|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 18:30 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
The last two of those are incredible. Overall a great job too.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2009 15:27
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
psylent posted:Oh man am I ever conflicted about Jasmine Star's blog. She does take great photos and there is good advice there, but the focus on "creating a brand" and the saccharin nature of so many of her posts really puts me off. Her post with all her photo fuckups cracked me up, especially the one with her husband opening the door behind the posing couple and ruining a dramatic photograph.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2010 23:37
|
|
|
jackpot posted:I'd love to read this, got a link? I can't find it on the front page. http://www.jasminestarblog.com/images/content/BlogBehindtheScenes0010.jpg is the picture in question. http://www.jasminestarblog.com/index.cfm?postID=772&a-year-in-review is the main post.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2010 19:17
|
|
|
galaxian posted:A handful of recent photos from the last few months. My wedding season for 2010 starts Saturday in Portland, I'm jittery... I hope everyone has a good 2010 whether you are planning or shooting a wedding. Both weddings were fantastic. You did an outstanding job.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2010 22:42
|
|
|
psylent posted:I've got 7-8 weddings booked so far this year, half of them have come from referrals from celebrants. My wife has decided to be my sales manager and has spent the last few weeks calling up venues to get me put on their list of suppliers. She pimps out my services everywhere haha, sales manager seems like a needless formality. Just list her as "Pimp" in the company director. Congrats though!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2010 23:08
|
|
|
Wooten posted:Oh come on, Heathrow to Logan is cheap! haha, this is actually tantalizingly true.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2010 18:35
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:A photographer friend of mine booked Jasmine Star for her wedding. It made me wonder how many of her clients at this point are photographers themselves. That's pretty cool. How far ahead did he have to book her?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2010 19:40
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
VermiciousKnid84 posted:Anyone see this update on Jasmine Star's blog? I really like Jasmine Star and I was a bit taken aback by that too. At least she's being somewhat transparent. She also extensively uses and plugs photoshop actions too. Which is fine I guess, but does beg the question of what she does when she's not shooting? Or what she teaches in her 500 dollar a day workshops. I do really like her photography, and the way she created her brand is deserving of recognition. I think someone mentioned it in the photo business thread, but a successful photographer is a better businessman than a photographer.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2010 12:37
|
|
|
Yeah, if you're getting 10-15K a wedding, it makes sense to outsource the monkey work for 270 bucks if it means you can spend that day shooting an engagement session etc.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2010 13:55
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:I would like to imagine that she still does the top ~# photos by herself in post. Like the Kiss, the cake, the rings, etc. Then outsources the other couple hundred/thousand out. Realistically though, if she's selling prints at $10, she only needs to sell 27 of them to break even on it. Jasmine Star charges like 15K, if anything the post production guys are idiots for only charging her $270.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2010 19:17
|
|
|
Bread Zeppelin posted:Are they just moving sliders on RAW files or are they taking them into Photoshop and going all out for each image? Haha, I'm reading the "more info" Basically for 270 you get: Culling To select a black and white percentage (not sure what this is - I guess how many of the images to turn black and white?) White Balance - only three options: warm, neutral, and cool Renaming images.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2010 23:11
|
|
|
Yeah, I really wouldn't want to trust culling my images to a third party either.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2010 23:21
|
|
|
I don't know about you guys but the icing on the cake for me was the plaintive "please don't send me spam!"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2010 17:08
|
|
|
I'm set on "open relationship" and the only ads I get are for facebook ads themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2010 00:24
|
|
|
Just finished second shooting my first wedding - first wedding I'd been to period even. I think we got some awesome shots.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2010 20:35
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Screw it, I'm getting the 70-200 and 24-70, and figure on using those exclusively for the day. If I can't cover a wedding with 24-200 and a decent flash I'm not worth a poo poo anyway. I'd love another body but christ they're expensive to rent. Did I mention I'm doing this free for a friend? Kill me now. You only really need the 70-200 f2.8 - the 17-50 you already own makes the 24-70 a little redundant.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2010 22:29
|
|
|
jackpot posted:I was just thinking the same thing (haven't reserved anything yet). It's exciting, looking at all that cool equipment; makes you want more than you need. The photographer I was working with today primarily used a 70200 f2.8 and it really is great. Kicked the poo poo out of my 70-200 f4  My sigma 10-20 saved the day for some group shots though 
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2010 22:55
|
|
|
I hope this works, first time linking from my smugmug.  I don't have to make it a link like with flickr right?
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2010 19:54
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:Link all you like. It was super ugly grass. I'm sort of ambivalent about the picture itself. Other people seem to like it though.    More here Paragon8 fucked around with this message at 20:02 on May 10, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2010 19:59
|
|
|
HPL posted:It's the aged, faded look. Makes you wonder what the photos will look like in 20 years though. Or where wedding photography trends will be in 20 years! It was the first wedding I'd been to ever, let alone the first one I shot. I was a second shooter, so I missed out on a lot of good opportunities because I had to be crouched in bushes holding the dress up or making fake wind. It was a super awesome experience and I think I got some great shots out of it. It says more about the wedding photography industry than my skills, but I feel like I'm already better than a lot of people out there.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2010 21:01
|
|
|
Erwin posted:Where on the forums is the best place to look for prospective wedding photographers? Is it this thread? Try the portfolio thread too.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2010 18:22
|
|
|
Shoes are definitely a bridal money shot - It seems like it has become tradition recently for the bride to be wearing super expensive designer shoes.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2010 18:38
|
|
|
On the wedding I second shot for, I experimented a little with video during the vows as I didn't have the greatest angle. The first shooter was using a 5dmkII and it totally ruined the video. "Do you ta-" CLACK CLACK CLACK "to b-" CLACK CLACK CLACK
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2010 10:56
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Aren't shutter sounds pretty easy to filter out? I have no idea, it was just a quick little experiment. It's wasn't an official thing. I just found it hilarious how loud her shutter was. The shake on the video was enough that it's not worth really editing anymore.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2010 11:45
|
|
|
robertdx posted:Yikes! That's incredible. I love the IS on my 100-400 but I don't think it's that good. Either an earlier version maybe or just because the push-pull is so heavy, it still helps a lot though in the 400mm range. I like the borders you did. Bah, that feels like a lame compliment - but yeah it really adds to that crisp fresh feeling I like in wedding photography.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2010 19:58
|
|
|
I really like detail shots. There's something about the anticipation and buildup to them that I find quite emotional. Like jackpot says, they probably aren't the most commercially viable photos but they're frosting on the cake so to speak. Like if you're trying to get published or something, detail shots are one way of standing out.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2010 13:35
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Hahaha, that owns. That's rad as hell, it gives people something to take home on the day instead of having to wait a few weeks for the photos.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2010 16:50
|
|
I'll post more shots later, haven't gone through the digital yet, bride has the instant stuff to scan (she insists I get to keep the originals), and I've got like 20 sheets of C-41 to mail out for processing.
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 18:30 |
|
|
Sparklepants posted:Forgive me if I'm posting this in the wrong place....but where would I ask if someone was willing to photograph my wedding? It will be in September of 2011. Oh please don't hurt me if I posted this incorrectly No, we love you. I've lurked the wedding thread in ask/tell and cringed at all the "we're just having a friend with a nice camera shoot our wedding" advice. Where are you?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2010 20:44
|
|
