Reading mode: Light Dark

My FIRST wedding! Results...

Go to last post
bodia27 said:
bodia27 wrote:

Its almost unworthy to reply to that. First off I suspect with all that negativity he didnt even bother to properly read my initial post because he then would have noticed that I am NOT planning on becoming a "PRO", and moreover I work as an Architect for a living...and do photography/art/video on the side. But then also what is the point of that reply?? He picks up a different issue, for which there is another tread on this forum to deal with. I asked for a critique and not the status of the wedding photography today.
Click to expand...
I apologize for the mistake. We have so many newbies going pro around here, it is quite difficult to keep track of who is who.
bodia27 said:
If you look at the wedding market today, and what I will say next is a matter of my personal opinion mind you, it is saturated with the technically "perfect", well shot images that the way I see are lifeless, dull and boring, with the same old beaten-down poses, compositions and ideal post-processing, and my "favorite" the massive Someone Someone Photography sign under them... I mean sure, the "PRO" will capture the moment after shooting 100 RAW images for one pose, but then just how much of that true untouched emotion will be left in that image...people are not models. And in no way I am trying to say that I didn't make any mistakes myself, and thats why I was curious about a critique here, even though I knew Id get the classic old-timer comments, but I will say this, if it came to my wedding (im only 24 now), I'd hire a photo-journalist to capture it...
Click to expand...
Huh? Pros don't capture emotion? Silly.

I've been in this industry for nearly 20 years. I pose, I follow, I document, I socialize... whatever gets the shot.

Here is, word for word, a thank you note that came in the mail on Monday.

"Dear Michael

I wanted to thank you again for being so wonderful and creating life long memories for my husband and me. Without you, these memories would never have been possible. The photographs are beyond words. I started to cry when I saw them because they really captured the essence of our special day. Thank you again! [heart symbol]"

The same day, this email arrived from the bride's sister, who booked me for her wedding next year the very day after her sister's wedding.

"Michael, I just wanted to tell you I saw my sisters pictures and they are absolutely gorgeous. You are so talented and I cant wait for you to make make wedding just as special as you have made xxxxx's. I will make sure to give your name to as many friends as I have because you truly are talented. See you soon."

Now, the ONLY reason I post this is because, yes, I am an "old-timer" (though only in my 40s), and because EMOTION are the very things which appealed to these people about my work. Yes, I strive for technical perfection (unobtainable, but I do strive). I work my butt off and use all the various techniques which any hard-working pro will accumulate over the span of two decades. Natural light? Got it. Multiple off-camera light? Sure. Studio-quality posing and lighting? You bet. Unposed/candid/reportage? Whatever you need. But ALWAYS, the content of the photograph is paramount. I photograph PEOPLE for a living. And I want them to LIVE within their photographs. Most of my clients don't know an f-stop from F Scott Fitzgerald, but they certainly do know whether I've captured personality and emotion. About 1/3 of my work comes from referrals. That doesn't happen if things are old, stuffy, and boring.

And I am NOT the exception. There are plenty of good pros out there, doing as I do, providing quality work, but having a more and more difficult time because of encroaching amateurs. Do you have the RIGHT to do whatever you do? Sure. But that doesn't mean we have LIKE it.

bodia27 said:
And lastly Ill address the money issue, since it seems to be bothering some people. While the couple did have the money indeed, a while back they asked me to shoot their engagement photos. The bride new me personally, knew I practiced photography and had seen my work before. They liked what I did and thus they were more inclined to give me this job because of that(even with the risk involved). So I'd say its more of a personal taste rather than financial situation..
Click to expand...
Great. No problem.

You're fortunate, I suppose, to not have a career (architecture) that too many people want to try and do for fun at little or no cost to others.
 
Jeff Seltzer said:
Jeff Seltzer wrote:
Jeff Seltzer said:
To me, this right here proves his point. You ARENT a pro, you don't know what youre doing, you don't NEED to do this, you don't "charge" for the service, etc., etc., etc. Youre taking a job away from a real pro who depends on clients to put a roof over his head, food on the table, etc.
Click to expand...
Sounds like "real pro" needs to step-up his/her game.
Click to expand...
 
Jeff Seltzer said:
Jeff Seltzer wrote:
Jeff Seltzer said:
To me, this right here proves his point. You ARENT a pro, you don't know what youre doing, you don't NEED to do this, you don't "charge" for the service, etc., etc., etc. Youre taking a job away from a real pro who depends on clients to put a roof over his head, food on the table, etc.
Click to expand...
Sounds like "real pro" needs to step-up his/her game.
Click to expand...
 
DuaneV said:
DuaneV wrote:
DuaneV said:
Jeff Seltzer wrote:
DuaneV said:
To me, this right here proves his point. You ARENT a pro, you don't know what youre doing, you don't NEED to do this, you don't "charge" for the service, etc., etc., etc. Youre taking a job away from a real pro who depends on clients to put a roof over his head, food on the table, etc.
Click to expand...
Sounds like "real pro" needs to step-up his/her game.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Member said:
Michael Thomas Mitchell wrote:

Penguin is right on about this: this couple spent money elsewhere. Though not a high end wedding, it wasn't cheap. There are those who say "If they were only willing to spend $200, then they were not your potential client in the first place". WRONG. This was a potential client. Their status only changed in response to their options. And their option was, obviously, this $200 newbie.
Click to expand...
While I feel for you folks who are making a living doing this sort of thing (we can talk sometime about TV repair, PC repair and few other things I no longer engage in) the point here is that now people have a CHOICE and it is their choice to make. It was not that long ago the choice was to ether: A) have no pictures, B) waste a bunch of money on film+processing on some images that had very low odds of being worth keeping (let along the cost of making it) or C) spend lots of money on a full time pro. When the general public is considered this is a good thing.
Member said:
Ultimately, for the sake of our argument, it matters little if the photography is stellar or crap. Damage has been done either way to the INDUSTRY. Because it has contributed to the idea that a decent salary for professional photography is not necessary.
Click to expand...
The OP never presented himself as a professional nor has any ambitions on becoming one. While there surely were numerous flaws in the images and presentation of them (and some (along with the OP) feel there were some/many shots missed) the job was handed to him - not asked for and not promoted for.
Member said:
The original poster took away potential work for a working pro AND sabotaged his own prospects for the future.
Click to expand...
"Potential work" might be a bit of a reach here. It seems your following the flightless bird thinking that people ether hire a professional photographer, settle for camera phone images or go without any photographs at all.
Member said:
It was an extremely selfish and short-sighted act. Sure, he got to have fun with his toys and get a little ego boost -- after all, he made $200!! All short term gains.
Click to expand...
Another flightless bird thinking mantra. I'd expect more from you Michael (and you usually deliver). Please recall that they asked him AFTER seeing his engagement images and liking his work and agreed to pay for equipment he rented to cover the event. (if I read the gist of the 4 pages before correctly) They liked his images so much they gave him a tip!
Member said:
For the future, he lowered the bar both of what it takes to be a real wedding pro AND what it should cost. Even if he gained clients at 2, 3 or even 4 times the pay rate for this job, he still WONT EVEN MAKE MINIMUM WAGE. Not to mention, he'll probably even be pricing himself out of a job, since there will be so many other idiots newbies wanting so badly to become pros that they, like him, are willing to practically pay to do it.
Click to expand...
While the OP has stated he has no intention of going 'pro' with wedding photography, it appears that the only 'acceptable' method of gaining experience and building a portfolio is to be a assistant to someone already in the industry (IF (and a BIG IF) and when a opening or chance for something like that might come up) or forget about it all together.

Thankfully there are a lot of 'events' happening in my social circle all the time. While very very few are nuptial related there are plenty of backyard BBQ's, birthdays and other such events that the pro shooters don't wish to bother with and the clients would not even consider you for that can keep my cameras and 'shooting fixation' happy.

Be thankful that at least photography is location related and won't be 'outsourced' to China anytime soon. (like my last 13yr job)
 
DuaneV said:
DuaneV wrote:
DuaneV said:
Jeff Seltzer wrote:
DuaneV said:
To me, this right here proves his point. You ARENT a pro, you don't know what youre doing, you don't NEED to do this, you don't "charge" for the service, etc., etc., etc. Youre taking a job away from a real pro who depends on clients to put a roof over his head, food on the table, etc.
Click to expand...
Sounds like "real pro" needs to step-up his/her game.

--
http://www.jeffseltzerphotography.com
Click to expand...
How exactly do real pros compete with complete amateurs who are out playing photographer for peanuts? Ive got tens of thousands of dollars invested in equipment, 4 years of college, a lifetime of shooting, a tangible business to run and a family who depends on me to pay the bills. Regardless of how impressive my photography is, there are going to be LOTS of people who get their buddy, aunt, neighbor, etc., to shoot their events instead of spending money on a true professional simply because person "X" has a digital camera and likes to take photos, and will do it for next to nothing. Like I said, they've dumbed down the market. Bad is acceptable because there are so many bad photographers out there. Its all about how cheap it is now. And honestly, take away Facebook and you don't have this explosion of bad photographers. Its too easy to post a few pics, make a page and VOILA!, youre a photographer!

Listen, Im not on here crabbing about GWAC's like a lot of others, they don't threaten me. There are a few soccer moms in my town who shoot on the side like the OP. Guess what, theyre con artists. THATS what bothers me. People are getting ripped off by hem. I get a lot of clients AFTER they shoot with them because the client realizes they made a mistake. Senior pictures, family portraits, school pictures, etc., those can be re-done. Weddings, not so much. Its totally irresponsible for someone completely unqualified to shoot someone else's wedding, in my opinion.

Being anti-government, I HATE the thought of somehow "licensing" photographers, but its a joke when anyone can buy any camera, have zero experience level and pose as someone who knows what theyre doing and charge money to do it. Theyre snake-oil salesman.
Click to expand...
With people losing their jobs at a high rate you can expect more people sliding into photography. It's not the only trade that this is happening to.
 
alan54g said:
alan54g wrote:
alan54g said:
DuaneV wrote:
alan54g said:
Jeff Seltzer wrote:
alan54g said:
To me, this right here proves his point. You ARENT a pro, you don't know what youre doing, you don't NEED to do this, you don't "charge" for the service, etc., etc., etc. Youre taking a job away from a real pro who depends on clients to put a roof over his head, food on the table, etc.
Click to expand...
Sounds like "real pro" needs to step-up his/her game.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
DuaneV said:
DuaneV wrote:
DuaneV said:
DuaneV said:
It would be interesting to see Bodia27's reply to this post of Michael TM.

Zoooming
Click to expand...
I am NOT planning on becoming a "PRO", and moreover I work as an Architect for a living...and do photography/art/video on the side.
Click to expand...
To me, this right here proves his point. You ARENT a pro, you don't know what youre doing, you don't NEED to do this, you don't "charge" for the service, etc., etc., etc. Youre taking a job away from a real pro who depends on clients to put a roof over his head, food on the table, etc.

Now, Im not saying every "pro" is worthy of work, as we know there are plenty who frequent this forum who are serious blow hards and I can only imagine by reading their posts how terrible they are at working with people. That said, when you have all kinds of weekend warriors doing TONS of BAD work for little to no money, it saturates the market with 2 things: 1, bad photography which lowers peoples expectations of a pro and 2, people thinking you can get away with spending a couple hundred bucks and hiring a wedding photographer.

I get a lot of business from people who have used weekend warriors only to find out they made a huge mistake. Social media has made too many amateurs into "pros". A few snapshots, a Facebook page and BAM, youre doing weddings for a hundred bucks. But youre not a pro and pro's should quit whining about it. Right?
Click to expand...
Bodia's not whining about it - simply giving his point of view that he was picked to do the photos for personal reasons and there's nothing wrong with that.

The more weekend warriors there are out there stuffing things up the more opportunities you should get with your reputation for quality work.

Zoooming
 
zoooming said:
zoooming wrote:
zoooming said:
DuaneV wrote:
zoooming said:
zoooming said:
It would be interesting to see Bodia27's reply to this post of Michael TM.

Zoooming
Click to expand...
I am NOT planning on becoming a "PRO", and moreover I work as an Architect for a living...and do photography/art/video on the side.
Click to expand...
To me, this right here proves his point. You ARENT a pro, you don't know what youre doing, you don't NEED to do this, you don't "charge" for the service, etc., etc., etc. Youre taking a job away from a real pro who depends on clients to put a roof over his head, food on the table, etc.

Now, Im not saying every "pro" is worthy of work, as we know there are plenty who frequent this forum who are serious blow hards and I can only imagine by reading their posts how terrible they are at working with people. That said, when you have all kinds of weekend warriors doing TONS of BAD work for little to no money, it saturates the market with 2 things: 1, bad photography which lowers peoples expectations of a pro and 2, people thinking you can get away with spending a couple hundred bucks and hiring a wedding photographer.

I get a lot of business from people who have used weekend warriors only to find out they made a huge mistake. Social media has made too many amateurs into "pros". A few snapshots, a Facebook page and BAM, youre doing weddings for a hundred bucks. But youre not a pro and pro's should quit whining about it. Right?
Click to expand...
Bodia's not whining about it - simply giving his point of view that he was picked to do the photos for personal reasons and there's nothing wrong with that.

The more weekend warriors there are out there stuffing things up the more opportunities you should get with your reputation for quality work.

Zoooming
Click to expand...
Just to throw something into the mix for the sake of debate.

But what happens if either the bride or groom in the future, as many people do, get "in to" digital photography and then regret their previous decision to employ and amateur wedding photographer, when they understand more about what a good photo is and are disappointed with what was actually taken to capture the memories of their special day?

How many of us have taken a car to a £/$5 car wash, only later learn a little more about properly washing a car from a friend/neighbour/website and to then realise their dirty sponges has actually scratched the paint work. Or employed a local handyman to prune a tree and some time later discover/learn that there is a proper way to prune a tree and they actually just hacked some branches off with no real clue about what they were doing and now the tree is rotten or infected?
 
Last edited:
RhysM said:
RhysM wrote:
Just to throw something into the mix for the sake of debate.

But what happens if either the bride or groom in the future, as many people do, get "in to" digital photography and then regret their previous decision to employ and amateur wedding photographer, when they understand more about what a good photo is and are disappointed with what was actually taken to capture the memories of their special day?

How many of us have taken a car to a £/$5 car wash, only later learn a little more about properly washing a car from a friend/neighbour/website and to then realise their dirty sponges has actually scratched the paint work. Or employed a local handyman to prune a tree and some time later discover/learn that there is a proper way to prune a tree and they actually just hacked some branches off with no real clue about what they were doing and now the tree is rotten or infected?
Click to expand...
You have brought up the very thing that I try to get the newbie to understand whenever they ask advise about doing such things. We hear from MANY couples and families who say exactly this sort of thing. "Buyer's remorse" is COMMON. But when the photographer is a personal friend, that photographer may never know it. Why? Because the couple is POLITE. "Did you like the pictures?" "Yes, we loved them. You did a great job!" Only they are frequently not so enthusiastic in private.

I currently have two sets of wedding pictures (digital files) in which the couple has virtually begged me to "fix" them. Frankly, I could have a dozen of them if I accepted every request that comes my way. In both cases, the photographer was a personal friend. In both cases, the pictures were horrible. In both cases, the weddings were NOT low end affairs. (In fact, in one of them, the family of the bride was obviously very, very wealthy.) And in both cases, I agreed only to look at them and advise, not actually work on them. (Easier than explaining law to the insistent.) Ultimately, they have both been told that, essentially, one cannot merely polish what never shined.

So yes, what you describe happens. And that is why it is also an ethical consideration. It is not enough to merely tell the couple that they have never done it before. The couple typically does not know enough to know what that means. They should be told outright that success and satisfaction will be a roll of the dice, and the odds are NOT in their favor. Sure, longshots sometimes win. But couples AT LEAST deserve to KNOW THE ODDS.
 
RhysM said:
RhysM wrote:
RhysM said:
zoooming wrote:
RhysM said:
DuaneV wrote:
RhysM said:
RhysM said:
It would be interesting to see Bodia27's reply to this post of Michael TM.

Zoooming
Click to expand...
I am NOT planning on becoming a "PRO", and moreover I work as an Architect for a living...and do photography/art/video on the side.
Click to expand...
To me, this right here proves his point. You ARENT a pro, you don't know what youre doing, you don't NEED to do this, you don't "charge" for the service, etc., etc., etc. Youre taking a job away from a real pro who depends on clients to put a roof over his head, food on the table, etc.

Now, Im not saying every "pro" is worthy of work, as we know there are plenty who frequent this forum who are serious blow hards and I can only imagine by reading their posts how terrible they are at working with people. That said, when you have all kinds of weekend warriors doing TONS of BAD work for little to no money, it saturates the market with 2 things: 1, bad photography which lowers peoples expectations of a pro and 2, people thinking you can get away with spending a couple hundred bucks and hiring a wedding photographer.

I get a lot of business from people who have used weekend warriors only to find out they made a huge mistake. Social media has made too many amateurs into "pros". A few snapshots, a Facebook page and BAM, youre doing weddings for a hundred bucks. But youre not a pro and pro's should quit whining about it. Right?
Click to expand...
Bodia's not whining about it - simply giving his point of view that he was picked to do the photos for personal reasons and there's nothing wrong with that.

The more weekend warriors there are out there stuffing things up the more opportunities you should get with your reputation for quality work.

Zoooming
Click to expand...
Just to throw something into the mix for the sake of debate.

But what happens if either the bride or groom in the future, as many people do, get "in to" digital photography and then regret their previous decision to employ and amateur wedding photographer, when they understand more about what a good photo is and are disappointed with what was actually taken to capture the memories of their special day?

How many of us have taken a car to a £/$5 car wash, only later learn a little more about properly washing a car from a friend/neighbour/website and to then realise their dirty sponges has actually scratched the paint work. Or employed a local handyman to prune a tree and some time later discover/learn that there is a proper way to prune a tree and they actually just hacked some branches off with no real clue about what they were doing and now the tree is rotten or infected?
Click to expand...
Eh eh. You should see my design for a building. Only needed 3 backs of envelopes and I'm sure I can do better than http://www.theguardian.com/artandde...alkie-architect-predicted-reflection-sun-rays

PS I'll only charge for the envelopes (they were new after all).

I spent the latter half of my life running a small IT business and was often undercut by amateurs. My sister has just discovered that her computer is a mixture of components, no disks or official licences, a known problematic video card. But it was cheap. Problem is she just didn't know 3 years ago when she got it but does now.
 
You are obviously an artist young man and a good photographer so I'll forget that it was your first wedding. You should be doing good work and you have done. You were lucky with a lovely couple and families and I'm sure they are happy to have had you to call on.

The back lit front cover, I like that style. Be yourself, shoot how you like to shoot. Ignore those that don't "get it". Its not exactly my style but I can still appreciate it. Some people as you have seen never make the jump that if it doesn't look like how they do things then it is automatically wrong.

Bit of a problem getting peoples attention on the big group shot but it gives it some character. Everthing looks relaxed and they are happy. The influence you had on the day looks positive.

I think the book is great.
The muted black and whites (raised black levels) can look cool on screen where we are used to seeing high contrast but you might find it prints too flat. An art paper gives you a similar look on a more contrasty image. You'll make your own mind up about that when you get the book back.

Well done,

Andrew

www.photoluminaire.co.uk
 
Member said:
Michael Thomas Mitchell wrote:
Member said:
Jeff Seltzer wrote:
Member said:
Penguin is right on about this: this couple spent money elsewhere. Though not a high end wedding, it wasn't cheap. There are those who say "If they were only willing to spend $200, then they were not your potential client in the first place". WRONG. This was a potential client. Their status only changed in response to their options. And their option was, obviously, this $200 newbie.

Ultimately, for the sake of our argument, it matters little if the photography is stellar or crap. Damage has been done either way to the INDUSTRY. Because it has contributed to the idea that a decent salary for professional photography is not necessary. The original poster took away potential work for a working pro AND sabotaged his own prospects for the future. It was an extremely selfish and short-sighted act.
Click to expand...
Wow! Ridiculous. The only mistake the OP made as posting his first wedding here! This "pro" forum filled (or at least there's a loud minority) with a bunch of bitter, defensive, pessimistic, un-supportive, angry middling photographers. Nothing is more selfish than your responses to the OP. What a joke.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I agree. These were a very nice set of images both B&W and color. I have seem much worse from journeymen wedding photographers.

Some people here must have a huge bug up their okole.
 
WHOA right there.

Go to a lawyer forum and tell them you just took a case for $50. See what they tell you.

go cut hair for $3 a head and see what those that make a living cutting hair call you. If you're working from home you certainly could justify $3 haircuts (I've seen them for $9.99 at the mall)

Detail cars for $20. go ahead. Do it. Why not? You own a drive way, hose, bucket, right? $100 for a detail is ridiculous. It takes an hour so $20 is WAY more than fair. May even be overcharging!

yeah right. Folks in those industries would feel the same was as we do here.

Why should we be expected to say 'great job! do it again! PLEASE shoot more weddings for $200!"

nope sorry not gonna happen.

BTW, how long does it take to make a cake? What does cake mix and frosting cost? I bet there' not $15 in materials in a wedding cake 3 hours work. Why do they cost $400?

Why should the bride PAY MORE FOR A CAKE THAN HER PHOTOGRAPHER?????

Jeff Seltzer said:
Jeff Seltzer wrote:
Wow! Ridiculous. The only mistake the OP made as posting his first wedding here! This "pro" forum filled (or at least there's a loud minority) with a bunch of bitter, defensive, pessimistic, un-supportive, angry middling photographers. Nothing is more selfish than your responses to the OP. What a joke.
Click to expand...
 
Jen Yates said:
Jen Yates wrote:

I think you've taken some nice shots. If the couple is happy then well done
Click to expand...
taking 1700 shots ANYONE would get 'some nice shots'. Problem is brides usually expect more than 'some'.

However, they don't know what they MIGHT have had. So they spent $250 and got what they paid for. Had they spent more they likely would have gotten more.

It goes back to people spend money on what THEY value. and if the cake, limo, flowers cost more than the photography it's because they don't value the photography as much.
 
PenguinPhotoCo said:
PenguinPhotoCo wrote:

It goes back to people spend money on what THEY value. and if the cake, limo, flowers cost more than the photography it's because they don't value the photography as much.
Click to expand...
which is entirely their own prerogative.

They don't value photography because much of what the profession turns out is of little value to them = failure of the profession.
 
The profession might just be failing, because CON ARTISTS are taking it over. I HONESTLY think there needs to be some type of licensing involved with photography. Ive said it before, Im as anti-government as one gets, but I think something needs to be done. People are getting ripped off and photographers as a WHOLE are taking the blame.

Just like ANY OTHER BUSINESS, photographers should be held to a standard, required to show license, registration, insurance, etc., to their clients AT their place of business.

Clients are devaluing photographers because the FAUXtographers are devaluing photography.
 
DuaneV said:
DuaneV wrote:

The profession might just be failing, because CON ARTISTS are taking it over. I HONESTLY think there needs to be some type of licensing involved with photography. Ive said it before, Im as anti-government as one gets, but I think something needs to be done. People are getting ripped off and photographers as a WHOLE are taking the blame.

Just like ANY OTHER BUSINESS, photographers should be held to a standard, required to show license, registration, insurance, etc., to their clients AT their place of business.

Clients are devaluing photographers because the FAUXtographers are devaluing photography.
Click to expand...
Once again, Duane is absolutely correct. The industry is not going to pot because veterans are refusing to be creative, unable to adapt, or any of that other claptrap. Yes, there will ALWAYS be those lifers who offer nothing more than the same old stale stuff. But they are not what is wrong with the industry. What IS wrong with the industry is exactly what Duane has summarized so well. You simply cannot have an industry so absolutely saturated as it is without the primary demographic (the "fauxtographers") seriously affecting the public's image of that industry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top