|
Righto, assisted on my first wedding over the weekend:      I worked for free as I'm trying to build my portfolio, but it was a pretty good experience. The couple were up for pretty much anything when it came to the photos, the other photographer I worked with was really friendly. While she did a lot of the formal portraits I walked around taking candids of the guests. She shot on an 18-200mm the whole day, while I switched between my 10-20mm, 28-75mm and 55-250mm constantly. I definitely need two camera bodies in the future, I'm meeting a woman about shooting her wedding at the end of the year, and I've got 2 more booked in for March 2010. My wife has approved the purchase of a Canon 7D. 
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 11:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:31 |
|
|
psylent posted:Righto, assisted on my first wedding over the weekend: Check your horizon on some of these. I like one, I think 2 could be good, but you need to tighten the framing or crop it (the blue in front is nice, but you have too much), three maybe needs some fill, the wind in 4 is a bit too noticeable in he legs of the woman on the left, 5 I dislike (not the photo, per se, but the posed wackiness), while 6 works a bit better in that regard. I find it hard to believe the wedding photographer, presumably a pro, used an 18-200 all day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 13:18
|
|
|
Thanks for the crit. I wasn't always in prime position to take the shots I wanted - I left that to the pro photographer, so some of my angles were a bit awkward, also I just screwed some of the shots  And yep, stuck to the 18-200mm for the whole thing. She's been shooting weddings for 8 years. I've looked through her portfolio and her work is decent, but not amazing. She's incredibly friendly and is giving me a lot of advice which is helping to me started, but her technical knowledge isn't amazing - or that's what I picked up on from chatting to her.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 14:40
|
|
|
psylent posted:Thanks for the crit. I wasn't always in prime position to take the shots I wanted - I left that to the pro photographer, so some of my angles were a bit awkward, also I just screwed some of the shots The 18-200 isn't a bad lens or anything, but one would assume you'd have to stop down to get acceptable sharpness, and it doesn't seem she'd be able to limit depth of field with it. If she shoots mostly daytime outdoors, or strobes up, opening it up isn't as big a deal, I guess. Do you have a flickr set for the rest of your shots?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 14:51
|
|
|
The girl I work with does the same thing. She'll pull out a 50 f/1.4 for a dark ceremony, but most of the time she uses her 18-200. She says she likes how I'm able to isolate people with big bokehs, and I'm like "well if you didn't shoot everything at 3.5-5.6..." 
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 15:37
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:The 18-200 isn't a bad lens or anything, but one would assume you'd have to stop down to get acceptable sharpness, and it doesn't seem she'd be able to limit depth of field with it. If she shoots mostly daytime outdoors, or strobes up, opening it up isn't as big a deal, I guess. I've got more photos up here - forgive the slapdashedness of the gallery/site I'm still putting it together. psylent fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Oct 19, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 21:56
|
|
|
Huh. Your composition is a bit odd in a lot of those, like the long shots and the lost in the crowd type shots. The one that really gets me is the pool shot where you can barely see a bride and groom, but god drat that pool looks inviting. You could have gotten the same effect by reversing the proportion of pool/people and it would have worked out so much better. Did you not have anything long enough? squidflakes fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Oct 19, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2009 22:40
|
|
|
As I was assisting, I didn't always have prime position to get the shots I wanted. As for the pool shot, I composed it that way on purpose as it's the kind of shot I thought would work well as "decoration" in the album. I had a couple of longer lenses with me, I wasn't directing the shoot so I only had time to switch them when the bride/groom weren't posing, plus we were pretty limited for time as we had to make it to the reception venue. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 00:23
|
|
|
psylent posted:As I was assisting, I didn't always have prime position to get the shots I wanted. As for the pool shot, I composed it that way on purpose as it's the kind of shot I thought would work well as "decoration" in the album. I like that set a lot. You've got some great shots in there, better than the ones you posted in here. That's some nice work for a second shooter with no control.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 01:30
|
|
|
I just had a bunch of them printed to add to my portfolio as I'm meeting a potential client on Thursday, and oddly enough - that one in front of the pool looks fantastic at 6"x8".
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 04:22
|
|
|
I've always thought of wedding photography as crazy intimidating, way over my head type stuff. But I've been shooting a bunch for the student newspaper, and then assisting the university photographer, and now been working as a second shooter at university events, steadily improving my shooting and learning lots and lots about lighting and composition along the way, and I think I may try to start assisting at weddings. Anyway, I still thought weddings were way over my head. Until I saw the shots from my buddy's wedding that the photographer just put up, and went "well poo poo, I could do that." I don't know if he ended up being a subpar photographer, or I've just become more confident in my abilities, or some combination, but these pictures that I've been looking forward to seeing for months now really didn't impress me. Also, the wedding was June 20, and the photographer just put up the gallery for folks to look at yesterday. He never provided any previews to the bride and groom beforehand or anything, either. I feel like three and a half months is a really drat long time to wait for wedding shots, is that normal?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 16:51
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:I've always thought of wedding photography as crazy intimidating, way over my head type stuff. But I've been shooting a bunch for the student newspaper, and then assisting the university photographer, and now been working as a second shooter at university events, steadily improving my shooting and learning lots and lots about lighting and composition along the way, and I think I may try to start assisting at weddings. The thing with wedding photography I think is that the stuff you do see that is publicized is shot by the upper tier photographers for publication which can be intimidating. Other than that I think there are probably more mediocre to average wedding photographers than good ones. It's relatively easy to shoot an "acceptable" wedding, especially in the eyes of an untrained client. However, good wedding photography can be appreciated by everyone. My friend who got married a few years ago had a fantastic wedding photographer, and although I couldn't make it to the ceremony the pictures did a perfect job of capturing the mood. Judging from the wedding ask/tell thread it seems a lot of people just don't see a wedding photographer as necessary or instead go for the cheapest option. If/when I get married I'll probably want the most expensive part of the wedding to be the photographer - unless I can get one of you guys to give me a discount! Sorry for just rambling without really contributing. I've been on a real wedding photography kick - checking out people like Jasmine Star and Ryan Breznier.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 17:40
|
|
|
I've got Jasmine Star on RSS, some really good stuff there. She works with stupidly attractive people most of the time which does her a lot of favours. Being an ex model from Orange County helps with having friends like that though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 21:11
|
|
|
psylent posted:I just had a bunch of them printed to add to my portfolio as I'm meeting a potential client on Thursday, and oddly enough - that one in front of the pool looks fantastic at 6"x8". Cool. Did you straighten the horizon before printing it? I liked the whole sea&sky(pool) feel, I just thought that so much of those and not as much of the people was distracting. If the people were the center of attention in the enlargement and framed by all that beautiful sky and even more beautiful water, I'd say that qualifies as a win.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 21:13
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:I've got Jasmine Star on RSS, some really good stuff there. She works with stupidly attractive people most of the time which does her a lot of favours. Being an ex model from Orange County helps with having friends like that though. I actually found Ryan Breznier having a mini-sperg about that on flickr. How she's successful because she started "rich" and well connected which helped her develop a good brand. I would imagine her status (and fee) are so high in that area that only couples that know they're going to look good will shell out for it. It does help to step back from her just for your own self esteem (at least in my case) and realize that even though she's pretty skilled there's a lot of stuff behind why she's where she is such as location and branding as well as her networking. She's a great blogger too, I get a little annoyed when she's shilling photoshop actions or that online portfolio site. Otherwise I just love the moods she captures, she seems technically sound judging from some of her answers to comments. Out of curiosity how much do the "elite" wedding photographers typically charge? Jasmine Star doesn't list her price anywhere I can see on her sites. I'd imagine it'd around $8,000 maybe?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 21:50
|
|
|
5 figures aren't out of the question at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 21:53
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:5 figures aren't out of the question at all. Daaaaamn. When I saw how much she was charging for workshops I knew her shoot fee must be high.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 21:58
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Out of curiosity how much do the "elite" wedding photographers typically charge? Jasmine Star doesn't list her price anywhere I can see on her sites. I'd imagine it'd around $8,000 maybe?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 22:00
|
|
|
Yeah, when people are spending over 100,000 on a wedding 10% on the photographer is probably a low estimate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 22:09
|
|
|
One of the most respected wedding photographers in NZ has a deluxe package of $12k NZD (about $9k greenback) I'm sure it's much like any "service" based professional. The general joe would get a hooker for $300 a night, a hedge fund manager wouldn't mind paying $5k for the same hooker. so to speak. I'd look at it as a percentage thing. If the average person has a $40k budget, 10% on a photographer might be about right. If it was a 100k budget suddenly that 10% nets a lot more dosh for the shooter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 23:26
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:
Yea, she does love her Smugsmug. Are "engagement photos" a usual thing in most countries? I don't think I've ever heard of friends/family in New Zealand getting a wedding photographer for anything but their wedding day, but she does them all the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 23:29
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:One of the most respected wedding photographers in NZ has a deluxe package of $12k NZD (about $9k greenback) And to extend the metaphor - the cheap guy would throw 30 bucks at craigslist to see what he got - either for a hooker or a photographer. I don't even think it's even smugmug that she uses. I think her husband runs another portfolio type site.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 23:29
|
|
|
A photographer friend I've met at school here is getting married within the next year, and has been super excited about who she booked to shoot it, I THINK it's Jasmine Star. I can ask her next time I see her how much she's charging. Plus we're in Virginia, so I imagine she's paying for travel and hotel as well. e: The more I keep seeing/typing that name, the more it sounds like that of a porn star.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 00:59
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Other than that I think there are probably more mediocre to average wedding photographers than good ones. It's relatively easy to shoot an "acceptable" wedding, especially in the eyes of an untrained client. Probably? If you've read one book on the basic fundamentals of photography (as in, you know what composition is) you are probably in the top 15% of wedding photographers, in terms of quality, in your city.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 01:02
|
|
|
I guess I'm getting to that point where I am going to an inordinate amount of weddings, being a couple years out of college. To me this business can be whatever you want it to. Barrier to entry is so low these days, that all you need is a solid workflow. It is staggering what people pay for their weddings. I think successful photographers are the ones that are able to promote themselves, and make the clients understand the kind of value you bring to them. The technicals of it almost seem come second when dealing with the bulk of wedding photography. I've looked at a good amount of websites and pricing seems to fall inline with the quality of the art. In my area, I think the low end is like $3-$5K and the high end hitting $15K.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 03:05
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:The general joe would get a hooker for $300 a night, a hedge fund manager wouldn't mind paying $5k for the same hooker. Funny that. A buddy of mine in Dallas shot two weddings on two consecutive weekends. The first was for a couple having a modest wedding and he charged them about $2000 for some really good, solid, dependable "drag 'em out and show the neighbors" photos. They were all around good, technically sound, but a little bland in terms of composition and feel. The second wedding was for an investment banker's daughter who was marrying another investment banker. He charged $31,000 for some really good, solid, dependable photos but then near the end threw in some crazy poses, odd angles, and generally "artsy" looking stuff. He also ended up doing dress fitting, bachelor party, bachelorette party, and rehearsal dinner photos. It was about 3 times the amount of work for the second wedding, but he turned over 15X the profit. The moral here, it really depends on your client. The more wealthy the couple/family the more they expect to pay. If you don't follow that expectation you don't get the job.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 17:54
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:The moral here, it really depends on your client. The more wealthy the couple/family the more they expect to pay. If you don't follow that expectation you don't get the job. edit: I'm in Australia, not NZ - but I'm sure I can find a local dealer. I picked up an album yesterday but I'm not entirely happy with it. psylent fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Oct 22, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 21:26
|
|
|
I just picked up an internship at a place that hires out its premises for weddings and other events. They were very excited that I was also a photographer. So, hopefully I can build some contacts and see if I can be a second shooter on anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 21:29
|
|
|
psylent posted:This is why - after I've shot a few more weddings - I'm going to a very high quality, expensive looking portfolio together. People with more money expect to pay more for quality work, and that's hopefully what I'll be providing. If you're going to show the portfolio in person, spend a couple of bucks and get it in a nice looking bound album. I think it was rockcity posted something a bit back in the thread, but being in NZ there are probably some local options that won't require your first born for shipping.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 21:41
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:If you're going to show the portfolio in person, spend a couple of bucks and get it in a nice looking bound album. I think it was rockcity posted something a bit back in the thread, but being in NZ there are probably some local options that won't require your first born for shipping. That's my soon to be purchased Canon 7D half paid off.
psylent fucked around with this message at 08:51 on Oct 22, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2009 08:49
|
|
|
FYI, Jasmine Star's doing a couple of one day workshops in Aussie and NZ soon. The downside? $900 for one day (at least the nz one) Pass...
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2009 09:53
|
|
|
Jesus, screw that. There's hundreds of websites and books I can read rather than doing that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2009 11:39
|
|
|
psylent posted:Well it worked, I've just booked in my first paying customer. Ceremony is in a nice old church and the reception is a boat cruise around Sydney harbour. I'm charging $1000 for the day, I think I'll nodge it up a couple hundred dollars as I do each wedding and get more experience. I've included 200 images on a DVD and a web gallery in that price, I gave her the option of an album/prints for an additional charge. AHHH! You rotten motherfucker! Good job! Yeah, sorry about the NZ thing. Bondi Bay isn't in god drat New Zealand, I don't know what the hell I was thinking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2009 15:42
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:FYI, Jasmine Star's doing a couple of one day workshops in Aussie and NZ soon. Haha, I think the hooker metaphor applies again. For 900 bucks I bet she makes you feel fantastic for the day, but you'll probably end up with some regret. I bet nearly all of the people that sign up are just Jasmine Star fanatics who want to shoot exactly like her so they'd never complain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2009 16:03
|
|
|
This is brilliant: http://www.loft3pd.com/blog/?p=1724
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2009 01:53
|
|
|
^^^ Nice. According to the blog, they were a fun, artsy, possibly hipster couple which means they were probably up for anything as long as it wasn't the traditional crap. Yeah, those are always the best weddings to shoot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2009 19:19
|
|
|
One shot I really cannot STAND that everyone is doing these days is the 'bride and groom are standing REALLY far apart!!!!' one. It looks simply retarded and has no intimacy, emotion or special moment in it at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2009 19:33
|
|
|
So, I guess there is room for anyone to be a photographer. And this post is to make everyone here feel better about themselves. I just got links to a friends wedding back in August. It was two photographers, and one of them uses a photoshop blur. But its not contained in one focal plane, its just blurry around a subject! http://www.mywedding.com/gzwedding/photo_264995_14533380.html http://www.mywedding.com/gzwedding/photo_264056_14507897.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2009 22:13
|
|
|
mmm yeah, look at those sweet creamy bokehs
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2009 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:31 |
|
|
Someone paid for that 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2009 00:07
|
|
