

March 16, 2013

This is a common mistake: you don't tell us where you're located on the home page, the contact page, the meet-the-photographer page, or the info page. Your location (and preferred shooting area) should be all over your site, but at least on those pages. You offer to have coffee with me, but that could be an expensive proposition for one or both of us if you live across the country.

March 16, 2013

It's not likely a composition. Just probably a 5 second exposure, give or take, plus a rear-curtain flash (in this particular case, with the flash set too low to make this a very good sample of this technique).

January 26, 2013

Dave wrote:

D90 has 12.3mp opposed to D5100 16.2,

</blockquote>

Yes, of course the D5100 is technically better than the prior-generation body. My point is that I wouldn't have my second shooting with either one as a matter of course, and that the D90 is about as good, as a backup (i.e., emergency) body, as is the D5100. So if the OP can save money (up front and in depreciation) by getting a used prior-gen body, he may as well do that because the value of having either the D90 or the D5100 is close enough to zero that it's more valuable to spend money on lenses or save it for the eventual second D600.

January 25, 2013

Darren, I suspect Nikon won't release a DX sensor body with a CF slot, at least not any time soon. The fact that the D800 has one CF and one SD slot, and even the D4 has one CF and one XQD slot, suggests to me that Nikon is looking for a direction to shift away from CF cards.

I also rather suspect that the number of people stridently demanding DX plus CF is ... well, the four of you probably aren't a sufficiently large market to justify the design.

January 25, 2013

I've used BRI for other things, but not proof books; however, they do seem to offer what the OP is asking for: bound or wire-bound proof books of 9-up images with file names. See <a href="http://www.blackriverimaging.com/preview-booklets.asp">http://www.blackriverimaging.com/preview-booklets.asp</a> for example, where the book is wire-bound.

January 25, 2013

Bob, what I'm seeing at Topflight seems to be traditional proof albums consisting of sleeve pages into which you insert 3.5x5 or 4x6 prints. Do they offer bound proof albums and proofing software the OP asked about, or just slip-in books?

January 25, 2013

WW wrote:

Would a Second Shooter tend to use a 70 to 200 more often than the Primary Photographer?

</blockquote>

I think so, and that's exactly why it's a key part of the second's kit. If I'm shooting close, I don't also want my second shooting close. I usually want my second to be able to snipe.

January 25, 2013

I suppose I'll just go ahead and open a can of worms by saying I don't see the D5100 as a serious contender, and wouldn't expect to see my second using one unless the D600 broke, was stolen, or sank to the bottom of a pond. If you don't already have the D5100, consider getting a used entry-level body for back-up, such as a D90, to save money.

January 25, 2013

I'm sure the 70-200 f/4 is a fine lens, and the D600 will do high ISO reasonably well, but speed is half the equation; the extra DOF control you get with the f/2.8 version is valuable at weddings.

I'd suggest getting a used VRI version of the 70-200 f/2.8 rather than getting the f/4.

I would have no problem hiring a second who was using the Tamron 24-75 f/2.8. I do usually send my second to shoot the guys getting ready, and would therefore expect that lens to be useful then. I'm not sure I'd bother with a 50mm, but the f/1.8 version is so cheap that it may provide useful backup at a trivial marginal cost. Just don't expect to get a lot of mileage out of it.

I do look at gear, but there are two things I'm interested in before gear, when deciding whether to use someone as a second. First, I want to know whether the second's personality is a good fit, including the second's reliability, integrity, friendliness, manners, etc. Second, I want to see some sample work to understand what kind of quality to expect.

Gear is third. It's still important, because it either removes or imposes limitations on the shooter's range. Ideally, I want my second to have one or two good bodies with good low-light performance, plus a fast 24-70 and a 70-200 (regardless of brand or model year). Those basic components give my second a lot of flexibility to go do something different from whatever I'm doing. (If my second is a prime shooter, then a 35 and 85 on full-frame is good, with something for wide coverage like a 20, 24, or a 16-35 is a plus.)

After those basics are covered, then additional components, such as fast primes, macro lenses, fisheyes, and other tools or toys that can add flavor, are icing on the cake. But primarily, I want basic, reliable, complete coverage ability when I look at gear.

January 22, 2013

The key risk factors I can think of are:

<ol>

<li>Data loss or other software error on a card resulting in loss of some of the files on the card;</li>

<li>Physical loss or theft of a card;</li>

<li>Distraction from changing equipment at an inopportune moment resulting in missing a shot.</li>

</ol>

The first factor is a reason to use multiple cards: an error on one card in a series may be limited to destroying only a fraction of the day's images.

The second factor can support an argument either way: if you slip and drop one card in a series, you've only lost a portion of the day -- bad, but better than losing the whole day. On the other hand, simply carrying and swapping cards significantly increases the odds of losing a card: if you use one card, it stays in the camera all the time, and you're less likely to lose a camera body than a small card.

The third factor is a reason to use one card. Even people who have a system for card changing can be surprised by running out of room and needing to change cards. And changing cards -- like changing lenses -- means the camera body is incapacitated and your attention is diverted for at least that small amount of time.

I use a body with dual slots, so the risk of data loss from an error on one card is low. And I think cards are very reliable now -- especially solid brand names (I use only SanDisk cards). Additionally, I almost never let the body out of my physical control. I therefore use one pair of high-capacity cards per camera body for the day.

January 22, 2013

It's worth pointing out that clients often don't choose us for the reasons we think they choose us.

Linda was surprised to learn, after having been booked for some time, that half the couple doesn't "like her style." We tend to assume people understand photographic styles and choose photographers based largely on style and image quality.

I think it's more accurate to say these factors -- image quality and shooting style -- are relevant but peripheral. There's a certain quality and capability level that is prerequisite, and clients are able to discern extremely poor photography from generally competent photography. But if you asked clients to explain the term "photojournalism," or elements of composition, they would confidently offer wide-ranging (and often humorous) definitions of those concepts.

It's disappointing and deflating to get the kind of feedback Linda received, but it should be entirely unsurprising.

The next question is whether she can deliver a product that is palatable to both the bride and the groom. To do that, it would be most helpful to understand exactly what the groom's concern is, and measure his tastes. It would be a mistake to take his layman's term "off center" to mean the same thing you and I understand it to mean.

I'd probably meet or skype with the couple and show a few images ranging from extreme off-center, to thirds-composition, to strictly centered composition. I'd spend considerable time listening, but I'd also be ready and able to explain generally accepted rules of composition in 10 seconds or less (you're not teaching a photography class, here; you're just helping a client to understand deliberate composition), and to discuss reasons why I composed certain shots the way I composed them.

It's likely that some of your shots are "off center" because they should be, while others are "off center" because that's a whimsical artistic preference of yours. It may be enough to rein in your artistic impulses a bit, rather than robotically composing everything for the center. It's probably true that composing just inside the thirds-lines, rather than just outside them, will satisfy the groom, but you won't know that until you ask.

December 22, 2012

Oh my goodness, the poor guy just asked for advice on buying a camera body, people. I know it's a sore subject, new photographers picking up a camera and hanging out a shingle, but the guy at least seems to have his head screwed on reasonably straight (despite the vagueness of the opening comment).

Let's just relax with the overwrought life advice until someone asks for it.

December 22, 2012

A rule of thumb is made to be broken, but crop frame sensors (7D, 60D) are better for sports shooting where the extra "magnification" you get from the smaller sensor gets you longer reach. By contrast, full-frame sensors (5D-II, 5D-III, 6D) give you access to shallower depth-of-field and better low-light performance, both of which are useful for weddings and general people-photography.

The 6D is aimed at non-professionals and has certain key technical limitations -- most notably a very slow flash sync speed of 1/180 of a second, which complicates off-camera-flash use outdoors -- that makes it less desirable for weddings than a 5D-III. However, it's a very good first DSLR (far above average as a starter), and a suitable back-up camera for weddings, so it wouldn't be a waste of your money.

December 22, 2012

Prior WB-in-RAW discussion: http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00YJta

Miranda, I understand your suffering. Getting exposure and WB to a tightly consistent level across an entire wedding collection is a huge pain. So I've begun to outsource this work. I upload my RAW files to my editor, and in a week or so, I get a LR4 catalog back (they can do other formats, sidecars, etc.) with exposure, white balance, and cropping edits done, and with greater consistency than I usually reach when trying to do it myself.

I then do my final polishing and stylistic edits. Taking the dull, technical part of editing out of my workflow has been a big blessing. For the most part, achieving consistency in WB and exposure is not a matter of artistic judgment (some exposure decisions are, but usually that's as much in camera as in post). In fact, outsourcing has improved my stylistic results by giving me a level starting point when I begin my post work.

December 22, 2012

All of wedding photography is problem solving. Seriously. Show them photos from the last wedding you shot and describe two or three technical challenges in deep, gritty detail that is as boring as possible. Be really technical. This conversation will be over in about 45 seconds.

Clients conjure (or are told by magazines and Knot articles to expect and inquire about) all kinds of potential fanciful problems. In most cases, all the client really wants is some indication of competence, not always realizing that appealing prior work is evidence of competence.

I cover a number of potential problems not related to the technical aspects of photography in my contract. So if a client asks this sort of question, we can go in either direction. Just don't overthink the question or respond defensively. Confidence (without arrogance) is one trait the client is looking for in asking this question.

November 7, 2012

If by "events," you mean weddings and/or corporate events, then you're going to miss having a faster lens in the wide range. I can't remember whether the 1D mk2n is a crop-frame sensor, but I think it is, and the 40D certainly is, so either a 17-55 f/2.8 or just having a 24 f/1.4 would be a good addition. The other stuff is probably fine for starting out.

October 27, 2012

That's a tight budget, but you're offering a reasonable amount for a decent second, so I think you're probably fine in that range. If you don't get a lot of responses here, try 1) other forums, 2) your local SMUG group, and/or 3) calling some established pros in your area and asking them to second with you.

You're asking for a second really early. If you get takers right now for May of next year, they're likely to be inexperienced and, thus, eager to leap on any opportunities. I usually post for a second about 4-8 weeks out, if I don't already know who I'm using. At that point, other established pros who are open on that date are less worried about keeping the date open for a full booking, and more willing to fill the time with second-shooting. So, if you post elsewhere or call pros directly, you might want to wait until March or thereabouts. Maybe post here, again, in March, as well.

Really, really hard to talk about albums with so little information. There are press-printers like Blurb, My Publisher, and some others, that do nice-but-basic press-printed books for less than $100. Adorama, BRI, ACI, and some others have some lower-mid-range books that are nicer than the press-printed books with thicker pages and nicer printing quality for maybe double that price. Then you've got entry-level albums, which you can get from collages.net, Adorama, BRI, and a number of others. And there are a few tiers of higher-quality album makers, such as Red Tree, Zook, WHCC, Vision Art, Queensbury, and so on.

If you have an idea what the budget for the album might be, it would be easier to help you narrow it down. (I assume you don't intend to do the album within the $1,000 budget, but if so, then I'd think you're looking at a press-printed option.)

October 26, 2012

AJ, you're absolutely right to consider the second's personality. That's as important as his shooting skills in terms of his value proposition (or risk, if he's a jackass) to you.

I've shot most of my weddings solo and have captured everything that I needed. I'm taking on a second so they can gain experience and so I may be able to use candids that i would otherwise miss while getting the shots I need.

</blockquote>

This paragraph is self-contradictory. If you get everything you need shooting solo (first sentence), then the value proposition of a second is zero. Your next sentence says you actually are missing shots you need, which I suspect is correct.

I'm guessing what you really meant, here, is that you've produced adequate coverage on your own, but you see gaps in your solo coverage that a second could fill, thereby improving your coverage. That's pretty much true for everyone. The next question is: what exactly is the value of that second to you?

You're not a charity. Forget "taking on a second so they can gain experience." That's one reason the second might choose to shoot with you. It's value to the second, not to you.

For you, the reasons to take on a second might be:

<ul>

<li>you want to expand the scope and comprehensiveness of your coverage (because, for example, you're unsatisfied with or unsure of your ability to cover a wedding comprehensively without assistance, or just want to offer a better product); </li>

<li>you want to expand your style of coverage, and adding a second shooter with a complimentary style will give you a more robust product stylistically;</li>

<li>you want to reduce risk in case something happens to you that prevents you from shooting part or all of the wedding;</li>

<li>you want to develop or improve your network of peers;</li>

<li>you just need an extra pair of hands to carry stuff around.</li>

</ul>

Perhaps you have yet other reasons. Most of these relate in some way to the kind of product you are able to deliver. A second shooter can help you build your product quality, and therefore command higher prices. That's the direction I was encouraging you to think.

There is no one forcing this individual to take an opportunity that he feels may pay unfairly.

</blockquote>

I agree. I am not concerned about what he feels is "fair." I'm talking about what it will take for you to attract a second shooter who will help you achieve your goals and expose you to the least risk (of, for example, having a jackass working with you for a day, or having a nice guy who can't shoot a dead tree without subject-motion blur as your second).

But being that this isn't my full-time job, yeah, it pretty much is still a profitable gig.

</blockquote>

"Gig" and "business" are different things. What you're saying here is that it's a hobby that pays for itself or a bit more. Fine. But since you want to go full time, you need to start looking at this as an unprofitable price point from a business perspective. My point was merely to encourage you to explore how the second can help you achieve your goal of developing a profitable business you could slide into full time. You would (perhaps literally) kill yourself trying to make a living working full time at this price point, especially if you wanted to bring seconds to your weddings. It just can't be done at $700 a wedding as a bona-fide business.

To achieve your goals, it may be worth paying a better second shooter a higher rate (i.e., investing in your product development) if doing so will so improve your portfolio and product quality that you can quickly double your prices. By contrast, it may not even be worth $50 to you to have a kid tagging along with you who doesn't create value for you.

October 26, 2012

the blanket assumption that '$xxx can't be profitable!' is patently ludicrous, and irrelevant

</blockquote>

It's a "blanket assumption" studies by the PPA, among others, support. I'm not arguing he shouldn't be in business or try to succeed. I'm simply saying there's virtually no way to sustain a profitable business at that rate. One can support a hobby and pay for a significant part of one's expenses charging just under $1,000 for a wedding, but it's not a profitable business, regardless of how much you work to limit expenses.

AJ also mentions he aspires to move into wedding photography full-time. That makes the profitability issue all the more important. A key part of understanding profitability is thoroughly examining and accounting for all costs of doing business, including appropriately valuing one's own time.

I don't make the argument about profitability to hurt his feelings. But I am perfectly confident in asserting that $700 weddings are simply not profitable. Arguments to the contrary simply ignore real costs to get there.

October 25, 2012

I think this was a very short-lived trend four years ago or so. I do believe the Nikon D70 and/or D80 were good models for fairly easy, low-risk conversion.

October 25, 2012

Something else to consider: a second shooter is either worth paying, or else is in the shoot-for-free-to-get-experience mode.

It may make sense to offer a role as an unpaid second to someone with little or no experience and whose work you don't know. Once you're familiar with a second's work and you know it will create real value for you by complimenting your own coverage, the second is worth more than a piddling hourly rate.

I don't think there are really a lot of folks worth paying a pittance but not worth paying $150 (which even then is barely-above-pittance level for a day's work). This $48-$96 per-day pay band is more insulting than anything. So I think the second is, understandably, just saying "Look, either pay me, or else don't pay me, but don't throw fifty cents on the floor in front of me saying 'sorry it's not more.'" :)

October 25, 2012

I'm not sure quite where to go with this; I've got mixed reactions to the OP. Sure, it's easy enough just to say, "Hey, sorry, I was clear in my ad and our conversation about what I can offer. Let me know if you'd like to work within my constraints. Cheers."

But $150 for a day's work is, frankly, cheap for an assistant, and well below what I'd expect to pay a remotely qualified second. I'm in a larger US market, so perhaps there's a regional difference. But if you're shooting $700-$900 weddings, you can't be seriously concerned about your profit margin because you don't have one.

New wedding photographers typically shoot in the sub-$1,000 range for the shortest possible time it takes to build a portfolio and referral base, and then get out of that bracket. It is just not possible to make money even in the short term in that bracket.

Assuming that's where you are, decide what your goals really are. If you're trying to get out of that bracket as quickly as possible, then accept that you're going to invest considerably more than your revenue stream back into the business, and decide whether having a second can help you build what you need in order to get out of that unprofitable bracket, or not.

If so, then accept that the cost of a useful second is at least a quarter of your base rate at that price point, and make the most of the coverage the second delivers.

By contrast, if you decide a second really won't get you closer to your goal of getting into a better price bracket, then forget having a second, and just hire an assistant (which perhaps you can get at that hourly rate), if only to avoid breaking your back carrying gear.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by ianivey