Why weddings?

I have been coming to this site for four years now, and I'm always amazed to see such green photographers willing to tackle an important event like a wedding all by themself and without proper skills or equipment. When questioned about the wisdom of such a decision, the return is usually something like "They know it's my first", or "I'm not getting paid", or "They LOVE my baby portraitrs".

I agree that everyone has to start somewhere. I have even seen some images from a (very) few of these first efforts that were pretty darn good. For the most part, though, the work is, understandably, not up to the task.

Why do weddings in particular fall victim to the enthusiastic but misplaced judgements of hobbyists? They are one-time events which are not easily (or desirably) re-staged. A child's portrait or a model's headshot session can be shot a second or third time. A wedding? Nope. It needs to be THERE the first time, and it needs to be GOOD.

Sometimes, I'll hear "If I don't do it, they won't have ANYTHING!" Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't diminish the danger of being DEPENDED on before one is ready.

I do NOT wish to discourage those who are genuinley interested in wedding photography from pursuing that avenue. I DO want to encourage everyone to understand that weddings are not only difficult, but they are one-time events. I thoroughly enjoy my work as a wedding photographer, but I learned a great deal about my craft BEFORE I inflicted myself upon the naive couple. Thank goodness I was not the PRIMARY photographer my first time! (I had, however, performed music at several hundred weddings prior to my shoot, and even then it was difficult. They never really get any easier, I just become better at doing something difficult.)

I hope this rhetorical question -- why weddings? -- is not taken with offense. And if anyone living in middle Georgia wants some experience as an assistant/second shooter, I'll happily put you to work! But please, do not your own enthusiasm keep you from accepting the advise of lots of pros who know from experience that weddng photography requires a thorough knowledge and experience not only of photography, but also weddings, social skills, business acumen, and lots of gear!

Best of luck to all!

Michael

http://www.michaelphoto.net

Michael Thomas Mitchell said:

I have been coming to this site for four years now, and I'm always
amazed to see such green photographers willing to tackle an
important event like a wedding all by themself and without proper
skills or equipment.

Click to expand...

I can understand the appeal of weddings as photography opportunities. You have lots of people dressed in their finest. Usually lovely settings. Lots of emotion. Perhaps less camera-shyness than in any other environment. And the photos will probably be appreciated more than any other. So those are probably the answers to your question.

But I entirely agree with you. Speaking for myself, it would take a far braver man than I to take on that much responsibility without a huge amount of experience.

For all of the above reasons, however, I would enjoy the opportunity to try my hand as a second photographer, so if any pro in London wants an inexperienced but keen second shooter, drop me a line.

Ben

--
Photo section: http://www.benlovejoy.com/photography/
Photo gallery: http://www.benlovejoy.com/photography/photos/

thanks michael for sharing your hard-earned wisdom

Michael Thomas Mitchell said:

Why do weddings in particular fall victim to the enthusiastic but
misplaced judgements of hobbyists?

Click to expand...

this is your primary question, right?

i dont think weddings do, IN PARTICULAR, fall victim to hobbyists. more, i think, that they do realize the importance of the event (though maybe not all that it entails and the great difficulty in doing it properly) and therefore are more eager and needy to ask for help and ask numerous questions numerous times.

Member said:

Sometimes, I'll hear "If I don't do it, they won't have ANYTHING!"
Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't diminish the danger of being DEPENDED
on before one is ready.

Click to expand...

nevertheless this is sometimes true, and no it doesnt diminish the danger, but it MAY be the only option

Member said:

I do NOT wish to discourage those who are genuinley interested in
wedding photography from pursuing that avenue. I DO want to
encourage everyone to understand that weddings are not only
difficult, but they are one-time events. I thoroughly enjoy my work
as a wedding photographer, but I learned a great deal about my
craft BEFORE I inflicted myself upon the naive couple. Thank
goodness I was not the PRIMARY photographer my first time! (I had,
however, performed music at several hundred weddings prior to my
shoot, and even then it was difficult. They never really get any
easier, I just become better at doing something difficult.)

I hope this rhetorical question -- why weddings? -- is not taken
with offense. And if anyone living in middle Georgia wants some
experience as an assistant/second shooter, I'll happily put you to
work! But please, do not your own enthusiasm keep you from
accepting the advise of lots of pros who know from experience that
weddng photography requires a thorough knowledge and experience not
only of photography, but also weddings, social skills, business
acumen, and lots of gear!

Best of luck to all!

Michael

Click to expand...

thanks michael (and ill let you know how my experience turns out, i plan to buy not only 6 disposable kodaks, but 6 more for backup! how's that for recognizing the importance of the day...)

feivel

Member said:

http://www.michaelphoto.net

Click to expand...

After shooting weddings for 15 years, it's the addreneline rush. knowing you have one chance, and wanting to live up to your reputation.

I think a lot of people get pulled into wedding photography because the brides don't understand how difficult it is, so they ask someone they know how happens to own a camera! This may be driven somewhat by the cost of a good wedding photographer.

After looking at some nice images on your site, I'm curious as too what camera those were shot with? I see you post often to the canon forum.

BTW, I see a couple of examples of double lighting. What equipment do you use for that? I personally use a manual lumedyne, and a metz (on auto) on a full manual camera for fill.

As a editorial/wedding photographer, I can tell you that not anyone can shoot an assignment at a pro football or a portrait of a celebrity. You need credentials from the organization you are representing in order to complete your work. Wedding are a different matter. All of us have been to numerous wedding through the years and have probably shot pictures that were in many ways better than the hired professional. Lets be honest, there are no Sabastio Salgado and James Nachtwey in the wedding field to intimidate any incoming photographers. Though there are plenty of wedding photographers calling themself photojournalist. Anyways, my point is its alot easier to compete in the minor leagues where the money is than in the pro leagues where unfortunatly financial rewards are minor.

cheers

http://www.josefisayo.com
http://www.sharokinisayo.com

Michael Thomas Mitchell said:

I have been coming to this site for four years now, and I'm always
amazed to see such green photographers willing to tackle an
important event like a wedding all by themself and without proper
skills or equipment. When questioned about the wisdom of such a
decision, the return is usually something like "They know it's my
first", or "I'm not getting paid", or "They LOVE my baby
portraitrs".

I agree that everyone has to start somewhere. I have even seen some
images from a (very) few of these first efforts that were pretty
darn good. For the most part, though, the work is, understandably,
not up to the task.

Why do weddings in particular fall victim to the enthusiastic but
misplaced judgements of hobbyists? They are one-time events which
are not easily (or desirably) re-staged. A child's portrait or a
model's headshot session can be shot a second or third time. A
wedding? Nope. It needs to be THERE the first time, and it needs to
be GOOD.

Sometimes, I'll hear "If I don't do it, they won't have ANYTHING!"
Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't diminish the danger of being DEPENDED
on before one is ready.

I do NOT wish to discourage those who are genuinley interested in
wedding photography from pursuing that avenue. I DO want to
encourage everyone to understand that weddings are not only
difficult, but they are one-time events. I thoroughly enjoy my work
as a wedding photographer, but I learned a great deal about my
craft BEFORE I inflicted myself upon the naive couple. Thank
goodness I was not the PRIMARY photographer my first time! (I had,
however, performed music at several hundred weddings prior to my
shoot, and even then it was difficult. They never really get any
easier, I just become better at doing something difficult.)

I hope this rhetorical question -- why weddings? -- is not taken
with offense. And if anyone living in middle Georgia wants some
experience as an assistant/second shooter, I'll happily put you to
work! But please, do not your own enthusiasm keep you from
accepting the advise of lots of pros who know from experience that
weddng photography requires a thorough knowledge and experience not
only of photography, but also weddings, social skills, business
acumen, and lots of gear!

Best of luck to all!

Michael

http://www.michaelphoto.net

Click to expand...

--
http://www.josefisayo.com

I've successfully dodged weddings so far because of the reasons you listed. I don't have the equipment, experience, or nerve. I would enjoy getting those emotional beautiful pictures and would like to be an assistant one of these days, but not at the expense of wrecking someone's day. People around my area have been very unhappy with the pro wedding photographers they've dealt with and have asked me to do it but I decline. I think many get into it because it seems to be good money, but many just don't have the eye or experience which sadly gives the industry a bad name.

DigitalJournalist wrote:
Anyways, my

DigitalJournalist said:

point is its alot easier to compete in the minor leagues where the
money is than in the pro leagues where unfortunatly financial
rewards are minor.

Click to expand...

I work in both leagues, and it is far easier to shoot professional sports then it is to do a wedding.

Keith

In my area, which is comrised of several small (under 8K pop) towns, I would guess that there are many couples who just don't have the money to hire a professional photog. I am on more than one pro- forum where the members think it should be an easy task to pay $3000 or more for wedding images. But in my area this is a major chunk of change no matter the quality of imges. Many in my community are living on minimum wage jobs.

Most who post here about doing a wedding with no experience are doing it for a relative or friend and for many couples this is a viable option in getting some wedding photos. Otherwise they would have none. For many folks a wedding is family and friends pitching in and making it happen with decorations, flowers, music. The bride supplies material to the brides maids and they make their own dresses. The bride may buy hers but may use her mothers or aunts. The guys rent their tuxs or may just have a good suit. The venue is the brides church and it furnished by the church for little money if any. The bride and groom may just have "snapshot's taken.

If a couple chooses to do this or ask a friend to do the pictures that is okay. They know that they won't get Dennis Regie or Monte quality but at least they don't go into debt.

dave

I agree that its an incredible responsibility to take on board shooting weddings and I'm sure many people give it a go without realising this, however as you said you've got to start somewhere. It doesn't matter how many times you tag along as a secondary/assistant that first wedding alone will be seriously daunting and if you can come through that with good output and retain the enthusiasm you're off and running.

I remember driving back from my first principal job thinking I never want to see another bride & groom, but the next day when I'd calmed down and had time to reflect and check the images, the ambition came flodding back.

I do think there's a certain negative element within this forum regarding 'new' wedding photographers (this isn't directed at yourself, by the way)

I suspect it's because there are such low -- or no -- barriers to entry.

Anyone can buy a Rebel, take it out of the box, print up some business cards and... Hey Presto! They're wedding photographers.

No studio needed. No having to buy pesky lights and stands and whatnot. No training needed either. You just set the camera on "P" and punch the little round button, right?

And best yet, the majority of weddings are held over the weekends, so you can dabble in it part-time, pick up some spare cash, and not have to risk your day job at K-Mart.

That may sound cynical, but there's a large measure of truth to it nonetheless.

You're right, there is something about photography that brings it out.

People buy $3000 riding mowers, but don't think they have to recoup their investment by mowing every yard in town.

They buy $30,000 trucks, but they don't start a moving service. (In fact, I know quite a few people with trucks that go out of their way to avoid hauling ANYTHING. Might scratch the liner.)

They spend thousands on a bike, or skis and boots, or titanium golf clubs, simply to enjoy them, with nary a thought towards becoming a pro.

But let someone buy a Rebel for $999............

Which is my pet peeve. Ever notice that number of threads that seem biased not towards the best tool for the job... but towards the absolute cheapest tools they can get away with?

It is all coming from the demand in the market. Not everyone is willing to pay the prices a pro (should) ask(s) to make a living. So there is this range from the nephew with a 300D (or pro1/8700/828/5400? g5? v1?...), the willing hobbyist and the starter on the market.

The first one is a disaster waiting to happen, the second one might even be better then the pro but it is a gamble, and I don't have a problem with the third categorie as most have gone to the trouble of working with a veteran pro.

Photography is a product where the client can't see beforehand what they are getting. If a pro and the nephew could show the final product side by side I guess the pro prices are easily sold to the client. But beforehand some people like to gamble at the outcome, pay less, and hoping for the best.

And remember, the hobbyist does not have to worry about a bad reputation if he/she screws up (as the pro does).
Your point is valid though.

Rob.

Michael Thomas Mitchell said:

I have been coming to this site for four years now, and I'm always
amazed to see such green photographers willing to tackle an
important event like a wedding all by themself and without proper
skills or equipment. When questioned about the wisdom of such a
decision, the return is usually something like "They know it's my
first", or "I'm not getting paid", or "They LOVE my baby
portraitrs".

I agree that everyone has to start somewhere. I have even seen some
images from a (very) few of these first efforts that were pretty
darn good. For the most part, though, the work is, understandably,
not up to the task.

Why do weddings in particular fall victim to the enthusiastic but
misplaced judgements of hobbyists? They are one-time events which
are not easily (or desirably) re-staged. A child's portrait or a
model's headshot session can be shot a second or third time. A
wedding? Nope. It needs to be THERE the first time, and it needs to
be GOOD.

Sometimes, I'll hear "If I don't do it, they won't have ANYTHING!"
Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't diminish the danger of being DEPENDED
on before one is ready.

I do NOT wish to discourage those who are genuinley interested in
wedding photography from pursuing that avenue. I DO want to
encourage everyone to understand that weddings are not only
difficult, but they are one-time events. I thoroughly enjoy my work
as a wedding photographer, but I learned a great deal about my
craft BEFORE I inflicted myself upon the naive couple. Thank
goodness I was not the PRIMARY photographer my first time! (I had,
however, performed music at several hundred weddings prior to my
shoot, and even then it was difficult. They never really get any
easier, I just become better at doing something difficult.)

I hope this rhetorical question -- why weddings? -- is not taken
with offense. And if anyone living in middle Georgia wants some
experience as an assistant/second shooter, I'll happily put you to
work! But please, do not your own enthusiasm keep you from
accepting the advise of lots of pros who know from experience that
weddng photography requires a thorough knowledge and experience not
only of photography, but also weddings, social skills, business
acumen, and lots of gear!

Best of luck to all!

Michael

http://www.michaelphoto.net

Click to expand...

--
shoot!

macca_101 said:

It doesn't matter how many times you tag along as a secondary/assistant ..... I do think there's a certain negative element within this forum regarding 'new' wedding photographers.

Click to expand...

If everyone "tagged along" it would be great. Unfortunately, there are way, way too many posts that start with...

"I've got my first wedding coming up in a couple of weeks. What camera / lens / flash should I buy?"

Some may in fact have the experience to pull it off. The others, however, are time bombs waiting to explode.

And when they do, it's the profession as a whole that catches most of the blast...

I see technically horrible wedding pics but the clients seem to love them. Most don't know what's good and what's not. Many customers just look and see if it's in focus. You can over expose by 2 stops and they like it, be underexposed by 1/2 and it's too dark.

Pretty simple to get close these days. Auto everything.

I know I get many $500.00 wedding requests. Alot of first time brides don't know it costs thousands. Somebody out there will do it for 500.00. Not me, but somebody will.

Let's face it, some weddings are pretty easy. Some are mechanically challenging even for us. Put a new wedding shooter in a dark church and 200 feet away from the alter and he's going to have problems. If there are no restrictions around photo's then even a new guy might get pretty close. That is if exposure is everything, which we know it isn't.

Knowing when to shoot what is key imho and how to set it up. Of course will the B&G know what's correct? Probably not. Does the new guy know to get the table shots before the buffet is open? Does the new guy know how to tell the bride how to toss the bouquet so you can catch it in the air? The little things they need to know all come from experience. BUT, does the average B&G know these things either? NO. So if they don;t know what shots to get, they won't know what they really missed.

Most just look at price and if they are in focus. Sad for us but true. It's the market and experience that drives this free wedding thing I think.

Having said all that, we all had to start somewhere. My first wedding was not all that great compared to what I do today. What's interesting is that I still get referrals from my very first wedding. They just didn't know.

Joe Lacy

I think, the word which summarizes everything, is "responsibility". A responsible photographer will not accept any challenge, if he/she does not feel competent to complete successfully the job.

For a good photographer, weddings or any other event is easy to accomplish, provided that he has observed the way other experienced photographers work on the specific subject, and he has also practised a few times, successfully.

Responsibility is the key word, and this will dictate the equipment, the back-up equipment, lighting, etc, or the denial to undertake such a job!
regards,
George

Michael Long said:

No studio needed. No having to buy pesky lights and stands and
whatnot. No training needed either. You just set the camera on "P"
and punch the little round button, right?

And best yet, the majority of weddings are held over the weekends,
so you can dabble in it part-time, pick up some spare cash, and not
have to risk your day job at K-Mart.

Click to expand...

Those are pretty much the resons I did a wedding two weeks ago - except I don't work at K-mart

I have shot around 40.000 photos within the last 3 years, seeking family events, so I could pratice shooting events, and when I was asked to shoot a friends friends wedding, I took the bait.

I prepared for weeks ahead of the event, did test-poses with friends for models, planned 5 different formal poses, surfed all the wedding sites I could find on the net, asked in here for advice, borrowed equiptment, went to the church and took test shots, testing ISO, flash etc - went to the nearby park (and the church) with the bride and groom etc.

I then went to the event, covering the whole day, for 13 hours, and invited a photographer friend for backup shots, and did a pretty good job.

We brougth 2x10D's, 1x1Ds, 1x16-35mm L, 2x24-70L, 2x70-200 (1 2.8, 14.0)L, 3 550EX'es, a studio flash, a manfoto tripod, a ladder (for the group photo) 1xST-E2, lots of non-L lenses for backup, a total of 16GB flash cards, a flashtrax for off-loading, satin to use as a background for the flower-shots, 16 sets of 2200mhA batteries for the flashes, and all the loose parts.

So that anyone with a Rebel thinks they are wedding photogs, may be true, but in my case, I think I planned ahead, and got away with it.

And next time, I'll maybe do a even better job.

You can see a selection of my pictures at http://www.gizwiz.dk/private/album18

So - is this a bad way to start as a a wedding photog? - you be the judge, I think I did ok.

--Michael

Micheal,

You did, indeed, do a wonderful job with these wedding images. Nice work! I think you did more than 'OK.'

I was surprised the bride let you shoot while she actually slid her dress on! Was your second shooter a female? I usually excuse myself from the room while the bride is in her underwear and then come back a few minutes later.

I was also surprised to see an image of someone with scissors cutting some of the fabric at the last minute! Are they crazy?!

You obviously understood your responsibility for this wedding, have many years of experience, and did an excellent job. I think the original poster was referring to the more average hobbyist who suddenly thinks they're able to shoot weddings and fails miserably.

Keep up the excellent work!

............Zippy

Michael Holm said:

Michael Holm wrote:

You can see a selection of my pictures at
http://www.gizwiz.dk/private/album18

So - is this a bad way to start as a a wedding photog? - you be the
judge, I think I did ok.

--Michael

Click to expand...

Rob van Hoorn said:

It is all coming from the demand in the market. Not everyone is
willing to pay the prices a pro (should) ask(s) to make a living.
So there is this range from the nephew with a 300D (or
pro1/8700/828/5400? g5? v1?...), the willing hobbyist and the
starter on the market.
The first one is a disaster waiting to happen, the second one might
even be better then the pro but it is a gamble, and I don't have a
problem with the third categorie as most have gone to the trouble
of working with a veteran pro.
Photography is a product where the client can't see beforehand what
they are getting. If a pro and the nephew could show the final
product side by side I guess the pro prices are easily sold to the
client. But beforehand some people like to gamble at the outcome,
pay less, and hoping for the best.
And remember, the hobbyist does not have to worry about a bad
reputation if he/she screws up (as the pro does).

Click to expand...

I think the hobbyst has more to worry about about than the pro. For the pro, this one couple will give you a bad reference. As a hobbyist, its a friend's wedding you've screwed up. That sort of thing is why I (a hobbyist) refuses weddings when friends have asked. I'm not confident I can do a perfect job.

Rob van Hoorn said:

Your point is valid though.

Rob.

Michael Thomas Mitchell said:

I have been coming to this site for four years now, and I'm always
amazed to see such green photographers willing to tackle an
important event like a wedding all by themself and without proper
skills or equipment. When questioned about the wisdom of such a
decision, the return is usually something like "They know it's my
first", or "I'm not getting paid", or "They LOVE my baby
portraitrs".

I agree that everyone has to start somewhere. I have even seen some
images from a (very) few of these first efforts that were pretty
darn good. For the most part, though, the work is, understandably,
not up to the task.

Why do weddings in particular fall victim to the enthusiastic but
misplaced judgements of hobbyists? They are one-time events which
are not easily (or desirably) re-staged. A child's portrait or a
model's headshot session can be shot a second or third time. A
wedding? Nope. It needs to be THERE the first time, and it needs to
be GOOD.

Sometimes, I'll hear "If I don't do it, they won't have ANYTHING!"
Maybe. Maybe not. It doesn't diminish the danger of being DEPENDED
on before one is ready.

I do NOT wish to discourage those who are genuinley interested in
wedding photography from pursuing that avenue. I DO want to
encourage everyone to understand that weddings are not only
difficult, but they are one-time events. I thoroughly enjoy my work
as a wedding photographer, but I learned a great deal about my
craft BEFORE I inflicted myself upon the naive couple. Thank
goodness I was not the PRIMARY photographer my first time! (I had,
however, performed music at several hundred weddings prior to my
shoot, and even then it was difficult. They never really get any
easier, I just become better at doing something difficult.)

I hope this rhetorical question -- why weddings? -- is not taken
with offense. And if anyone living in middle Georgia wants some
experience as an assistant/second shooter, I'll happily put you to
work! But please, do not your own enthusiasm keep you from
accepting the advise of lots of pros who know from experience that
weddng photography requires a thorough knowledge and experience not
only of photography, but also weddings, social skills, business
acumen, and lots of gear!

Best of luck to all!

Michael

http://www.michaelphoto.net

Click to expand...

--
shoot!

Click to expand...

Michael Holm said:

So - is this a bad way to start as a a wedding photog? - you be the
judge, I think I did ok.

Click to expand...

Michael,

First of all, you're not the typical wannabe. You put in far more preparation than most. I congratulate you for caring enough about what you did to be as prepared as possible. Unlike most, you were covered for just about any contingency, including camera failure. Murphy's Law causes equipment failures at the most inopportune time. When I was a pro, I had triple backup of the most important items. Even though I had all my cameras serviced at least once a year, I once had two MF bodies fail at a wedding!

Here's some thoughts from someone who's done more weddings than I care to count:

The good - Your coverage of the wedding looks complete. You were there, ready to go, and got all the main photos. Your presentation of the images on the web site is nice; I like the background image. Your images are much better than the average weekender and better than many "pro" photographers. Since professional photography is completely unregulated, the title "professional photographer" means little or nothing to me.

The not so good - Exposure, contrast and color balance is all over the place. I don't know how much post processing you've done, but many photos need work. Consistency between images is very important, especially if the finished produce is an album. I was such a stickler back when I did weddings that I bought film by the case and made sure all the film I took to a wedding was from the same emulsion run.

You suffer from some shortcomings that haunt most amateurs - lack of awareness of background, mundane composition, and lack of variety of point of view. Many of the photographs have distracting elements in the background, such as trees or cars. From what I can see without being there, just a few steps to one side or the other would have removed these distractions. Also, the background for the formals is very distracting, with all those windows. Why didn't you do the formals in the church? If you had to shoot outside, certainly there was a better place. Many photos would have been better closer. Also, you tend to shoot from "amateur purgatory", 8-10 feet away at standing height. There's not nearly enough variety of point of view.

It's not a bad first effort, but it's clearly a first effort. Most, if not all of the shortcomings are from lack of experience and will disappear relatively quickly.

Doug

Zippy DooDah said:

Micheal,

You did, indeed, do a wonderful job with these wedding images.
Nice work! I think you did more than 'OK.'

Click to expand...

Thanks alot!

Zippy DooDah said:

I was surprised the bride let you shoot while she actually slid her
dress on! Was your second shooter a female? I usually excuse
myself from the room while the bride is in her underwear and then
come back a few minutes later.

Click to expand...

Well.. errr.. I asked her to come into the livingroom, where the light was very nice

Zippy DooDah said:

I was also surprised to see an image of someone with scissors
cutting some of the fabric at the last minute! Are they crazy?!

Click to expand...

hehe - she was tripping in the under-dress (or whatever it's called in English) so something had to be done.

Zippy DooDah said:

You obviously understood your responsibility for this wedding, have
many years of experience, and did an excellent job.

Click to expand...

I don't really have many years of experience - this was my first payed job. I charged $100 and the right to use the pictures for marketing.

Zippy DooDah said:

Keep up the excellent work!

Click to expand...

I will - I'm making a webpage at http://www.bryllupsfotografen.com for marketing. Then we'll see how it turns out.

Again, thanks for the nice words.

--M

Doug MacMillan said:

First of all, you're not the typical wannabe. You put in far more
preparation than most. I congratulate you for caring enough about
what you did to be as prepared as possible. Unlike most, you were
covered for just about any contingency, including camera failure.
Murphy's Law causes equipment failures at the most inopportune
time. When I was a pro, I had triple backup of the most important
items. Even though I had all my cameras serviced at least once a
year, I once had two MF bodies fail at a wedding!

Click to expand...

With the one 1Ds and one of the 10Ds as primary cameras, we were prepared for two camera failures, I guess that's ok. We also had 2 film bodies (a EOS 5 and a EOS 10) so we were pretty sure to get something. What was most scaring to me, was the possibility that the Flashtrax might fail, we did not have a backup for that, and it did after all hold the only copy of the data.

Doug MacMillan said:

The good - Your coverage of the wedding looks complete. You were
there, ready to go, and got all the main photos. Your presentation
of the images on the web site is nice; I like the background
image. Your images are much better than the average weekender and
better than many "pro" photographers. Since professional
photography is completely unregulated, the title "professional
photographer" means little or nothing to me.

Click to expand...

Thanks

Doug MacMillan said:

The not so good - Exposure, contrast and color balance is all over
the place. I don't know how much post processing you've done, but
many photos need work. Consistency between images is very
important, especially if the finished produce is an album. I was
such a stickler back when I did weddings that I bought film by the
case and made sure all the film I took to a wedding was from the
same emulsion run.

Click to expand...

Hmm - maybe you are right. For the preperation images, I made the pictures with the bride very warm, to raise the romantic feeling of the images. The shots with only the brides mother or father are correctly balanced. I don't know if the bride would look as romantic with the colorbalance right on, but I'll try it.

Doug MacMillan said:

You suffer from some shortcomings that haunt most amateurs - lack
of awareness of background, mundane composition, and lack of
variety of point of view. Many of the photographs have distracting
elements in the background, such as trees or cars. From what I can
see without being there, just a few steps to one side or the other
would have removed these distractions.

Click to expand...

I guess you are right - I'll be more carefull next time.

Also, the background for

Doug MacMillan said:

the formals is very distracting, with all those windows. Why
didn't you do the formals in the church?

Click to expand...

I did the formals at the dinner, and the sun was going gown. The shots were not planned, but when I saw the site for the dinner, I desided to do the shots as the guests were entering the dinner. I underexposed the background, and used the studio flash to illuminate the guests. Actually, I thougth the flash and exposure difference helped bring out the guests, seperating them from the background. I like the pictures, because the people are clearly seperated from the background, and I like the mood in the background. It's possible that they would have looked better in a park envionment, I'll try to composite one of them onto different backgrounds, and see what happens.

Doug MacMillan said:

It's not a bad first effort, but it's clearly a first effort.
Most, if not all of the shortcomings are from lack of experience
and will disappear relatively quickly.

Click to expand...

I hope you are right. I'll be more carefull with backgrounds in the future.

Thanks for a usefull post and comments - most comments I get just say they are great images, and while that makes me feel good, I'm not learning much from that. So thanks for taking the time.

Michael