ianivey

December 27, 2011

Your equipment is adequate if you understand the purpose and limitations of each element. Marcus is correct that the 17-55 isn't for use on the 5D-II. But on the 60D, the 17-55 is basically the equivalent of having a 24-70 or 28-75 on a 5D (image-quality differences between sensors aside).

So on the wedding day, you'd probably have the 17-55 on the 60D and the 70-200 on the 5D-II for most of the action, and use the 85 on the 5D-II if you need a faster lens for low-light situations. If you put on the 85 and start shooting at 1.8 or 2.0, just be careful to compose correctly when focusing, rather than focusing and then recomposing, because focus/recompose at that wide an aperture shifts the focal plane off your target, giving you blurry faces.

You might be happier with your results if you pick up (remember, you can rent) a 24-70 f/2.8 or the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for the 5D-II, and put the 70-200 on the 60D. This gives you longer reach with the long lens (but limits the 60D for close-up work use unless you can quick-swap for the 17-55), and mates your best body with the wide-to-mid-tele lens that will give it the most use.

Bring the kit lenses as dire-emergency back-ups, leaving them in the car.

There are only rare opportunities on a wedding day to use light meters. In most cases, you're moving too quickly. So I'd leave the Sekonic at home.

The lights and triggers could be very useful, particularly at the reception, where you might set them up on stands and aim them 45 degrees up and into the room on, say, 1/4 or 1/8 power. You might, however, be happier if you keep one on the camera to bounce and provide fill, and use the other as a kicker or something along those lines. Special lighting is much easier if you have three or four strobes, allowing you to keep one on the camera.

For weddings, most photographers have moved to a 90%+ Lightroom workflow because it is dramatically faster than using PS, and does the vast majority of what you'd need to do.

December 21, 2011

Sheesh. Going around calling this good money without spreadsheets or critical thinking.

[grabs pitchfork, lights torch]

LET'S GET THIS GUY!

December 12, 2011

But to act preemptively on the opinion that "I would never put an image of an unattractive girl (however well photographed) on my website or in a show album." IS demeaning to clients. You AREspecifically saying w/ that statement that their worth to you is less than that of a pretty or sexy bride.

</blockquote>

LOL, guys, come on. He's not demeaning less attractive people in general. He's not saying anything about their value as human beings. He's just saying good-looking faces sell better than less-attractive faces. There's no serious controversy about this fact...

...which is why this whole thing feels like a troll. He still hasn't stated a useful purpose in posting the thread. Just having a "discussion" is of zero value unless it resolves a specific problem or leads to the discovery of new useful information. He never intended to accomplish either goal.

As far as I can see, the only possible outcome of posting the original comment was for some people to take it personally or make it personal.

<a href="http://www.meh.ro/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/meh.ro5722.jpg">Please</a>.

December 12, 2011

I should add that it's perfectly acceptable to capture an image that reminds those familiar with the subjects about their characteristics, rather than one that reveals character to outsiders. Such a photo can be more valuable to the client than one that is universally understood. It can function like an inside joke (i.e., a joke understood only to the few familiar with its origin).

December 12, 2011

Ruslan,

To your question, I don't know what this image says about their characters. It is, however, quite possible that they will: that they'll see this photo and perhaps notice an unusual expression on his or her face and associate it with some aspect of their relationship.

I don't know these people, so I have nothing to go on except what's in the photo, which appears to be a simple conversation between two people having some fun. His expression seems possibly slightly chagrined, but without context, I can't tell whether that's true, and if so, why it might be so.

As a stranger, I therefore do not draw any significant inferences from this image about their characters. It would help me to understand the significance of this image if you would explain what you take away from it and why, given your relationship to the subjects.

December 12, 2011

Marcus wrote:

But the difference in marketing appeal/rational has zero to do with actual photography.

</blockquote>

It was inevitable that someone in this discussion, and likely many, would make an argument about the value of a photograph independent of its use. But no photograph is inherently good or valuable. A photo's value -- like that of any other good -- is derived from the use to which a person puts it (including simple, casual viewing of the photograph, which is basic "use" of it).

A photo may be "beautiful" to many (who use it by looking at it for pleasure or inspiration), and useless to others.

If I understand David correctly, he is merely positing that some images have greater potential for successful use in marketing than do others, depending in large measure on the apparent attractiveness of the subjects therein. It is certainly true that a photographer can make subjects appear more or less attractive by use of skillful composition, posing, lighting, and processing, hence my use of the phrase "apparent attractiveness."

A simple and well-proven rule of marketing is that images of physical beauty sell goods and services by encouraging people to linger on the images and associate beauty with the brand. People associate characteristics with brands, and then decide whether they want to be in a group of people with those characteristics. This is mainly superficial, which is why some people find it offensive, but it is nevertheless true, which is why bothering to be offended by it is a waste of energy.

An image is valuable for a use. The OP is discussing the use of images for self-promotion. Images of attractive people are generally more valuable for that use than are images of unattractive people, all other factors being equal.

So I guess I'm left wondering why David bothered to post this at all?

I am not trying to provoke moral outrage but merely suggesting well photographed pretty brides are good business.

</blockquote>

Did you just want to point out to people that you are aware of a principle of marketing? What's the value of the opening post? Do you want help making a decision of some kind? If so, what?

December 12, 2011

My fault -- I should have been much clearer about who I was referring to, given that I started by quoting John.

the "what was the guy supposed to do?" line of reasoning indicates either a lack of business knowledge or else a lack of integrity.

</blockquote>

There was no such reasoning.

The prevalence of responses in this thread sympathetic to the third is alarming,

</blockquote>

There is no prevalence of sympathy for the shooter. Indeed there is none. Where are you getting all these notions from?

</blockquote>

The comments I'm referring to, here, came earlier, John H, and never from you.

Examples:

If you need employees, it is your job to train them well and treat them with respect if you expect the same in return. The last thing you want is the reputation for not pleasing your customers and not treating employees or contractors fairly.

1. The Third Shooter shall be forbidden from mentioning their name at the event. Clients (I saw them first!) might look you up on a search engine and find your professional website. This would be professionally embarrassing, especially if your photos are nicer than mine.

Probably the 3rd photographer never gave a second thought about handing the bride his/her business card. What was he/she (3rd photographer) supposed to have done when asked for the business card... tell the bride the he/she was not allowed to[?]... give it a rest.

I do however think it is overstepping on your part to ask the 3rd shooter to ignore friend requests on FB. Also how do you want them to handle being asked point blank to receive a review online?

</blockquote>

Each of these was from a different person, hence my use of the word "prevalence." That part of my post was in no way related to your comments, John H, nor directed at you. Sorry I wasn't clearer about that.

</blockquote>

December 9, 2011

Ali, and then John H, wrote:

I am already "getting over it."

</blockquote>

It doesn't seem like it.

</blockquote>

I don't think that's fair to Ali. It's possible to get over something and still continue to discuss it with people with whom you're already involved in a conversation. Getting over the offense -- i.e., moving on without taking further action or spending too much mental energy worrying -- does not require that Ali retreat from her principled position or decline to explain or defend it if challenged.

Regarding the substance of the discussion (late to the conversation, but it is interesting): the "what was the guy supposed to do?" line of reasoning indicates either a lack of business knowledge or else a lack of integrity. It is expensive to establish client relationships, and a primary benefit of those relationships is referral business. For the third shooter to interject his own brand at all, not to mention in spite of the agreement and clearly established expectation, undermines and dilutes that primary relationship.

The proper response for any second or third photographer, absent a clear agreement to the contrary, is to say to the client, "Thank you for your kind and encouraging words. It would be inappropriate for me to accept your offer of a review, as you are Ali's client, not mine, but it has been a pleasure to work with Ali to serve you today." The prevalence of responses in this thread sympathetic to the third is alarming, and is a reason photographers are reluctant to offer second-shooter opportunities to people they don't know and trust.

Heck, here, even knowing and trusting the third wasn't enough. That's shameful behavior. It's not a mortal wound; Ali won't loose sleep over it for long. But betrayal is the right word.

</blockquote>

December 9, 2011

Aura,

You've probably got enough experience as a second to do just fine as a principal, so go get 'em. I have two things to address about the web site (aside from the fact that I'm using Chrome and it works fine on my end).

First, I agree with others here that the first image I saw -- low angle of a solo bride -- is wrong for your opener, and I'd pull it entirely (it's just not a flattering angle). You have other shots of brides later in the series that work better. This is certainly not a signature shot, and your first two or three images, at least, should be signature images that help define your brand.

Second, the About Me page is the hardest thing to write, but is crucial to distinguishing yourself. Take about an hour and go look at the About Me pages of thirty or so sole-proprietor/single-owner wedding photographers (just search photographers in your area and go through the first three or four pages). Copy the About Me text from each one into a one long, hilarious, cliche-ridden word document.

Then get a sharp pencil. For every time you see a photographer talk about any one of these things, jab yourself in the arm with the pencil:

<ol>

<li>I want to be your photographer / I want to photograph your wedding</li>

<li>Photography is a way of life / philosophy</li>

<li>Passion (any use of this word)</li>

<li>Privilege of shooting your wedding / privilege of participating in your special day</li>

<li>Special day (any use of this word)</li>

<li>I tell your story </li>

</ol>

If you do this, you may also want to call an ambulance before you begin, so that it arrives in time. But the exercise helps you avoid writing the things that actually make it harder for prospective clients to distinguish you from other photographers.

Then, if you're able, try to reduce the degree to which you talk about things that don't relate to your prospective clients' direct interests. It's not evident to clients how your work with animals gets them what they want. (Unless the maid of honor is a real dog, if you know what I mean!) Despite it's importance to you, I'd suggest killing or significantly paring that down.

Among the many reasons we struggle with "About Me" pages, the biggest challenge is that no one outside of friends and family actually cares who we are when looking for a wedding photographer. They care about whether you'll deliver what they want.

So spend most of your energy in your About Me section talking about how you'll do that.

December 8, 2011

There are two important questions to ask. First, why do you want to make these edits? Second, why do you have so many edits to make?

Pete's advice is gold. Shoot better, and edit better.

Do you want to make these edits because you feel compelled to perfect each, individual image, regardless of how you or your client will use it? Instead of editing every image, batch edit the collection for basic issues such as white balance and exposure, and fix glaring issues with images you otherwise must keep. Then, if you need to make changes to specific images for use in an album or because the client wants a 4:5 crop, do that only for the subset for which those changes are actually useful.

If you deliver 400 images, remember that probably only 100-150 of them will ever be printed in anything other than proof form, and of those, only some need fine edits. The rest are nice to glance at online, or on facebook, but will not create measurably greater value in a different aspect ratio.

Regarding your shooting, compose for the aspect ratio of your camera. Instead of making these changes in post, where it takes a comparatively long time, make these changes during shooting, where it takes a single step to the left or right, or aiming down just a bit. The more you think about how much easier and more pleasant your life would be if you got the composition right, the more likely you are to improve your shooting. That's certainly been true for me.

November 29, 2011

David, give serious consideration to paying a pro to shoot the wedding on the condition that you second shoot and get some good instruction. Interview pros until you find one you get along with and who seems genuinely willing to teach you while the two of you work. This is really an excellent idea, and you seem to be missing the value of it. If you find yourself "standing on the sidelines" and finishing the day with "1/1000th more" knowledge than you started with, then you're working with the wrong pro.

To be sure, not every pro is willing or able to teach you as you shoot the wedding. But if you do hire a pro and shoot along side him or her, then you have a full day of opportunity to learn by observation and participation, and you also significantly increase your chances of delivering satisfactory results to the bride and groom.

Let us know what you decide to do, and how it turns out, would you?

November 28, 2011

Ian, if we limit the activities to a free shoot and a photographer giving images to a recipient, in what way can the photographer be liable, even if she fails to deliver the images? ...

... my question to Ian refers to the need for a contract. I don't think having a contract will protect a photographer from liability for causing injury.

</blockquote>

Well, it may theoretically help limit liability for injury to some extent (e.g., injury to one of the signatories), depending on the content of the contract and the state in which the contract is executed. But no, that's not the primary issue, mainly because (as you seem to know) it is difficult to limit your liability for negligent personal or property injury to others in a contract between you and one or two people.

Regarding your main question, Michael, you phrase it in such a way that I believe I understand your reasoning ("if we limit the activities to a free shoot"). You're limiting the fee, not the "activities." Calling a wedding "a free shoot" just confuses the elements of this exchange.

Please correct me if I get this wrong, but if I understand you correctly, your premise, in asking how you could be liable if you don't charge a fee for your photography, is either:

<ol>

<li>that your liability for failure to perform cannot exceed the value of your fee; or else</li>

<li>that a no-fee arrangement by definition means you do not guarantee any results.</li>

</ol>

Neither of these is a good assumption.

1) Many photographers' contracts state that the photographer's liability for failure to deliver according to the agreement is limited to the full fee. This clause is useful precisely because in most cases liability is not otherwise so limited, and may extend, for example, to covering the cost of restaging of the event or of having someone more skilled edit/salvage poor-quality images. There are many possible consequences of failing to deliver according to expectations that might have measurable value in excess of whatever fee is charged.

2) If you agree to photograph a wedding, then the client has certain expectations about what you have agreed to deliver. To over-simplify, the client probably will make some decisions in reliance on your promise to photograph the wedding. If you fail to deliver according to expectations, then the client's decisions -- to rely on you, not to hire a professional, not perhaps to take advantage of any opportunity to have back-up coverage -- will have been to her detriment. It may be that your failure to perform according to the expectations you create by promising to photograph the wedding has a high cost -- a cost that an angry client might be inclined to ask the court to try to measure.

The OP offered to shoot the wedding in order to obtain something of value, namely, an opportunity (presumably exclusive) to gain experience as a primary and build her portfolio:

so I thought it would be great experience and would add alot [sic] to my portfolio if I offered to photograph her wedding!

</blockquote>

The access that a primary shooter enjoys on a wedding day (not to mention the trust) is not trivial consideration -- especially to one starting out, hoping to charge for her work one day, and in need of some evidence of capability and experience. Therefore this arguably is not a situation in which the OP is receiving nothing of value. The OP's first sentence is a statement to the contrary.

So, then, the value of a written and signed contract in this instance is the same as it is in any for-pay situation: to establish agreement about what each party expects the other to deliver (and here, the contract would benefit a lot from including language clearly articulating the photographer's inexperience, and the likely consequences of that inexperience), and to set reasonable limitations on the photographer's liability in the event of a partial or total failure to deliver even what the agreement says is minimally acceptable.

Ninety percent of the value of a contract is in managing expectations ahead of time, and the other 10% is is providing the back-end protection against crazy.

November 27, 2011

Ed te Pas wrote:

Why do you have a contract if you're shooting for free?

</blockquote>

You do this 1) because shooting for free does not necessarily limit your liability to $0, and 2) to help ensure that the clients clearly understand your limitations as a novice wedding shooter. The simple act of putting terms and limitations in writing and discussing that document provides an anchor should the client experience any consternation later.

November 26, 2011

When subjects are doing something that's not suitable for the shot, I usually find it effective to show them a sample on the back of the camera to help them understand what they're doing and how it affects (or ruins) the shot. One or two quick reveals like that almost always eliminate the problem behavior without giving offense.

November 4, 2011

Yeah, the solution here isn't to bring the Exposure up so high that you blow out the highlights (as you did in the original shot you posted). Instead, you might bring exposure up some, but mainly the Fill slider is your friend, along with Recovery, to reduce the contrast in this image.

The problem is that the image includes too-wide a dynamic range: the brightest spots are so much brighter than the darkest spots in which you still want detail that the camera sensor can't express the scene adequately. In other words, there's too much contrast. If you bring Fill up and increase Recovery (which pulls the brightest tones down), you basically decrease contrast by moving some of the darker tones toward the middle and the brightest tones also toward the middle.

Simply increasing the Exposure slider just moves everything higher, and you've probably got some highlights already blown out in the original image, so that's probably not the place you want to start. Start by increasing both Fill and Recovery.

October 26, 2011

I'm still not sure where the outburst came from, which is why I was offended.

</blockquote>

You know, you probably do know where it came from. It wasn't you. It came from:

<ol>

<li>being a bride,</li>

<li>on an extremely hot day,</li>

<li>with her family growing impatient,</li>

<li>and her 9-year-old daughter being tired and uncooperative,</li>

<li>all while someone else started directing the photos while these things were nagging at her, and from</li>

<li>being a bride.</li>

</ol>

If you start expecting this kind of response to a situation with several stress-inducing components, you'll react better, and primarily with sympathy, when brides snap, rather than taking it personally or even bothering to be offended at all. And you'll earn a lot of points with the bride, the groom, and the family.

Sounds like you held your tongue in the moment, which is a very good first step. :)

October 26, 2011

Do you own a Taser? I've only had to use mine three times on mouthy brides, but each instance has reinforced my hypothesis that it's hard to be bossy and expect people to take you seriously when you're lying prone on the ground with your jaw clenched shut. As with so many other things, I learned this technique from Nadine (though she's quicker and more stealthy with hers than I am with mine -- I'm still learning; she's like a freakin' ninja). Side benefit: all the temporary muscle tension it causes is a lot like exercise, and after a few minutes it helps people wind down when they're stressed out. The device takes up about as much room as a speedlight -- fits perfectly in the bag, and even sorta looks like a flash when it goes off.

When the bride shouted at you, that might have been an opportunity to be a calming influence at a stressful moment. Or maybe not -- photography was the focal point of the stress, so perhaps you could have done nothing better. But even after she shouted at you the second time, you might have earned considerable benefit from reacting in a way that showed you were immediately and solely conscious of her distress and wanted to figure out a way to alleviate it right away. It's difficult to react this way when a bride's distress causes her to act out disrespectfully, but a reaction that demonstrates genuine concern and understanding from you in that moment is so unexpected that it alone can jar someone out of the panic she is feeling.

But again, perhaps you did this to no avail.

As for the album design, it probably doesn't matter much whether you flex to allow her to guide the album design or not. If you don't, you'll still allow her to make edits, and that's just the way you work. She might be difficult or not. If you do, then you'll certainly need to establish clearly that you're modifying your agreement, and then set (and get written agreement to) well-defined limitations to the process.

And through all of this, you'll be okay.

October 26, 2011

LumaPix FotoFusion (you'll want the Extreme version) is truly remarkable software that greatly facilitates album design. I'm good with Indesign, but FotoFusion makes easy so many of the things you want to do in designing an album that I'd never do it in Indesign. It's really good.

October 26, 2011

This is definitely a shot made for canvas. a 20x30 or 20x40 would work really well. I'm trying to remember to shoot at least a couple like this -- it's hard because I'm so attracted to facial expression which, in a shot framed this way, is not present in the viewfinder.

This is the kind of shot that brings in additional revenue after the fact. A wider-aspect crop like John's would get rid of the foreground grass, and would be a great stand-alone enlargement. Yes, see whether you can bring a bit of blue into the sky at top. Aside from those two issues, there's little I'd change.

October 26, 2011

It's true: <a href="http://www.fuccisphotos.com/profiles.html">Vail is a fairly small woman</a>. See that second image? She's standing at full height in that photo. I think this just makes her photography all the more impressive.

October 26, 2011

Well, I'm a little late to the party and don't know whether Sharyn (who's been quiet for most of this thread) is even seeing these messages any more, so I may be talking into an echo chamber. But this was a simple kit question, not a why-am-I-here question. People learn in different ways.

On a full-frame sensor camera, a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens can serve capably (not spectacularly, but capably) as the only lens you use at a wedding. If you're using zooms, it is nearly-unarguably the most important lens to have. The equivalent on a crop-frame sensor camera is a 17-50 (your Tamron 17-50 is brilliant) or 17-55mm (usually the camera brand-name) lens. Since you have this combo as your starting point, you'll probably really enjoy having a 70-200 to round out your coverage.

And since you do already have the 17-50 and one crop-frame body, you'd probably be happier with the D7000, which will mean both of your bodies will feel and function about the same (albeit with some control-layout differences). Getting a D700 would put you into the situation of having no general-purpose zoom for that body even though you'd very much want to use it as your main body. I think it would compel you to spend even more on a 24-70 or similar. So, though my knowledge of your skills and expectations is limited to what you've written here, I suspect you'd be happier with a D7000.

I've been shooting for the last year with one full-frame and one crop-frame body. I've learned that I really do not like that combination, and find that I almost never use the D300. So I'm planning to pick up another D3. I think it's WW who uses and prefers the FX/DX combination, and he's posted several good discussions of the benefits of that approach. But because moving in that direction would really necessitate an additional lens purchase, I think a dual-DX setup is more likely to suit you.

The VRII version of the 70-200 is a notable improvement over the original VR version, particularly in the amount of flare the lenses produce when shooting toward bright lights. So, if going the D7000 route allows you room in your budget to pick up that lens, then that's a bonus.

October 15, 2011

+1 for LumaPix FotoFusion. Very powerful, very very fast album design. Bit of a learning curve, but not as steep as Indesign.

October 15, 2011

I second Nadine's suggestion of the Tamron 17-50, and recommend the VC version, which is available new for around $650.

I wouldn't chase a 24-70 with a crop-frame sensor camera. The 17-50 is outstanding on a DX body like the D7000. So much so that you'll rarely take it off (until you get, say, a 70-200 f/2.8 or a Tokina 50-135 f/2.8).

September 28, 2011

It's really not fair to Green to dismiss his reaction as thin-skinned. He is reacting - consciously or subconsciously - to

the words, the body language and demeanor, the personality, and the implied intent of the prospective client. Some

here have observed that this might have been a strong and reliable signal that the groom wasn't open to Green's approach,

or that he fully intended to use Green for a free session and drop him, or would otherwise be a difficult client. All we can

evaluate are the words, which could be innocuous, or not. Green evaluated a lot more.

So I'm inclined to trust his judgment, even though he's the one asking.

At the same time, this (a test) is partly how I see my own e-sessions. I work hard to establish rapport and credibility

with my clients during these sessions. But like Green and Maria, I avoid people who demonstrate an inclination to take

advantage.

The key, if doing a session prior to signing and booking the wedding, is to sign an agreement that the session is a

part of the wedding agreement and that the fee they pay for the session (prior to shooting) is applicable to the

wedding package when they book.

September 26, 2011

Great examples, Marc. One more thing: taking a few shots of the background in which you get exactly the sky you

want, such as the last two from Marc, tell you what the exposure needs to be, without the distracting pressure of

having your subject(s) present. Then, keeping exactly that exposure, add subjects, and add flash; adjust only the flash

until you get the subjects' exposure where you want it as well. This helps you separate the two exposures (ambient

background plus flash on subjects) in your mind and your process until you're comfortable handling both togeer on the

fly.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by ianivey