cyrus_procter

<p>Marc,<br>

So how do you do it? We've heard what other people think, but do you think its possible to have a sort of "wedding photography education" to brides? Obviously if its phrased that way, or listed as "all you need to know about wedding photography" its probably not going to the best way to reach bride, but do you have something on your website that helps brides understand the difference between an unprofessional wedding photographer and the professional wedding photographer? Even just subtle hints? Or do you do it all in person? I see you've talked about all kind of weddings you've shot, even cheap ones, so how do you appeal to such a wide range? Do you leave prices out of your website? or do you offer a wide range of packages or is that savvy brides looking for the best on a deal get a hold of you and ask for better deals? How do you market if at all? Do you think its such a terrible thing to start with lower prices and then work your way up? Even still catering to the mid to lower budgets? I know these are a lot of questions, but you seem to be brimming with experience and knowledge so you would seem to be the person to weigh in on these questions :).</p>

<p>I appreciate the comments Lindsay and Rick. I should have mentioned I have been a 2nd wedding photographer 3 times and a solo wedding photographer 3 times. I have posted links below to the last two solo weddings, one is a virtual album the other a gallery. 1 was for a friend, one was paid by a business associate that knew of my film work, but it was very low, I did it more as a favor. </p>

<p>My 2nd wedding Solo. Keep in mind I only shot this with 1 body (almost immediate the AF went down on my 2nd body) and only the assistance of my ever supportive wife.<br>

<a href="/wedding-photography-forum/">http://www.adorapro.com/sproctor/book/briana/tfwswmpk8n</a></p>

<p>My 3rd wedding. This one was for a friend, I was attending anyways and I offered to shoot for free in trade for experience. There was no primary photographer, again, I was only assisted by my wife.<br>

<a href="http://www.skylerproctorphotography.com/p173605080">http://www.skylerproctorphotography.com/p173605080</a><br>

<br>

I would like to very much second, however I have a really hard time with it. Every pro I've met is usually intimidated by my experience. There is practically not a camera or lens in Nikon's lineup except for the stuff a year or less old that I haven't shot for at least a month. I guess I haven't shot anything 500mm and up, but between the 400mm F/2.8 and the 14-24, I've pretty much shot all the professional glass extensively. Between that and my film experience, all the pros I meet shy away, either like I'm going to be serious competition or like there is nothing they can teach me. Now I try really hard not to mention anything I've done or shot with, but even then, somehow when they ask about what you've shot or what gear you have, it always comes up. I am actually really frustrated about that. In the film biz, people are more than happy to talk about stuff, or share ideas, or whatever, but to date, all the photographers I've met have been super "hands off". Its like I'm going to steal their next wedding away. Which I understand, I really do, its just frustrating. I just want to talk. Whats wrong with talking about ideas or experiences or whatever? Whats wrong with me showing up and shooting as a second? Its how I got in the film business, but when there is a set of 50 people, whats one more person..<br /><br>

<br>

I see many points of view here. I do not necessarily intend to make weddings my full time business. Perhaps one day, but right now, I just really enjoy it and would love to shoot more. (one of the reason's I've had difficulty building it, never have time to work on it, but now I've switched jobs and have more time to dedicate to building it). I've thought perhaps I should start out small, charge low amounts, $500 a wedding. None the less I've got well over $10,000 in camera equipment right now, and I'm about to add another $1,500 to $2,000 in flashes, so just based on the equipment I'm bringing seems like I should be charging more. I mean going to a place like lensrentals.com it costs over $500 just to rent the equipment I have, not to mention the flashes I'll be getting or the return shipping costs. Seems like the principle of once a cheap photographer always a cheap photographer would apply, and its even been mentioned here. None the less many photographers including many famous ones listed on the photo.net "Business of Wedding photography" started out small and started charging more and more. Of course I do not expect to start charging $400 and move up to $2500 in the course of a year, but it seems like incremental price increases will not kill a photographer, as long as he doesn't market himself as being "cheap". Seems like if you market yourself as quality and charge modest amounts and as time goes on and your business increases, slowly increase in fee and eventually your fee will match your marketing. Any thoughts? Has anyone here started small and gotten bigger over time? Did you notice any bumps in the road doing so? (i.e. brides complaining you were less the year before kind of thing?)<br>

<br>

I've often thought one of my best advantages is to do it as a wedding video/photo package. I would have no problem with the video side (and in experience at least I'm more qualified for that anyways) and I think I could offer a better service doing both than just doing photos and then another contractor doing the video. It does represent a significant investment though because presently I have 2 pro grade DSLR bodies and fine range of lenses, however I do my video and stills on these 2 bodies, which means it makes a great video or photo package, not both at the same time. The other problem is audio; unfortunately something I worry about a lot when doing wedding videos because I am very much accustomed to having an audio person there handling all of that, its one thing I don't know very well. So I figured I would start slow by just doing photos and once I was getting more business I could upgrade to doing videos then. Perhaps though I should just bite the bullet as I could probably get more jobs offering both. Does anyone here offer photos and video as a package deal? Naturally I wouldn't do them both by myself, I would call on some of my film contacts to assist me.<br>

<br>

Seems like there is a huge range of wedding photographers, from the $400 to the $4000. I'm afraid in my area, I'll probably be limited to the more inexpensive weddings, but I do travel quite a ways for business, even to Salt Lake City. So I have been wondering, is it better to concentrate on one individual area or try and spread out? In the town I live there are about 2000 people and a $300 wedding photographer is considered expensive. They are farmers and they just don't see the point in spending very much on photos. So I've always kind of expected I would advertise elsewhere. Does anyone else live in Y little town by advertise in X big town and just drive? Any suggestions?<br>

Patrick, I was afraid of that; I was just hoping that there was a way to help people understand.<br>

I appreciate all your thoughts. I have truly thought over all of your advice, I appreciate everyone's input.</p>

<p>Thanks again!<br>

<br>

<br>

</p>

<p>I've been considering starting a wedding photography business for well over a year now. I'm extremely comfortable with the camera, lighting, editing, etc. By comfortable I mean I've been shooting in the film business as my primary profession for 7 years now, and for intensive purposes have mastered high end DSLRs and my photographic style. I have not mastered lighting, but if there is one thing I have learned in the past 7 years; no matter how long I live or how much I shoot, I do not think I shall ever master light, for it is the only invisible thing we can see.</p>

<p>My real dilemma with starting a business comes from advertising. As a filmmaker, your work is basically your advertising. Producers hire you based on what they see. And once they work with you and like you, they will continually hire you. In wedding photography every client must be sold from scratch (at least in theory) and the quality of the pictures is almost irrelevant (Of course assuming they are of professional grade). Even worse, its not just selling brides on the idea that you are the best photographer for the job, but that they need a photographer in the first place. Sadly with so many DSLRs in the sub $1000 range with increasingly better attributes I've noticed just how important it is to help brides realize the need for a "professional artist" and not their friend with a "professional tool used by real artists".</p>

<p>And so I've come here before all you fine wedding photographers and I'm asking the question, how do you market to brides in a way that shows them the importance of a "real photographer"? How do you tell people the importance of a real photographer? Real art?</p>

<p>I really would like to put a page on my website attempting to explain all of this, but honestly I don't think it would do any good and it would probably be a deterrent to as many clients as it would a benefit. Do you all just charge more and thereby make it to a class that knows well enough that you get what you pay for? Do you all offer the "discount package" specifically for the penny pitcher who's been considering the friend who just bought a shiny new coolpix\cellphone\DSLR w\ Kit Lens? Do you advertise in bridal websites/magzines or do you do it strictly by mouth?</p>

<p>I appreciate your input :D</p>

<p>Marc,<br>

Thank you for your comments Marc. I do feel very comfortable with artificial lighting, but natural lighting is a subtly I'm still working on. I'm used to having 20 or so lights with a 5 man crew, not just using what God already put there. Reminds me of a statement by a very well respected cinematographer from yesterday who said God was the greatest cinematographer because He only used one light (and I need to work more on utilizing it ;)<br>

<br />Anyways point is, this was a spur of the moment shot when something dramatic happened in the room. But when I looked back I saw what I felt was a moment of emotional honesty, and yes I do believe in telling a story, I'm a firm believer in designing an album, and I felt this image fit in the story I was telling. The reason I posted this post, is because I knew the image was not as visually strong as it could be, so I was doing what I could in LR to try bring this image up to the visual standard of my other images, but I was worried I had taken it too far. I was never really asking if I had captured a moment of honesty, because I was sure I did, I was asking if it worked visually.</p>

<p>I have looked over Jeff Ascough's images, and they are indeed extremely impressive. His ability to detect the subtleties of light, build strong composition around them, the patients to wait for the right moment the decisiveness of capturing them is truly impressive. I would love to see what he could do with a cinema camera shooting a movie :).</p>

<p>Thank you so very much for your post. I know I'm still growing and I cannot tell you how immensely encouraging it was to read your thoughts and your encouragement.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A decent 3CCD camera/lens will also do much better under low light.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>There are no 3-CCD cameras under $100,000 that I'm aware of that have a senor bigger than a point and shoot. Means 3CCD cameras are generally top out at ISO 800, if that, more like ISO 400 before they become completely crappy. Newer cameras are better, but they still would not outperform a DSLR. Their one advantage is because of the ridiculously small sensor, they usually have a F/1.8-F/4ish zoom, (Wouldn't it be nice to have a 28-400mm equivalent zoom that was F/1.8-F/4 for the D800? Besides costing the price a really nice house and weighing 25lbs or so, it would be totally awesome!) without too many depth of field problems, because the sensor is soooo small.</p>

<p>The D800 is an excellent choice. Just remember its a bad idea to under expose in terms of noise and an even worse idea to shoot wide open on fast lenses, it can be surprisingly difficult to focus even F/2.8 lenses on a full frame sensor. If you plan on shooting wide open in low light, I can't recommend a monitor of some kind enough. Even if you grab a 20-some-inch TV you or your friend has around the house and use the HDMI out of the D800 to see the image big, its highly recommended. Even if you aren't shooting wide open I would highly recommend it (just don't trust the image you see in terms of exposure, its for focus only) Remember even under natural light, its just a really bad idea of using say, the 85mm F/1.8G @ even F/2 or F/2.8 for interviews, because more often than not your interviewee will learn toward the camera to make a point and in the process go out of focus, and as you try to rack back and forth, you'll get the amateurish effect Michael mentioned. At least F/4 would be recommended (unless your focal length is 35mm and wider, then you might be able to get away with F/2.8 or maybe F/2 if you were on the 24mm. Of course if you put the camera right in their face to a get a tight framing like you wood with an 85mm, then you're back at using F/4 to keeping everything in focus) If you do run into depth of field issues, try using the crop mode on the D800, you'll have to move back but you will effectively reduce your depth of field.</p>

<p>Also I would recommend trying to rent an HDMI external recorder of some type. It will preserve much more file integrity, allowing for better post processing, and also a lot quicker editing because most recorders will shoot directly to Prores. Especially if you plan on de-noising in post.</p>

<p>The 5D vs D800 you compared was interesting. The 5D does look better, but I really don't think its a fair comparison and here is why. The D800 as you noticed was quite a bit brighter. That's because the 5D is crushing the blacks. Means the D800 looks nastier because its getting details where the 5Ds are simply going to black, making them look cleaner. The 5D mkIII is a superior low light camera and if you plan on going past ISO 1600, I do highly recommend it over the D800. However, if you were to shoot the 5D mkII and the D800 in an environment where the background was of equal low light as foreground, I think you would find the 5D mkII noise is much more and much nastier than the D800's. Not to say either camera is bad; most cameras can't even reach ISO 1600 (and by that I mean video cameras) without looking bad. None the less as a professional, I would recommend never going above ISO 800, and that's properly exposed. If you have to, rent lights and bright the levels up to levels that are acceptable (like ISO 400).</p>

<p>Lindsay,<br>

Thank you for your opinion. It has been duly noted.</p>

<p>I'm not trying to offend anyone, nor am I trying to be defensive. Its more a disbelief thing. I'm truly in disbelief that no one else can see the value of expressions, especially those that are unflattering, because usually they are the most honest. Don't get me wrong, at least in some respect I like to try and flatter the image a little, whether through color correction or lighting or something, there has to be something to make it palatable, I'm just amazed that the requirement for a good look was that it has to be flattering. I do not shoot photography to flatter people or things. Yes it is called for, as are shots that are not flattering in my book</p>

<p>Lindsay,<br>

I've been shooting feature films, commercials, music videos, and documentaries for famous clients in locations all around the world for the past 6 years. While I am somewhat new to photography, I have extensively studied acting, and I've had the pleasure of working on many feature films where I got to spend months working with a variety of actors performing every single day. While I do notice that my composition, lighting, and fashion require some work, I do feel my ability to spot emotion is well developed. The fact that you completely missed it, made me question yours, so I looked up your profile, and I must confess, you are quite an established photographer. I was very impressed with your photos, they are very well crafted. Its made me think about how we photograph people. While your images were very impressive composition, color, lighting and editing wise, I was not terribly impressed with your poses or the looks you choose to use. You do a very fine job photographing people as they want to be. I've never had the opportunity to do this because in my work it rarely if ever produces good results. Actors don't win Academy Awards for playing the perfect hero we all see ourselves being in an action movie, they usually win for playing the grimy, dirty movie, that often times most of us are. Am I making sense? You work to make people look their best and I work to make people emotionally available. Your kind of photography reminds me of product photography, where the product just happens to be a human being. By no means am I trying to be insulting; I am truly impressed by your work, and I am very honored that you are taking the time to converse with me. I am honestly weighing with you have to say, its difficult for me because the type of art I've been practicing successfully is very different than the kind of art you have been practicing successfully.</p>

<p>Lindsay, as I was reading your opinion, I realized that all the things you named as being bad things are exactly what I like about the image. I like that she appears to be snarling and that her eyes are turned to far to be attractive. I like that there are many distractions. I have plenty of nice bridal portraits once she's all made up, where everything is attractive and all nice proper. I liked the honesty of the image. No, its not an attractive moment at all, hence the reason I like it!</p>

<p>Final image:</p><div></div>

<p>@ Maria, Thanks! I agree, one or two drama images adds flavor to a sequence.</p>

<p>@John: Thanks for the opinion! I will post a copy of the original and I will be interested to hear your thoughts.<br>

<br />@Denis: I agree. Now that I look at it this morning I've taken one step back to retain detail in the hair dressers face and the bride's arm, as Maria put it, its a drama pic, and I like it dramatic, but one step back is still dramatic while retaining detail. As you can see from the original image I've posted I've got harsh blue from a window directly behind the bride and a nasty tungsten florescent right in front of her. Makes it really difficult to balance nasty orange with blue blue. The bride's face ends up being white while behind her its blue blue blue, or the there is a nice white backlight and nasty looking orange fill light for her. If I balance it in between in my humble opinion it ends up a mucky mess of both colors. I think the B&W is far more elegant than an extreme color shift or a mucky mix of both. For the record the cartoony contrast of the face is somewhat natural, partially because the mirror she is holding is basically a silver bounce from the soft window right into her face. Obviously heavy color correction has dramatically increased the effect.<br>

<br />The reason I posted my program settings is because when I critique an image I like to know where its at. Has the editor pulled out all the stops or has he just done generalized touch ups? As you and most others pointed out the hairdresser's face is a bit strange. Since you knew from my post that I had not done localized adjustments you could suggest that I do so with her face (which I did based on the comments). If I told you I used Microsoft Paint then you'ld know I was one amazing Microsoft Paint artist, but you might suggest I put other tools, easier and more powerful tools to good use ;).</p>

<p>@David: Good point. I suppose the clients opinion is the only one that really matters. I do feel strongly that a client hires me because I'm an expert in image creation, well maybe not an expert, but experienced pro. Sure the client may love it today, but maybe 10 years down the road, they may say that's so 2012. Especially with wedding photos that will hopefully be remembered for virtually forever, I do strive to keep a certain timelessness, and that's something the client, unless they are photographically inclined will probably have no sense of, so I was seeking the opinion of others who understand lighting, composition etc.</p><div></div>

<p>I shot a wedding a week ago, and I was just editing the photos, matter of fact have been doing so all day. I'm pretty good at getting what I want in camera, but sorting through the bride getting ready, I discovered I was rather annoyed with a heavily mixed tungsten and daylight mix, heavy enough it was too much trouble to deal with the color clash so I instead opted to do a lot of B&W. Normally I spend lots and lots and lots of time editing, and wind up hating what I did, because its too stylistic, you know, that moment you love it but in 10 minutes you look at it again and it looks so overdone? However this time around for whatever reason despite its heavily stylized look, I really liked what I ended up with. As I said earlier its been a very long day and as I look over the image, I keep thinking I must be crazy, that its just too much, I've messed with the image to the point it looks fake. Normally I would win with this argument but tonight I've got myself at a stalemate. I love my over stylized B&W conversion but I'm afraid that I'm just too tired\in love with my work to see the plane and simple truth, its over done.</p>

<p>So the only thing to do is ask the opinion of my peers. Do you think its over done and why? Or do you think I'm just second guessing myself too much?</p>

<p>(for the record no PS was used, LR 4, basic contrast, clarity, shadows, exposure etc, no localized adjustments)</p>

<div></div>

<p>The 20mm F/4 AIs I find to be very nice, but its also hard to find because it was made in relatively limited quantities. I see them on eBay for cheap as $200-300 occasionally.</p>

<p>For whatever its worth Andrew, think about this: Most people have come to understand "FX or Full Frame" is the "premium" DSLR format. If Nikon introduces a D7000 with a 24MP FX sensor, for $1500, then amateurs or budding professionals will jump on that, not because they wouldn't rather have the more professional D800 or D4, but because their budgets is sub $2000. What happens then? Nikon starts to get a whole bunch of budding professionals getting into the game who want FF but can't afford the 5DmkIII while the 5DmkII looks too old (a solid 24MP sensor camera with a D7000 AF and reasonable low light would probably be at least on par with the now old and soon discontinued 5DmkII). That way Nikon starts collecting all the beginners who will eventually upgrade to a D800 or D4 when they have the money. The reason I say this is because I know several photographers that got started in Canon and even though they acknowledge the benefits of Nikon, especially with as far as Nikon has come in the past few years, its very difficult for them to switch because they become very invested in a platform. If Nikon can start gathering those pros early, with a cheap FF body, then its really not about being a professional model competing with the D800\D4, its about offering new photographers, pros and amateurs alike a way to get into FF now inexpensively with a half pro\half prosumer body and having the options to upgrade to a nicer D800\D4 down the road when they can afford it.</p>

<p>Well for what ever its worth, I have an old 15mm F/5.6 AI lens. Super limited production and in its day (late 1970s) it was a truly amazing lens. Today its blown away in every aspect by lenses like the 14mm F/2.8 or the 14-24mm F/2.8 except one, and that is distortion. On paper the 15mm F/5.6 has less distortion than Nikon's latest 50mm F/1.4G. I used it occasionally on the D3s but felt it was too soft. On my D800 at least on monitor\11x14 sizes, I actually feel like its sharper. Sure if I blow it up 100% its not that sharp and is easily softer than the aforementioned modern wide angle lenses, but on medium to small sizes its actually sharper.</p>

<p>Somethings you have to take with a grain of salt, like Canon's old 24-70 being sharper than Nikon's 24-70. Of the 3 copies of Canon's 24-70 I've gotten to use my Nikon 24-70 would be sharper at F/2.8 with petroleum jelly smeared on the front than Canon's old 24-70 at F/8 (and I've used Canon's old 24-70 on the 5D mkIII and gazillion times on the mkII). Well ok, I exaggerate, but the point is, when you hear something like that, you know there is something wrong with the reviewers, or else they hit that .001% of lenses that really is soft.</p>

<p>I just finished a photoshoot in the studio tonight and no complaints. Best AF camera I've ever used.</p>

<p>Perhaps we are just making a mountain out of an ant hill?</p>

<p>I think John makes a really good point, you bought the 200mm F/2 and are comparing it to the old trinity and thinking they are not good enough, instead realizing the 200mm F/2 is really just that amazing. Especially at close focus distances, the 200mm F/2 simply towers above either version of the 70-200mm in my opinion because it doesn't have anywhere near the focus breathing issues the 70-200 VRII does, and is much better in the corners and with vignetting than the 70-200mm VRI. Unless you are shooting at F/8 at normal distances no matter how you look at it the 200mm F/2 is going to pretty much shame any other lens in the 200mm range except maybe the 200mm Macro, but obviously its in a whole other class for totally different purposes purposes. I also concur, a D800 is in order.</p>

<p>I've not used the 28-70 but the other 2 are very nice lenses. You are really only getting minor upgrades, like a slightly better VR on the 70-200, slightly sharper corners with slightly less fall off.</p>

<p>What is your shutter speed at?</p>

<p>85mm F/1.4G, I love 85mms, I have to admit it would be tough going through life without the ability to capture wide angles, but to me, the 85mm sees things exactly as my eye does.</p>

<p>With most of my lenses its not a big deal, although its still a stretch to the top of the dial, however the 70-200 I don't like to take my hand away, and when I'm running around with the 300mm F/2.8, two hands are required. As a result I wind up trying to use my nose to hold down the ISO button. lol, JK, although sometimes it feels that way.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thom is a professional photographer and Nikon expert</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Lol! Oh what a coincidence, so are good portion of the people on this forum ;-)</p>

<p>The D3s's video is unuseable as a professional video camera, and that comes from experience as a cinematographer shooting a feature length film with 3 D3s's as the primary cameras. The D7000 is great, but the D800 is really video king amongst DSLRs. The D4 sadly, spits a very soft image in FX and DX, only in CX is its video really sharp, but in that case, just get a nikon V1, will give you the same results as the D4 video wise (Except for the HDMI uncompressed out of course).<br /><br />In terms of video my rates would be:<br>

<br />D800 (for uses with uncompressed video, its irreplaceable)<br>

D7000 (Good but about the same as almost all other DSLRs)<br>

D4 (Great video mode, but soft at FX & DX, extremely disappointing but I suppose for the right thing not unusable, i.e. weddings maybe better with a softer video, but I hate anything I can't take off, I prefer as "raw" video as possible and soften it in post if I decide)<br>

D3s (really good if you want to post a home video clip on youtube, but you don't need a $5000 camera for that, your smart phone will do just fine) Ok so its not quite that bad, but if you are doing any kind of professional video, I would sooner shoot it on my iPhone, no joke. One of the main reasons actually has nothing to do with its 720P video mode or nasty motion-JPEG only codec (which for still photographers would be equivalent to shooting the D3s in small-basic-ccompressed-JPEGs), its because there is no true manual mode, you can trick the camera into setting a manual mode, but while you are shooting when exposure changes occur the camera will vary the shutter and ISO without showing an indication (your setting swill not change on the LCD screen), and this will often result in dropped frames, basically, unusable for professional video.</p>

<p>I would wait to see what the D600\D400\D7100 produce video wise. Also have you ever considered doing something like a D3s + keep your D7000 for video only? Because there is no good PJ styled camera Nikon makes that also has amazing video. The only real professional DSLR Nikon makes with good professional video is the D800, IMO</p>

<p>Gary,<br>

Think of it like this, their are 21 elements of glass I count on Nikon's "Lens Construction" diagram. Now taking into account that probably $400 is the AF motor, housing and VR, that means each element costs less than $100. You aren't really adding a $35 piece of glass in front of a $2400 piece of glass, you are really putting a $35 piece of glass in front of 21 pieces of glass, an AF motor, housing, and VR system that costs $2400.</p>

<p>That being said unless its an extremely dirty environment I'm very anal about using B+W filters. But that's just me.</p>

<p>Key word Gary, salesman. And you believed him?</p>