|
Question for those of you working as second shooters on weddings: what are you making, and what are you doing? Last year I was just starting out with this and having fun, and I assisted a local photographer mostly to gain experience. She paid me $20 an hour on the day of the wedding, and I did my own post-processing on the photos. This, of course, comes out to about $10 an hour total, which is ridiculous. So when she wrote me about this year's schedule, I asked about a raise: $40/hour and she does all the processing. The response I got...I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Her proposal: $70/hour when I'm main photographer (very unlikely to ever happen unless she gets a lot more business), and I do my own post. $40 as second shooter, I do my own post. $15 an hour as third shooter, and I hand off my cards at the end of the night so she can do the post work. And in the 8 weddings she listed in her schedule (she's got more scheduled but didn't list them), 7 of them were as third shooter and one needed a second shooter. And I'm thinking "My problem before was that I wasn't making enough money, so the solution is to...work for less?"
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 08:21 |
|
|
What weddings would ever need a third shooter 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 21:27
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:What weddings would ever need a third shooter 1,000+ person weddings. No kidding one of the photographers I was seeing said they went to a wedding with 1,000+ people and 15 attendants.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 21:35
|
|
|
Munkaboo posted:1,000+ person weddings. No kidding one of the photographers I was seeing said they went to a wedding with 1,000+ people and 15 attendants. Holy poo poo, I can't even imagine how much that costs. Or, knowing 1000 people that I would invite to my wedding.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 21:38
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Holy poo poo, I can't even imagine how much that costs. Or, knowing 1000 people that I would invite to my wedding. Its a load of bollocks isn't it, 1000 people! why?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 21:41
|
|
|
Some weddings are about the families showing off as much as they are about the 2 people getting hitched. They're actually awesome because they feel like a huge free party where part of your family just happens to be at. Bring a friend (bonus if you bring a same-sex friend and watch everyone whispering when they think you're not watching) and flog your brain with Champagne. Ideally you'll have a couple of cousins you get along with beforehand, and terrorize after. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Mar 4, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 21:53
|
|
|
I've done an 800 person wedding. We had 2 main shooters, 3 shooter/assistants, and computer guy editing images as they were taken for a slideshow at the reception.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 22:03
|
|
|
Bread Zeppelin posted:I've done an 800 person wedding. We had 2 main shooters, 3 shooter/assistants, and computer guy editing images as they were taken for a slideshow at the reception. How much did you charge for such a production? Holy poo poo! As a side note, I'm getting married in July and we're having a friend do the pics for us: http://www.photolauren.com. She's pretty awesome and friendly, and kind of expected to hit it big sometime sooner or later, so if that happens, it'll be nice to be able to say that she took our pics when she was still a small name.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 23:30
|
|
|
I wish my surname was Lemon 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 23:41
|
|
|
In a stunning turn of events this weekend at my cousin's wedding, I saw something remarkably like the Judge Joe Brown video. XT or XTi, kit lens, and un-diffused speedlite was pretty much all of the photographer's equipment that I saw used.  I showed up and wanted to say something, but decided not to make a scene and enjoy the wedding. Luckily I brought my camera bag along for the hell of it and to get candids for the family. No point in stirring poo poo up when I'm genuinely happy for my family.As it turns out, it was a relative of my cousin's (now) wife who had not been shooting weddings for very long. She seemed to be getting the key shots and the natural lighting inside the church was amazing, so I'll give her the benefit of the doubt on turning out usable images. Hopefully everything will turn out well for them for shots of the ceremony at least. I did notice a bit of a problem at the reception since it was very dim, but not so much that I couldn't shoot with my 17-50 2.8 on the 50D and the 50 1.8 on the 450D. Meanwhile the designated photographer was using flash with the same kit lens. Upon talking to her, she wanted to know what setting I was using at the reception to shoot without flash, but then she noticed the faster lenses. I was at least courteous in suggesting an Omni-bounce and offering up some of my lenses and flash guns for her to use for the night, but to no avail. Oh well, I'll withhold any judgment until I see the final images. She's family by law now, so I may as well keep my mouth shut just to keep the peace if things do turn out badly. I just thought it was humorous that I was the relative every wedding photographer fears for once.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2010 05:37
|
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:Upon talking to her, she wanted to know what setting I was using at the reception to shoot without flash, but then she noticed the faster lenses. I was at least courteous in suggesting an Omni-bounce and offering up some of my lenses and flash guns for her to use for the night, but to no avail. Well, at least she knew what it means to have a fast or a slow lens, and was using an external flash. I wish I knew where the attitude that having a fancy camera (in this case, I guess her XT was the fanciest of any of the immediate family members) gives you good results comes from. Do people think that having a Corvette makes you a better driver? I just had this interaction while shooting up on a mountain: "That's a pretty fancy camera!" "Oh, thanks. It's actually pretty old and beat up, the first digital reb-" "Mine is MUCH older. I wish I had a camera like yours. My husband has the original Pentax from 1973!" "Really? Like a Spotmatic? Cool, that's what I learned to shoot on -- actually, the lens I have on here right now is meant for that camera. You can use these ada-" "Ohho, no. This is NOTHING like your camera. Trust me, you're lucky to have such a nice one. I bet it takes great pictures." "...hahaha, yeah! It sure does!" 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2010 05:54
|
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:I just thought it was humorous that I was the relative every wedding photographer fears for once. One couple wanted to know if their uncle's shots could be used in the album because he is a professional photographer. Before the wedding I was a little intimated upon hearing this but he was using a 30D with a flash bracket aimed directly at his subjects and he missed pretty much every important moment because he was always checking his LCD. After that I learned to not worry about the relative's pro.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2010 06:28
|
|
|
/\/\/\ As far as I know, I got the only pristine cake shot at this wedding.  orange lime posted:Well, at least she knew what it means to have a fast or a slow lens, and was using an external flash. It's not so much that as the lack of preparation and equipment for the conditions. No backups, her widest aperture would have been f/3.5 at 17mm, and no lighting except for one hotshoe flash. I'm not worried about the ceremony pictures since the church was about as bright as they get despite the flash being bounced ninety degrees off of a ~35' ceiling. Those are the most important shots, and so long as she knows what she was doing, they'll be fine. What I am worried about is photographers charging people for shooting weddings with just this equipment and people expecting miraculous results. No backups and primary equipment that is just adequate as long as you've got a lot more lighting than during the average indoor wedding or reception. I did talk with her a bit and we went over several upgrades she was looking into. Just a weekend shooter making money on the side, and nothing wrong with that. She did everything right as far as I could tell, and that's why I'm withholding judgment until I see her pictures. I just cringe a little when I see something like this go on since I know what can potentially go wrong when the lights are turned down or something decides to break on you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2010 07:04
|
|
|
Does anyone use any off camera flashes during the ceremony?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2010 00:42
|
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:In a stunning turn of events this weekend at my cousin's wedding, I saw something remarkably like the Judge Joe Brown video. XT or XTi, kit lens, and un-diffused speedlite was pretty much all of the photographer's equipment that I saw used. I went to a wedding like that, except the pro was using the pop-up flash on his XTi (he had two video rigs on rolling dollies, I guess that was his A game?). I never saw them, but the bride wasn't too happy with the way the photos turned out. I took a few snaps with my 5D but mostly just messing around at our table at the reception, didn't want to step on the guy's toes. Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Mar 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2010 14:42
|
|
|
Shot a beach wedding. Quite happy with this shot from it:
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 14:42
|
|
|
psylent posted:Shot a beach wedding. Quite happy with this shot from it: That's what's called a money shot because it is likely to sell as prints to the family and really impresses portfolio browsers, so good job on that. I really need to focus on getting more shots like it on every assignment. Just hard to do in my plain and boring area.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 16:29
|
|
|
What's coming out of his head?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 16:34
|
|
|
I always get the couple to do a few additional kiss poses, but I tell them not to get in to it. Barely let your lips touch and hold the pose. Those sell. The full on snog doesn't ever seem to be as popular a picture.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 16:55
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:I always get the couple to do a few additional kiss poses, but I tell them not to get in to it. Barely let your lips touch and hold the pose. Those sell. The full on snog doesn't ever seem to be as popular a picture. I blame Disney/Hollywood/Hays code/etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 16:59
|
|
|
orange lime posted:I blame Disney/Hollywood/Hays code/etc. I'd say it's probably more that a full-on kiss distorts features a little etc when held in a single frame.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 17:35
|
|
|
Especially the mouth open face eating variety that so many people default to for their "first married kiss." Not that I really give a poo poo what people do, but from a purely aesthetic angle it makes both people look a bit weird.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 17:39
|
|
|
HPL posted:What's coming out of his head? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2010 22:11
|
|
|
Ever show up to a wedding without meeting the couple and find that the bride or groom is much.. larger than you expected? How do you pull off formals with girthy couples? Is there a special way to handle the ceremony? This is something that recently happened to me, I used some tighter crops and higher angles, but it seems like there's only so much you can do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 16:52
|
|
|
How do you get paid to shoot a wedding without ever meeting the couple before the day of? I'm getting married in July, and we've met with our photographer face-to-face once already, and we'll meet one more time before the actual wedding. And we already knew each other anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 17:05
|
|
|
Wooten posted:Ever show up to a wedding without meeting the couple and find that the bride or groom is much.. larger than you expected? How do you pull off formals with girthy couples? Is there a special way to handle the ceremony? This is something that recently happened to me, I used some tighter crops and higher angles, but it seems like there's only so much you can do. Uh, I dunno, maybe treat them like regular people and shoot regular formals instead of somehow loosing all of your ability to think rationally because someone is fat? Seriously, what the gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 17:19
|
|
|
Just take the photos like you would any others. They're not expecting to look like Brad and Angelina, just make them look like themselves. Seconding the question of how you somehow managed to never meet them, that's just weird.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 17:25
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:Uh, I dunno, maybe treat them like regular people and shoot regular formals instead of somehow loosing all of your ability to think rationally because someone is fat? Well, he's right in that most people don't want their wedding photos to specifically make them look really fat, so if there's a way to minimize that he should probably be doing it. At the same time, most people do realize that the camera isn't magic (though I've known people who think it is), and there's only so much you can do. The idea of a wedding shot entirely with MySpace angles is pretty hilarious though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 17:26
|
|
|
They decided to elope on a whim or something, I got a call literally 7 days before the ceremony and they were driving 4 hours to be in my area. We did the contract through the mail. Its easy to say shoot them like you would a normal person, and its not like I'm a skinny person myself, so don't think its fat bigotry or something. I'm just looking for what you guys think about different ways to work with the situation and make the couple look great. As a larger person myself, I know I'm not putting the photo of me at my fattest double chinned glory on the mantle. Wedding photography isn't photojournalism, people want to remember the day the way it should have been, not the disappointing cluster gently caress that is 80% of weddings. Just my 2 cents. Also if anyone has any formals of larger couples looking good I would appreciate it. Google has failed me in that respect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 22:12
|
|
|
Wooten posted:Also if anyone has any formals of larger couples looking good I would appreciate it. Google has failed me in that respect. Somewhere out there, there is a Flickr group just for that, and at least one person furiously masturbating to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 22:17
|
|
|
orange lime posted:The idea of a wedding shot entirely with MySpace angles is pretty hilarious though. "Why is the photographer wearing drywall stilts?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 22:30
|
|
|
Wooten posted:Also if anyone has any formals of larger couples looking good I would appreciate it. Google has failed me in that respect.  From the same site, I can't resist: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 22:53
|
|
|
drat. I would have just had that woman on the left back up until she was roughly the same height as the woman on the right. And then shot the photo at f/64 to keep everything in focus. That said, the photographer did about as good a job at managing the situation as anyone might.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 22:59
|
|
|
Should've had that girl hold the bride in her arms, like Andre the Giant and Buttercup in Princess Bride.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 23:05
|
|
|
Wooten posted:As a larger person myself, I know I'm not putting the photo of me at my fattest double chinned glory on the mantle. Fair enough. The way I read it sounded like you were shocked that this utter whale wanted wedding pictures, and holy gently caress do I need a bigger camera to take pictures of someone like that? But that's my fault for being a sensitive fat rear end. So, some creative suggestions. Shoot narrow lighting. i.e. Shoot with your camera on the shadowed side of the subject. Google the term "narrow lighting" Make sure the bride's chin is up and head is turned. Keep an eye on your perspective and try to make sure there aren't too many things in the picture you can use to compare the bride to for size. Don't take pictures of the bride eating. Discuss with the couple beforehand (if you can) about the cake cutting. Get nice pictures of them holding the cake and not OM NOM NOM NOM mouths wide open and cake smeared all over them. Those hardly ever sell anyway. Avoid the fat that always rolls over the top of a strapless dress. Even skinny women get that and it looks terrible. Overall, just keep in mind the shots you wouldn't want to be in, and don't take them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2010 23:41
|
|
|
I'm lucky that I haven't had anyone too big yet. I did have a bride with really bad teeth though, they looked like little baked beans. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2010 03:39
|
|
|
A white wedding dress isn't the most slimming outfit around, so making the bride look like she has a normal weight can be difficult even if her weight is reasonable. The camera may not add 15lbs, but the dress sure can. I've been in portrait situations where I've literally had to move the camera back a few feet to keep a rather large fellow from clipping the edge of the frame. If all else fails I hear a 12-24 is a great fallback for portraits. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2010 04:26
|
|
|
If you're just starting out in this business (like I am) - it really really helps to have sales/marketing skills. Sadly, I do not. Luckily my wife is absolutely awesome at this and has been calling every celebrant/wedding co-ordinator/venue in Sydney trying to get me work. This has worked incredibly well and in the last month I've booked six weddings for later in the year and am waiting to hear back on a couple more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 03:44
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:Weddings where the bride and groom are younger and willing to do crazy poo poo in front of the camera are the best. Do you as the photographer suggest the poses or let them run amok?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 07:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 08:21 |
|
|
b0nes posted:Do you as the photographer suggest the poses or let them run amok? Bit of both. If its a fun group, I tend to make a few suggestions and let them run with it. In the pictures I posted, the bride and her party wanted to do that particular pose. For the groom and his mates, I suggested it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 16:41
|
|