|
I wonder how much they paid for that, those are pretty bad.
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2009 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 05:14 |
|
|
My friend linked me to the photographer one of her friends of a friend is using. The name of the "company" is literally "& Unlimited" - http://www.andunlimited.com/ The watermark is a goddamned ampersand. The photography isn't good enough to transcend lovely branding either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2009 02:07
|
|
|
Well you can hate on the logo and name, but the photos are drat good. What issues exactly do you have with them? Question; I'm shooting a wedding tomorrow thats outside on a mountain hillside and the guests will be facing straight at the sun at 5:00 when the ceremony starts. I was there today for the rehearsal and the lighting was a pain in the rear end. The backlighting was so strong I either had completely over exposed sky or completely underexposed subjects. Is my only solution to use flash during the ceremony? Here's the setup: (straight from camera, and I have no idea how to make it look decent)  In short, how do I deal with intense backlit sun here? Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Oct 24, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2009 02:24
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Well you can hate on the logo and name, but the photos are drat good. What issues exactly do you have with them? Some of the pictures have a few problems with missed focus (http://www.andunlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Engagement_Pictures_Raleigh.jpg), and a few have blown out highlights that just look bad not artistic. (http://www.andunlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Fall_Family_Portraits.jpg) I'm just linking to examples because I don't really feel comfortable re-hosting a photographer's pictures They're okay, I wouldn't call them "drat good" Paragon8 fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Oct 24, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2009 02:30
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Some of the pictures have a few problems with missed focus (http://www.andunlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Engagement_Pictures_Raleigh.jpg), and a few have blown out highlights that just look bad not artistic. (http://www.andunlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Fall_Family_Portraits.jpg) Those are pretty nice engagement/wedding type photos, that's exactly the kind of stuff people are looking for, from what I've can tell (and is very popular at the moment). Noone but photographers gets freaked out about shallow depth of field and that kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2009 02:47
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:Those are pretty nice engagement/wedding type photos, that's exactly the kind of stuff people are looking for, from what I've can tell (and is very popular at the moment). Noone but photographers gets freaked out about shallow depth of field and that kind of thing. I guess I've just been really spoiled by what I've been looking at like: http://www.tracyturpen.com/ (Unfortunately she has a flash based site). I'm certainly looking at it with a different eye that the people who it's aimed at. I would imagine most people would be happy with Ampersand Photography, I just would not be. I understand the look she's going for with wide open apertures and light overexposure. She hits that most of the time, but when she doesn't it looks amateur. Like having a badly blown out shirt the same color as the sky. Paragon8 fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Oct 24, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2009 02:52
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I guess I've just been really spoiled by what I've been looking at like: http://www.tracyturpen.com/ (Unfortunately she has a flash based site). Honestly if you're nit-picking, those photos are rife with technical issues too. The point is that it's not worth worrying about. Bottom Liner posted:Well you can hate on the logo and name, but the photos are drat good. What issues exactly do you have with them? TsarAleksi fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Oct 24, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2009 02:54
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I guess I've just been really spoiled by what I've been looking at like: http://www.tracyturpen.com/ (Unfortunately she has a flash based site). I like her compositions and ideas a lot more, but they're not nearly as clean and nice looking I think. My aim is somewhere in the middle of those, I want the super clean soft look of the & lady, but with exciting compositions like these.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2009 02:57
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:I like her compositions and ideas a lot more, but they're not nearly as clean and nice looking I think. My aim is somewhere in the middle of those, I want the super clean soft look of the & lady, but with exciting compositions like these. http://www.jessicaclaire.net/ I think has a similar style to the ampersand lady, you might want to look at her. TsarAleksi, admittedly I don't really have too much of an idea about what good wedding photography is or isn't but would you really put & limited on the same level as tracy turpen? (Just rereading that you could kind of misread the tone, I'm not trying to be a dick just genuinely curious) Paragon8 fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Oct 24, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2009 03:04
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:Honestly if you're nit-picking, those photos are rife with technical issues too. The only way would be to correctly expose the sky, and use flashes to light up the foreground?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2009 02:58
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:The only way would be to correctly expose the sky, and use flashes to light up the foreground? That or underexpose and try to mine detail from shadow for every frame. ... Finally finished editing photo from two-weekends ago wedding:        --got lots in color too just liked the black and whites of all but the one color one  --
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 11:14
|
|
|
The last two of those are incredible. Overall a great job too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 15:27
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:I feel like it needs to come just 1 or 2 degrees clockwise, but then again if you do that then the brick-line near the bottom will be off center. But those columns, especially the left side...now that I've seen it I can't not see it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 15:39
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:this is a great photo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 16:39
|
|
|
I am a wedding photographer full-time. Here are a few of my recent favorite frames. This is the coolest job in the world.         
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2009 08:09
|
|
|
HE'S FEEDING HER LIGHT! Do you have any advice for someone just starting out? I'd love to do this fulltime as the pay and hours are better than working in my particular branch of IT and I want to escape.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2009 11:20
|
|
|
psylent posted:HE'S FEEDING HER LIGHT! I'd like to know this too. I've heard being a 2nd shooter to an established photographer is a good way to do it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2009 13:14
|
|
|
Haha in the last few of those frames that woman getting married looks so similar to Donna from The West Wing! I would also be interested in hearing about starting out. I'll be assisting on a wedding in a month or two, but I feel like there's more to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2009 14:51
|
|
|
Ok, so Psylent is in IT, anyone else? Its like 50% of wedding photographers I know are in IT, or were in IT. Anyway, to glaxians's photos. There is goodness here. The first B&W of the bride is beautiful and I wish all of my Bride Prep pictures turned out that well. The next couple... man. Is that radial blur? Zombie gray skin? The couple looking like someone left a cake topper under a bush? Its interesting stuff, very artsy and I'm sure the couple loved it. I certainly wish I could get away with shots like that, but I've had one couple that would appreciate the photos and 0 families that would actually purchase them. You work to your market though, and I'm guessing you're shooting in the Pacific North West?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2009 15:47
|
|
|
Yeah, those blurs really kill otherwise fantastic photos. They make me dizzy 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2009 15:58
|
|
|
galaxian posted:I am a wedding photographer full-time. Here are a few of my recent favorite frames. This is the coolest job in the world. Good stuff, I like it. You ever need a second shooter or assistant?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2009 18:13
|
|
|
Thanks for the positive responses. The 'blur' effect you are seeing is a result of a Canon 45mm 2.8 Tilt/Shift lens. Its a lot of fun, and clients don't mind or they wouldn't hire me :p. To all the people who are interested in being a second shooter, please shoot me an email (do some digging on the image hosting and i shouldn't be hard to find) and I will add you to my list of people I call. I dont have anymore weddings until the springtime, because right now the weather is getting cold again in the Northwest. I got my start second shooting and its a great way to learn.        
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2009 21:27
|
|
|
Did you use a ring flash on that asian family? What's going on there?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2009 22:24
|
|
|
galaxian posted:Thanks for the positive responses. The 'blur' effect you are seeing is a result of a Canon 45mm 2.8 Tilt/Shift lens. Its a lot of fun, and clients don't mind or they wouldn't hire me :p. To all the people who are interested in being a second shooter, please shoot me an email (do some digging on the image hosting and i shouldn't be hard to find) and I will add you to my list of people I call. I dont have anymore weddings until the springtime, because right now the weather is getting cold again in the Northwest. You wouldn't happen to be a regular on the PBNation photography subforum, would you? Those photos look pretty familiar.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2009 07:20
|
|
|
pbpancho posted:You wouldn't happen to be a regular on the PBNation photography subforum, would you? Those photos look pretty familiar. Whoa, pbn has a photo subforum now? Does it suck any less than the rest of that heaping pile of poo poo for forums?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2009 13:21
|
|
|
Yeah, that's me on PBN. I used to play when I was 14/15. The shots that are strobe-lit are for my photobooth. It's an add-on and at wedding receptions I'll set up my ABR800 against a wall and try to catch some wild stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2009 17:23
|
|
|
I've just had a friend of a friend ask me for a quote for a wedding, they want me there for 4 hours (groom/bride getting ready through to the start of the reception) - and I've quoted them AUD$1200 which I think is pretty reasonable especially as the wedding is a 3 hour drive away from where I live. I'm including all photos on a DVD and a web gallery in that price. It's about 40% lower than the average photographer in my area, but the bride is saying that she only wants to pay $800-$900 at the most. I want to market myself to clients in the $2000+ range (bundling prints/albums/thank you cards into that price), and I'm offering a pretty low rate as I'm still starting out. Am I being unreasonable? psylent fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Nov 2, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 14:23
|
|
|
Absolutely not. Don't sell yourself short
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 15:33
|
|
|
psylent posted:Am I being unreasonable? Bottom line, I decided that - worth it or not, and very likely I'm not, yet - I'd rather not become the $500 wedding photographer, which I think is what this girl is looking for. It's just too much damned work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 16:20
|
|
|
Being the $500 photographer sucks. Most of my first year was $500 clients, and holy poo poo. Its like there is an equilibrium point when it comes to the price/work graph. **FAKE EDIT** gently caress it, here's an MS Paint graph.  Of course, this is just my narrow experience, you're mileage will vary. Consult your doctor before believing this graph. Etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 16:51
|
|
|
why does it start out with more work for less money? if you charge less, shouldn't you set expectations to receive less, work less time, and get fewer photos? Or does this not work in the real world?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 17:06
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:Being the $500 photographer sucks. Most of my first year was $500 clients, and holy poo poo. Its like there is an equilibrium point when it comes to the price/work graph. I'm in the 3k-5k range and those are the clients you want. Not just because of the money but they tend to be educated and have an understanding of what you do. Also there is never and haggling at that level, it's pretty much just people who love your style and are willing to pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 17:13
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:why does it start out with more work for less money? if you charge less, shouldn't you set expectations to receive less, work less time, and get fewer photos? Or does this not work in the real world? People that spend $500 on a wedding probably make about that much a week so to them that's a shitload of money. They have high expectations for their $500 and are never really satisfied. It's crazy, when I was charging 1k I had A LOT more issues than I do now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 17:15
|
|
|
I mostly hate being a dick like this, but the $500 people are the Wal Mart crowd. Literally. I shot a couple of $500 weddings where the couple was registered at Wal Mart, but they really wanted to register at Target because everything there is so much more upscale, but then their guests wouldn't be able to afford to buy them anything. The $500 people are all about instant gratification and can't understand why you can't have all of the pictures you've taken up in a day or two. They can't understand why you didn't post every picture you took. They can't understand why you didn't take a picture of their dog drinking out of the punch bowl or their grandfather dropping trou while dancing, cause dammit that's funny! The $500 people think that their aunt/cousin/brother is perfectly capable as a photographer because he's got a "nice camera" which usually turns out to be a Fuji Fine Pix S2000. (good little cameras mind you, but its still a P&S) The $500 people think that shooting over your shoulder is perfectly acceptable, in fact, move the gently caress over because granny wants to take that picture, change your pose, and turn on another dozen lights and bring in lamps from the other room because their cameras aren't working really well so obviously yours isn't either. The $500 crowd buys this picture: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 18:41
|
|
|
So in relation to this $500/cheap client talk: I'm in a situation where I'm just starting out, but due to where I live there isn't much, if any, opportunity to be a second shooter to build up my chops. I feel I'm a fairly competent photographer but haven't ever done a wedding - so I'm certainly not to a point where I can feel comfortable charging $2000 or maybe even $200 for a shoot. Is it going to be a bad idea to do some free/very cheap weddings to build up a portfolio? I was thinking of doing 2 or 3 for just enough to cover some expenses and a couple camera items like extra batteries and a softbox... but the last few posts have me thinking I'm going to enter a world of pain by doing so. Although it's not really my preferred option, I had also considered contacting some photographers in Reno which is about a 4-5 hour drive away and maybe shooting alongside them. I'd prefer this for the learning experience but gas is expensive and so is taking the time off to drive across the state, pay for food, etc. Maybe a combination of both?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 20:16
|
|
|
The completely unhelpful answer is: Its up to you. The cheap clients are a pain in the rear end, but you do learn how to maximize the speed of your workflow and how to handle weird things at weddings. Don't expect to turn out great shots, get too creative, etc. There is one upshot though. When you're doing cheap weddings you tend to get a lot of younger couples who tend to be more in to interesting photos, a more fun and enjoyable atmosphere, and a higher chance of some tattooed and pierced chick getting drunk and naked. Of course, this is location dependent. Utah, not so much. Texas, it depends on where you are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 20:43
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:...or their grandfather dropping trou while dancing, cause dammit that's funny! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 21:44
|
|
|
Agedashi Tofu posted:So in relation to this $500/cheap client talk: Charging very little for a wedding isn't a horribly bad idea when you're starting out, but it depends on how you approach it. If a friend of a friend needs a cheap photog, go for it! However, don't go advertising on Craigslist or in a newspaper that you'll shoot a wedding for 50 bucks; you'll get really, really horrible clients, and they're often quite ugly, too (call me an rear end in a top hat, but it's true!)
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2009 23:32
|
|
|
Here's the thing: the sub $1500 category of photographers really aren't good. Chances are, they are so cheap because they do it just on the weekends, or are glorified hobbyists. Some are just starting out, but that still means they lack experience/a strong portfolio. So what's my take on it? Not my issue. The type of clients I am going for are: appreciative of good photography, stylish, laid back, and open. Bonus if they are creative/have a really cool wedding. I book around the $3500-$4000 range (Seattle-Tacoma area) --- these people are serious about photography, or at least have a somewhat serious budget. Chances are, they can recognize the dichotemy of talent between a $500 Craigslist shooter and a licensed, experienced, creative professional. If not? It happens. Not every client is amazing. I can win over most couples by saying: Hey. At the end of the day, the food is eaten, flowers are wilted, cake is cut, DJ is gone. Photos/Video are equally as important as a venue/caterer IMO, moreso if the couple is into art/photography. But $500 clients arent going to have weddings that will boost your portfolio, will try to squeeze more out of you at the end, and are trying to get as much as they can for as little as possible. Also, its important to take into effect that the price game can't be compared across the nation. Cost of living is something to definitely take into account. Here are some shots from a wedding I just blogged in Vegas. Well, Henderson.            
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2009 06:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 05:14 |
|
|
Agedashi Tofu posted:Although it's not really my preferred option, I had also considered contacting some photographers in Reno which is about a 4-5 hour drive away and maybe shooting alongside them. I'd prefer this for the learning experience but gas is expensive and so is taking the time off to drive across the state, pay for food, etc. But hey, I don't do this (I wish) and maybe post processing would be a bitch if you did a couple of weddings in a row. You might want to consider doing a couple engagement shot type of things for classy people. People may hire you with a smaller portfolio (that isn't specific to weddings, maybe grab a couple of friends to do some fake engagement shots). If they like you they may take you for the wedding. If they don't like you at least you have some nice stuff for fattening a portfolio.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2009 07:20
|
|