Richmond Hill, Canada
23 hours ago
 |
Poss |
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
JDT0505: I sure hope an FX 16MP D400 is in the works.
Hope is the last thing to die... :-)
Poss: Haven't shot too many weddings, have you Barnaby my friend ?
Haven't got the joy of dark churches where flash use is prohibited (about the majority of them). Event and wedding photogs work in mostly poor lighting conditions where good high ISO performance is a HUGE bonus.
It might not be a bad idea to revisit that paragraph because as it is, it puts a big, Costa Concordia sized gash in this article's credibility.
I don't doubt some wedding pros will use a D800 (me excluded), but it won't replace anyone's trusty D3/D700, especially for those many times a full wedding day when the light ain't all that great.
Sure, and since we're talking among friends here, why would one need to increase his workflow time for (arguably) better noise in print.
Time = money and in this case more time does not equal more money.
That's commonly considered a bad thing.
The D800 will be picked up by many for its other qualities but won't be picked up for its awesome ISO. I think we should leave it at that.
And I still think big pixels and hi, awesome ISO are very important to most wedding photographers. I'm still one of them...
Poss: Haven't shot too many weddings, have you Barnaby my friend ?
Haven't got the joy of dark churches where flash use is prohibited (about the majority of them). Event and wedding photogs work in mostly poor lighting conditions where good high ISO performance is a HUGE bonus.
It might not be a bad idea to revisit that paragraph because as it is, it puts a big, Costa Concordia sized gash in this article's credibility.
I don't doubt some wedding pros will use a D800 (me excluded), but it won't replace anyone's trusty D3/D700, especially for those many times a full wedding day when the light ain't all that great.
Barney, I don't doubt for one second it will sell in the millions, I sure hope Nikon will be able to keep with the demand on this puppy...
I doubt however Nikon's claims of "same per pixel IQ" with the MUCH larger pixel sized D700 (and even less D3s). Technology hasn't changed as much... And in terms of sensor induced diffraction D800's sensor will be , in no uncertain terms, worse.
Poss: Haven't shot too many weddings, have you Barnaby my friend ?
Haven't got the joy of dark churches where flash use is prohibited (about the majority of them). Event and wedding photogs work in mostly poor lighting conditions where good high ISO performance is a HUGE bonus.
It might not be a bad idea to revisit that paragraph because as it is, it puts a big, Costa Concordia sized gash in this article's credibility.
I don't doubt some wedding pros will use a D800 (me excluded), but it won't replace anyone's trusty D3/D700, especially for those many times a full wedding day when the light ain't all that great.
So it will have the same lack of noise in print as a 3.5 year old camera... ain't progress great?
Louis_Dobson: Take a 36MP file and whack on the NR until it has the same res as a 12MP file. You've just added, what, 2 stops of low light ability? It is 6AM here and my brain is too slow to do the maths. Anyway, the wedding shooters can stop worrying...
I though I'd finished with Nikon FF, smaller format cameras were giving me what I needed, and the D3 was sold last month.
Apparently I haven't finished after all. Where do I sign?
If you're two stops underexposed, no math will save that file. However a B&W conversion might...
I'm not selling my D3s... Nor my old D700...
Poss: Haven't shot too many weddings, have you Barnaby my friend ?
Haven't got the joy of dark churches where flash use is prohibited (about the majority of them). Event and wedding photogs work in mostly poor lighting conditions where good high ISO performance is a HUGE bonus.
It might not be a bad idea to revisit that paragraph because as it is, it puts a big, Costa Concordia sized gash in this article's credibility.
I don't doubt some wedding pros will use a D800 (me excluded), but it won't replace anyone's trusty D3/D700, especially for those many times a full wedding day when the light ain't all that great.
Well, the wind in the Digital Wedding Forum seems to be blowing in many directions... When you're earning a living with that, one has to take into account the many hours one's workflow is increased by having to deal with bigger files. Some like the video and the increased cropping potential. Some other like their canvases will print better.... and so on. But NONE of the reactions so far seem to validate your thought that high ISO performance is not affected (along with sensor diffraction) or is NOT important in our particular photography field...
Haven't shot too many weddings, have you Barnaby my friend ?
Haven't got the joy of dark churches where flash use is prohibited (about the majority of them). Event and wedding photogs work in mostly poor lighting conditions where good high ISO performance is a HUGE bonus.
It might not be a bad idea to revisit that paragraph because as it is, it puts a big, Costa Concordia sized gash in this article's credibility.
I don't doubt some wedding pros will use a D800 (me excluded), but it won't replace anyone's trusty D3/D700, especially for those many times a full wedding day when the light ain't all that great.
The truth is one. The lies are many.
Regardless of the medium used, be it words or pixels or whatever.
Vladik: The dumbest Invention ever! For 1700 dollars you can get a lightly used Canon 5D M2 or 2 Canon 5D originals :))))). Looks like Fukushima took a huge toll on their heads!
Vladik you were lucky and you know that. The median price for a good condition used 5D (cracking camera BTW) is around $1000 and people selling them are strangely attached to them as well :-)
Vladik: The dumbest Invention ever! For 1700 dollars you can get a lightly used Canon 5D M2 or 2 Canon 5D originals :))))). Looks like Fukushima took a huge toll on their heads!
Where can you get one of then used 5DMk2 ?
A good condition 5D will probably set one back at least a grand...
The sad truth about this story is the bride to be doesn't have to pay anything really. She didn't have to post inflammatory crap on Craigslist either. And Nikki should have used better judgement and not answered.
It would not surprise me to find out a few weeks down the road that all of this fuss was just a ploy to get some websites A LOT of clicks (with all the SEO fixings that come with that).
There's the smell of a certain animal coming out of this whole thing...
mgurantz2: Like so many people said it here, wedding photography is probably the purest form of free competition. The only barrier to entry is the cost of (1) photo equipment (camera, lenses, lights, computers, software, etc.), which can also be rented. (2) value of time (wedding time, processing time,presentation to clients). (3) in case you have to use it - the time of your assistants.
Craigs list is a great place to find a photographer, and you can't find someone for less than $3,000 that will do it, it means do it yourself or shut up.
To which you might want to add: dealing with clients like the now famous Craigslist Bride
fmian: 1. The response does not mention the value of the photographers talent, so I will assume the photographer has none, or it has little/no value.
2. The photographer is hiring another photographer for only $200 a day, but expects the bride to pay 15x that.
3. 25 hours in post is just madness. Learn to be more efficient.
4. Editing on an iMac screen.
I get to hear wedding photographers bitch and moan about their clients queries all the time, trying to justify price based on the cost of their gear, the effort of having to carry such heavy gear, the effort of knowing how to blur away the background with their special f/2.8 lenses. The amount of time they spend in post fixing up their own mistakes. And then getting the client to wait several weeks while the images are sent to some other place to get printed by someone other than the photographer.
Perhaps brides and grooms should hire an expert to judge the value of a photographers talent, just like getting anything else important valued.
In terms of being a pro, I can't comment really. If w're talking deriving some form of income from photographic activities then a LOT of people can claim that. If we're talking things like being and acting professional the numbers drop sharply. Adding being incorporated, paying taxes and business insurance brings about another, even sharper drop in numbers. I'm afraid to add deep actual photographic knowledge (technical and artistic) to the requirements. I would not be in that list anymore :-)
fmian: 1. The response does not mention the value of the photographers talent, so I will assume the photographer has none, or it has little/no value.
2. The photographer is hiring another photographer for only $200 a day, but expects the bride to pay 15x that.
3. 25 hours in post is just madness. Learn to be more efficient.
4. Editing on an iMac screen.
I get to hear wedding photographers bitch and moan about their clients queries all the time, trying to justify price based on the cost of their gear, the effort of having to carry such heavy gear, the effort of knowing how to blur away the background with their special f/2.8 lenses. The amount of time they spend in post fixing up their own mistakes. And then getting the client to wait several weeks while the images are sent to some other place to get printed by someone other than the photographer.
Perhaps brides and grooms should hire an expert to judge the value of a photographers talent, just like getting anything else important valued.
Fmian, again with all due respect, all our clients today hire photographic coverage of their events. If we would be limited by the bounds of the set moments throughout the wedding day plus the formals then you'd be right. 15 years ago no one sold coverage because no one except perhaps a few lucky rich ones could afford it. The cost of film, processing and proofing would have been prohibitive.
15 years ago I would not have shot the whole processional, and recessional. No one did. Couple of shots of the bride walking down the isle, a couple of the newlyweds coming out after the ceremony and that was about the size of it. Grand entrances at reception? Again just two or three of the couple coming in...
Weddings are not necessarily more exciting today. We're simply getting more of what happens at the request of our clients, that's all.
Poss: As a wedding photog, no matter what you do and how nicely you try to explain your pricing structure, you will still come across as pontificating and defensive while still failing to educate the client. Nikki's response is no different I'm afraid.
I would never go into this sort of trap. Someone ranting like that would simply never be my client. I never deal with tire kickers. They are a huge waste of time as they never buy anything.
I fabricate a polite excuse and I move on to clients that pay. As simple as that.
Fewer, better paying clients are better than lots of cheap ones. It helps a photographer maintain his sanity :-). I value that more than my bottom line :-) . Speaking of bottom line, that could be pretty decent if one's not greedy.
ljstudio: I photographed weddings for 30 years. The last one I photographed (using film) was in 2004. Kodak came out with a statistic many years ago that the average wedding photographer (again, back in the film days) would spend 28 to 35 hours on every wedding they would photograph. The bulk of the work is done after the wedding & reception- editing, ordering albums, dealing with all of the orders, etc.
We would charge $1500 for a starter wedding package until we bought Successware, a studio software & financial program which, in my opinion, is the best available. After punching all of our costs, hours we spent on each wedding, etc., Successware informed us that our starter package should be $2900 instead of $1500. We ran the numbers 3 times just to be sure. Weddings are hard work & most photographers earn their money.
If one uses kodak and business in the same sentence, bankrupcy needs alo to be included as well.
It's called irony , I think... :-)
danieljp: What can I say that hasn't already been said. If you are a legal photographer meaning you pay ALL OF YOUR TAXES then it's expensive to run a business and provide a quality and consistent product and make a living doing it. One of the things this bride fails to realize is the word "edit"; she makes it seem as though that process is quick and easy; I spend much more time editing a wedding than shooting it. Go ahead and let your guests take pictures; she'll be sorry in the end. You see there's a saying: "People don't know what they don't know," and this bride simply has no idea.
Fullframer, I would not mid a few samples of your most skilled wedding shots. Stuff that was done on the go, not formals (I get those 100% in camera as well ... Easy stuff). Even after years in this business I'm always open at learning something new. Please share.
wkay: I guess our hero never passed economics in high school, but last time I checked we live in a free competiition, supply and demand market. If photog A charges too much than find photog B. If photog A truly charges too much then they will be out of business. You always charge what the market will bear and if you are truly exceptional then the sky's the limit. How come BMW gets to charge more than KIA?
Take the best Kia has to offer against what the best BMW has to offer on a few laps of the Nurburgring. Look at the best lap times. The big gap there reflects directly the big gap in pricing.
Take both for a long drive, as far as you can from home. See which one you'd like to drive on your way back...
pp168: Uhm... nice to read a lot of excuses right here, but all I can say is, that the bride is right! :D
C'mon... 3 grand for a wedding in the US?! It's almost three times more than you would pay for a really good wedding photographer right here in Germany...
I think I have to get a green card... :D
Cheers!
I have pretty good pro wed photogs in Germany... The prices are pretty high there as well...
ljstudio: I photographed weddings for 30 years. The last one I photographed (using film) was in 2004. Kodak came out with a statistic many years ago that the average wedding photographer (again, back in the film days) would spend 28 to 35 hours on every wedding they would photograph. The bulk of the work is done after the wedding & reception- editing, ordering albums, dealing with all of the orders, etc.
We would charge $1500 for a starter wedding package until we bought Successware, a studio software & financial program which, in my opinion, is the best available. After punching all of our costs, hours we spent on each wedding, etc., Successware informed us that our starter package should be $2900 instead of $1500. We ran the numbers 3 times just to be sure. Weddings are hard work & most photographers earn their money.
Just don't bring Kodak into this business discussion OK? :-)