 BetterPhoto Member |
Was it wrong for me to do? The wedding photographer I recently worked for hired someone else, because I wanted more money. I had gotten so good that you couldn't tell who shot what (we were shooting film at the time). We tossed the rolls in the same bag and I didn't care who shot what until now. I started my own wedding company and wanted shots from the photographer, but he refused . So since I had no portfolio, which I needed to get business, I took him to court. Well, the judge said " if you don't know who took what, then neither of you can use the photos". The photographer was mad because he had to pull his Ad which only comes out every 6months and he didn't have time submit a new one. How can I get a wedding with out a portfolio?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Gregg |
Yes you do need a portfolio. To get the first one which is your own, you may have to offer a budget package. People will buy price. Make sure your wedding agreement states you reserve the right to use any and all images for advertising purposes. Your years of experience will be your biggest selling point. After you have just one wedding and a portfolio, change your fees as you need to.
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
Although you know how to shoot, you're going to have to shoot quite a few to back in the game. You are going to have to shoot some low budget weddings, hopefully get good port material, then increase your price slowly. You have kind of a dilemma. that is, budget weddings, usually aren't pretty for portfolios. But, that's what you need for great sample albums. Maybe, second shoot with other locals. If you're talented, they always need someone to help out. And, if you could keep your images, that would help you. Sounds like a bad situation. It's always best in this business to be cool. That situation came back to bite your boss in the butt because he is a jerk-off. All he had to do was let you use some of the images that were yours. Big deal. You took them. Why not. I just can't fathom, sometimes, the attitudes out there. Training your competition sucks, but its part of the business. Jerry
|
|
|
|
||
|
anonymous |
Jerry I disagree! "Budget weddings, usually aren't pretty for Portfolios". That is only if you have a photographer who doesn't know what they are doing! as as such, you pay for what you get. If Justin is as good as he says, then even his budget weddings will be magnificant! Just cause you are paying less, doesn't mean he isn't still going to make beautiful photos - it just means they won't have him for as long, or get as many photos. Justin won't lower his standards, it is impossible for a photographer who loves what they do, to do that. Just check my wedding pics out on my website. This was a budget wedding of $550 which included 208 6x4 photoshoped photos and one 12x18 print! My photos are perfect for my portfolio! I am very proud of my budget wedding!
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Nearly all the weddings I've done have been as a "hired gun" for two different studios and the majority have been anything but big budget. I agree with Natalie on the budget weddings . . . the photographer needs to be creative . . . and excellent photographs from them are not impossible. The biggest headache for me in them has been two things . . . disorganization (lack of wedding planning by bride/groom in which I've found myself having to do a little "wedding coordinator" stuff) and background control in the reception. I've been in "reception halls" far too small for the invited crowd (making moving around nearly impossible) and with walls decorated with all manner of highly distracting stuff like fire extinguishers, exit signs, large "Don't spit on the floor!" placards (NOT making that up; it was in a gym), and cluttered bulletin boards. Also had one memorable "first dance" cluttered up with unruly small children out of control and running amuck all over the dance floor. They were much shorter than the bride/groom. With that one I gave up any full-length of them (which I like to do a few of) and closed in for tight 1/3 and 2/3 shots. The church is a different matter, and even in the truly "lowest budget" affairs they've always offered decent background and things that can be used as meaninful or symbolic props. One of my solutions . . . if it's not after dark yet . . . and if I can wedge it in during some reception "dead time" is to get a few shots outdoors of wedding principles if some open shade there offers some decent background. Can do same at church before or after ceremony (time permitting). I've done a few with, as best I can put it, "photogenically challenged" principles in the wedding party or immediate family of bride/groom. Also takes some creativity and attention to posing details and perspectives/profiles during the reception to prevent unflattering photos. The photographer should take charge in setting up positions of people during major reception events to keep them as photogenic as possible. The key is scoping out how best to set it up before the event occurs and taking control of it before someone else does. It might be difficult and it might leave one exhausted afterward, but it's not impossible. -- John Lind
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
I defend my postiion. Budget weddings, in general, are not great for portfolio material. It is our jobs to hone in. If a venue is ugly, you pull out the 135mm, or the 70-200 zoom. And shoot tight. It is our jobs to make it a great event. However, I have shot in cafeterias, in really ugly churches, in really bad YMCA type receptions, and I can tell you from personal experience, that YOU CANNOT COMPARE THAT TO SHOOTING AT THE RITZ! I don't care how good you are or how creative you are. There also IS a difference in the clientele you get. When you charge, say $500 or something. You are going to get a class of people that are just not pretty. I don't know why, and I don't make the rules. It is just observation. But, when your prices get up to $5,000 per wedding, which is pretty average for LA, pepole start getting pretty and venues starts looking nice. That's all I meant. If you think I am wrong about that, then just start your own wedding photography biz, start low for a few years, and eventually work up to a high-end clientele. Then, when you are there, give me a call, and let me know your thoughts on the subject. I know your answer will be, "Jerry, you were right." I have talked to many of my counter-parts in my area, and they agree. Why are the more high-end brides prettier than the low-end ones? Maybe it's pampering, maybe less stress in their lives, maybe lots of money at the salon, I don't know. I don't care. It is what it is. If you can assist someone at a high-end $100k wedding, you will understand the difference. And you wont be so quick to jump on me about it. What I meant was that, while small, initimate weddings are acutally my favorite, low budget, small weddings, are generally not the best for a portfolio. The best portfolio material is in the high-end stuff. That's where you can really dazzle folks, and because they are paying more, they tend to spend more quality time with you.
|
|
|
|
||
|
roberthambleyphoto.com - Robert Hambley Contact Robert Hambley Robert Hambley's Gallery |
Greetings, I am not a wedding photographer (yet). However, I would agree that for your portfolio, you would want the bride and groom to be, shall we say, easy on the eyes? You want a great shot, and it helps to have a great subject. Would this be an option for you? Get a friend or two to put on a wedding dress / tux and 'stage' the shots for your portfolio? Depending on the amount you have, you could even hire 'models' for a shoot. It probably won't be the entire line up, (in-laws and such), but might get you the first few bookings... One again, I am not a wedding photographer yet (too scared about screwing it up), so don't flame my suggestion too hard! Robert
|
|
|
|
||
|
Karma Wilson |
Natalie's "budget bride" is gorgeous and her shots are great for portfolio shots. I've been to many low-budget weddings with pretty brides. The problem is generally the church and the size constraints in my opinion. High budget weddings can be better for obvious reasons, but there can be gorgeous budget brides and ugly rich brides. Look at Jennifer Wilbanks! Her family was loaded, but those eyes would be a nightmare for a photographer! LOL Karma
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Funny how people jump from "usually" to "impossible". But some people wonder why so many nice looking women show up at the Byron Nelson Golf Tournament. Anyway, the biggest key to nice looking wedding photos, although I doubt many will admit to it, is where the wedding is held. Most of the what goes into the picture taking isn't different or more involved than any other type. Taking good pictures of people is taking good pictures of people. A gown and a tux dosen't change anything. If the building or location is more scenic, then that does. High end weddings are just decorated more. Usually. Which means always. Most of the time.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Karma Wilson |
I see your point Gregory, but when I view wedding photos I seldom notice the background. I usually notice this first and foremost: what's the bride wearing and how does she look. A beautiful bride with a gorgeous smile, lovely dress and blurred background = a gorgeous wedding picture. The groom can be pretty mediocre and it really doesn't make much difference. And I bet that many viewers would agree with me. In other words it's fairly easy to get some nice tight, set up bridal portraits in a low budget wedding. All you need is a green lawn, a tree, etc... And if the location is scenic (beach, outdoor park, etc) it's even easy to include some nice shots of the cermenony. The only time the background/budget is a factor for me is in the detail shots that exclude people or in the ceremony shots if the background is so ugly it's distracting. Tightening the shot usually fixes those things. And I usually find that if the photographer chooses uninteresting, flat straight on angles I'm left unimpressed if the wedding was at the Ritz or the local YMCA. What I liked about Natalie's shots were some of her creative technique. Nice angles to the photos, lines that lead me through, and good color. I think we are in the area of subjective. Bottom line--if I'm a prospective bride and browsing photos I'm looking for how romantic and pretty the bride looks in the portfolio. Maybe I'm weird but I doubt it. Karma
|
|
|
|
||
|
Melissa L. Zavadil |
OK,.... unfortunately you learned a very important lesson the extremely hard way. Never never burn your bridges. Yes, is the answer to your question you were wrong to burn your bridge, but you were not wrong to want more money. If the outcome was stated that you would lose your job if you needed more money then you should have been prepared in your leaving plans etc. Now you are left with no job, no clients and no portfollio. Did you underestimate what your boss was worth to you until you built your appropriate bridge? There is so much more to running a business than just taking a picture. Even if you are the best there is you can still fall way short at running a company. You need to do your homework on running your own company and understand all that goes into it. Your best bet is to slowly work into your market, get some freinds to pose for you to get something of a portfolio (as stated above). For the flashy Ritz hotels this will have to just come in time with your reputation building as you work. You will not be who you were when you were with the other photographer both good and bad. You will need to build your business from the ground. One positive is that you have gained an enormous amount of knowledge from the boss you worked for you can use this to help position your company toward success. Just remember a lot of photography is built around reputation if you tarnish yours you are only going to hurt yourself. Good luck to you!
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
I'm not saying that poor brides aren't pretty. I'm saying that wealthy brides are prettier, for the most part. They go to Harvard and Stanford, they wear a Vera Wang wedding dress. They spend thousands on their hair and make-up. They pamper themselves by going to a resort getting massaged, facials, etc for a week with all the brides maids. They have a personal trainer, and stick to a diet de jour. They have shoes that cost as much as one of my 1DS Mark II's. They have a reception at the Ritz or they fly everyone out to Barbados for their wedding. They buy art and emotion, not photography. Budget is meaningless to them. Budget brides don't do any of that. It's not that they are ugly, it is that they don't have the means to get all done up. If you take half the people in Hollywood, and give them a regular day job. After about 5 years, they will look just like you and me. It's just the way it is. They only look better because they spend all their time looking that way, and it is a priority. But, eating and paying bills, for most of us, has a bit more priority than looking good. But, for a 20-something spoiled brat of rich parents, she doesn't know the difference.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
If the girls in Hollywood end up looking like me they are in trouble - a little overwright and balding.
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
Kerry, although I can't be sure of what you look like specifically. Based on your description of yourself, I would say that if the girls in Hollywood end up looking like you, they wont be getting married, therefore, they don't really concern me. :) Jerry
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Notice a gorgeous bride, beautiful smile, and her dress first. Compare that with what Jerry Frazier said about a bride spending more on herself. Besides bride shots are only part of shooting a wedding. You're not in the area of subjective, you're in the area that everyone else is in. Like I said, taking good pictures of people dosen't change. Wedding shots of the bride is a given, so that cancels out if you can at least take good pictures of people. What gives you extra is the ceremony and it's surroundings. High dollar or not, if it's a good place for pictures, that will do it. Low dollar at nice looking house will make for good pictures. If not, like a regular city convention center as an example, is not going to come out looking as nice. The picture of the bride in the gallery you talked about, front porch, nice light to use, nice looking old style wood house. Makes for good pictures. Take the same ceremony and put it in a middle school gym. Low budget isn't synonymous with gyms, but many are done in a place that can hold a lot of people but still be affordable. And that often isn't a house with a garden or tree.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tammy L. Odell |
Have to chime in here...Jerry, glad you corrected yourself on the "budget brides aren't pretty" issue. Just getting started in the wedding business myself, I am a low budget wedding photographer. You have got to start somewhere, right? Both of the weddings I have done were for very BEAUTIFUL budget brides. And in my opinion, you wouldn't notice that from the weddings photos I took for them. Yes, a beautiful location is a wonderful advantage, but not a necessity. Being creative is key to making in it this business. I agree with Karma that most brides aren't looking at the background when they view someone's portfolio. They are looking at the overall photo quality. They know that the backgound they end up with is their choice as to where they have their wedding and reception. So, that's just my 2 cents. Good luck!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
High-end brides are very aware of the venues when they look at your portfolio. I think we got off track a little. Most of you responding are not wedding photographers. Or, admit, you're just getting started. So, you can't really have an informed opinion about this. When you do it, and after about 5 years or so, when you do the big venues, you will notice a big difference. I agree with Gregory that a cottage in the woods, or a winery, or anything can be great background for beautiful picks. And, that doesn't cost alot. However, in LA, where I live, you don't really get that except for those who are spending money. I know in other parts of our country, it's easier to rent out nice venues, or a country cottage or something. In LA it's not. You either spend big, and get a nice place, or you make do with whatever you can afford. The beach is a great place for budget brides, and can make the most beautiful backgrounds in the world. I disagree with Gregory however about the bride. The wedding is all about the bride, and that's it. The rest is window dressing. If you can't make the bride look good, you will not be successful. And photographing weddings is not about photographing people. I know studio guys that cannot do weddings because it is so out of control for them - lighting, posing, all of it. It is more suited for a newspaper guy or something. Sports shooters would probably do well too, except for the low light at night. Jerry
|
|
|
|
||
|
roberthambleyphoto.com - Robert Hambley Contact Robert Hambley Robert Hambley's Gallery |
Greetings, Sorry Jerry, Didn't know that I couldn't make a suggestion to the original question just because I hadn't shot a wedding. I will agree with you on the fact that the Wedding Day is about the Bride. Begining to End. That includes the photos. Ask any Bride who wasn't happy with the photos. The original question was how to get a portfolio so Justin could start booking weddings. My suggestion was to stage a wedding shoot with friends as bride/groom or, if the money allowed, hire a pair of models. Heck if friends or family are up to it, have a get together and shoot the wedding party and 'in-laws' pictures too. How you get friends and family to do it... that is up to you. To expand on that further, take them to a park with a gazebo, etc (or any other suitable place previously scouted out) and get a set of photos that can be used as portfolio pics so show potential clients. If my lack of having shot a wedding disqualifies me from making this suggestion.... Robert
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
Robert, well, we got way off track. I was responding to those responding to me. LOL. Of course, by all means, respond to the OP. I disagree with using models and family members to start a portfolio. There are many reasons for this. However, the only way to do it, is start low and work up. That's it. There's no magic pill. Although, I have thought about selling one. I bet I'd make a million.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
I'm trying to resist the temptation to dive headlong into this fracas, but I would like to comment on one specific thing. Although I've seen it suggested several times, in this thread and others, I don't think dressing people up and staging a wedding for your portfolio is a good idea at all. It would be a great way to practice, especially if they're patient enough to let you experiment with lighting, different angles, posing, etc. But using these staged pictures in your portfolio is an entirely different thing. Suppose a prospective client asks specific questions about this "other wedding" in your portfolio? "Oh I love her dress, could I get her number to ask her where she got it?" Or she could just simply ask if she can contact other clients to ask questions - not an unreasonable request. So do you admit that the pictures were staged because you don't have any real experience? Or do you have a story ready and lie to the customer you're depending on for your livelihood? Either way, I think it has the potential for embarrassment and doing more harm than good. If you want to be successful in anything in life, you should always be upfront and honest. Right Justin?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
Just tell her the truth. "I used to work for ABC Studios as a subcontractor and shot a lot of weddings. When I had enough experience, I decided to go out on my own but my former employer wouldn't let me use any of my photos in my own portfolio. Guess he was afraid of the competition. So, I rented the dress and tux and staged a wedding to build a portfolio of pictures. Even though this wedding is staged, it still shows what I can do. If you really like the dress, it was rented from XYZ Bridal Shop." If the customer doesn't like the response, don't worry. You won't get every bride who interviews you. Whatever you do, don't lie.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Didn't say it wasn't about the bride. If it wasn't for the way brides are, don't think the price would be so high for all the stuff involved for weddings. How can you say it's not about people if the bride isn't a person with all the emotions, facial characteristics, personal relations, momoments of facial expressions, talking about how good her dress looks in a photo, her smile and all the rest? True that shooting news can carry over to shooting weddings. Somebody who's done a lot of sports is used to low light stuff. And timing. But I never agreed with the specialization idea. I know that's grown into a perception, because people will ask you "what do you shoot?" Not meaning a favorite subject, but meaning what you are as a clear distinction between a plumber and a auto mechanic. There's favorite subjects, but no real definitive lines of shooting one over another.
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
I guess it depends. A traditional photographer who is used to controlling posing and lighting will have a hard time today. It is very much about people - capturing emotion. But, it not about, 'stand here and say cheese'. I'm sure you know that. These days, I spend about 15 minutes on formal family shots. About 45 to 60 minutes with the bride and groom alone. And, the rest is candid moments - from getting ready, all the way to the end of the reception. So, what I meant to say is that, many brides don't want the poses and stuff. They just want you to capture their friends and family being themselves. And, the other 90% of the time, you better be pointing your lens at her. :) Two things that are going out, color photography, and collage albums. I do expect that this "photojournalism" craze is going to vanish soon, but for now, it's still the #1 request. This is why all wedding photographers claim to be photojournalists. Probably the best, absolutely hands down, at this type of wedding photojournalism, is Jeff Ascough. Check his stuff out at http://www.jeffascough.com Anyway, 'nough said. Just have fun and shoot. there's plenty of us to go around. And, thankfully, we're all a little different in how we view an event or subject.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Of course no cheese. Anything going out is just an ebb and flow. It'll get to be lots of b&w, until somebody decides that they should've gotten color because of the garden they were in. Then it's do more color.
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
LOL...Gregory. I have a feeling you've been around a while.
|
|
|
|
||
|
anonymous |
Wow, didn't I start something with my response to Jerry. And I will stand by it, Jerry, don't mean to be rude - but I think you are being a bit of a snob about the whole thing. "I'm not saying that poor brides aren't pretty. I'm saying that wealthy brides are prettier, for the most part. They go to Harvard and Stanford, they wear a Vera Wang wedding dress. They spend thousands on their hair and make-up. They pamper themselves by going to a resort getting massaged, facials, etc for a week with all the brides maids. They have a personal trainer, and stick to a diet de jour. They have shoes that cost as much as one of my 1DS Mark II's. They have a reception at the Ritz or they fly everyone out to Barbados for their wedding. They buy art and emotion, not photography. Budget is meaningless to them." Wealthy Brides might surround themselves with "more expensive" things, but it doesn't mean they are "prettier". Who cares what brand their dress is, they don't wear it inside out! You don't see the tag! My bride in my "heaven forbid budget wedding" was gorgeous and obviously level headed about the whole cost of weddings. To her it wasn't about being a show pony and flashing money around (whether she had it or not) it was about marrying the man she loved. I'm a strong believer that a great photographer should be able to make a wonderful photo no matter where you are, you don't need all that tizz! This was a simple garden wedding and although it was budget it was beautiful and the photos prove it. So maybe you need to broaden your mind and give yourself a challenge. That is if you are as good as you say you are! You are obviously hanging around too many people that value money more than anything else. Oh, and Za Za Gabour has been a high end bride many a time! Is she gorgeous, beautiful - maybe with a paper bag on her head! My "budget bride" has more style then she will ever have. Oh, and weddings aren't always about the Bride, maybe only at weddings where vanity is No.1 Sorry, but just had to vent......
|
|
|
|
||
|
anonymous |
Justin, Sorry about taking your post off the beaten track! You'll be fine! I've just done my first "budget" wedding and got some great shots from it. Since then, I have already had heaps of enquiries, as I get more experience, and more confident, I will be more adventurous and do larger more expensive weddings, but I will always do budget weddings and stay level headed, I hope you do to.
|
|
|
|
||
|
anonymous |
Jerry, I agree with you on one thing, Jeff's website is STUNNING!
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
Natalie, I'm talking about business. That's all. Business is business. And the money is in the high-end. You can't get to them, until you have some under your belt. They recognize eachother. They recognize you. I wear expensive shoes and $200 jeans to my client meetings, along with an expensive watch and other things. I am telling you that they immediately recognize everything, down to your Maui Jim sunglasses. They know. When they see your work, they say, "Oh is that a Vera Wang dress? I saw one similar just yesterday?" Or, "Oh was this at the Ritz in Newport Beach?" They know and they are looking at all the things that say, M O N E Y. They don't want just some schmuck to shoot their wedding, they want a star, a successful star. So, you have to portray that image. You are totally misunderstanding me. I am completely differentiating people from business. I sell emotion. I sell image. You can't sell a $6,000 wedding package based on your work. It's impossible. There are a million photographers eqaully skilled and have great work and charge half that. You have to appeal to a higher (or lower) level than that. You have to rise above the work, and get into their heads. Who the hell has $6,000 for wedding photography? Not normal people. You have to appeal to their egos, to their pocket books, and they have to think that you are one of them. Whatever you think of it, it is a business. For me anyway. Additionally, it sounds reasonable to say, "My $500 wedding was the most beautiful bride ever." Fine. There are lots of beautiful people who don't have money. But, the rich smell the rich. You can't survive on $500 weddings. It may be fun. It may be challenging for you. But, certainly, you cannot live on that. After insurance, rent, computer equipment, camera lenses and bodies, a decent car to drive all over the earth, the meetings, and back and forth, the editing, the albums, the reprint orders, the engagement and bridal shoots, the second shooter, the assistant, the failed CF cards, all the back-up DVD's and hard drives, the clothes, all that for $500???? Give me a break. Try shooting 40 weddings in a years time @ $500 each, you'll be drowning in debt. Anyway, it's way off topic now, and I'm done with this. I haven't heard anyone with wedding experience chime in at all. You all are just kind of going off with no real back-up behind you and no real-world experience. It's difficult to explain without you having background in this side of the business. If anyone wants to learn about the wedding business, I'll help you out. Email me. But, this is getting a little out of context, at the moment.
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
Natalie, Jeff is my hero. He is absolutely the top. Man, he knows his stuff. Ask him his price. I think he starts around $6,000 or thereabouts. That's just for basic coverage. He probably averages around $8,000 to $10,000 per wedding and he does about 45 to 50 weddings per year. Another guy, Joe Bussink, starts at $10k per wedding. www.joebussink.com, another one is becker, www.becker.com, he avg's about $8,500 per wedding and does 40 to 50 per year. He just sold a package for $15k. He's thinking about increasing his prices. ...just to add a little perspective on this topic. Like I said though, if anyone is interested in this, I'll take it off-line with you. It's too hard to discuss in this type of format.
|
|
|
|
||
|
anonymous |
Jerry I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. But just for the record, I certainly wouldn't offer everything you said above for the measily price of $500 (I might be nieve when it comes to photographing weddings, but not that nieve), that isn't "budget" that is being ripped off. I am saying, that you can offer a budget package, but just because I am/ or do, doesn't mean I am going to have any less passion etc when taking the photos. It is built in you to make the photo the best it can be, I'm not going to change my style. They just don't get all the bells and whistles that go with the package. And I know I couldn't sell my photos for $6k, I wouldn't have the audacity to do that, I don't have the experience or the quality yet, but I still believe my photos are great for a first time and I can only get better. You could do a budget wedding for $500 and still make some money. You just have to cut back on what you offer, ie no album, just 6x4's, one enlargement, maybe just for 3 hours etc. But it can be done, but yes, you can't live off it. Everything in moderation.
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
Natalie, my insurance premium is more than $500 per year for my equipment. That was my point. I wouldn't even break even charging $500. As you say, if you do it for other reasons than money, well that's a whole different topic. But, charging $10k, or $15k, or even $20k is not a rip off by any stretch. At that point, you're selling art. What's the price for that? The sky's the limit.
|
|
|
|
||
|
anonymous |
Jerry, I believe you are an excelent photographer, and if you ever do a budget wedding for a desperate bride etc, I believe the photos you take will be just as beautiful as the photos you take for a high end wedding. Give it a go one day, maybe just 1 a year....
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
Actually, I am trying to get into shooting cancer patients who decide to marry. The packes will be free. Probably Cd only type thing. I haven't done it yet. But, I'd like to tap into it. Donating for a good cause is worth the energy. Also, I would do it to a deserving couple. The problem I have always had is determining who needs it. I have had couples say that they can't afford me, I look at their car, their clothes, their address, and kind of realize that it's not that they are poor, they are just dumb with prioritzing what is important. I just can't support that. But, I do plan on tapping into a worthy cause of some sort. Breast cancer is near and dear to me, so I'll probably do something with that.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Jerry, Don't be so quick to say "all" unless you know for certain the experience some of us have. You're presuming there is a sufficient market to support multi-kilobuck (or more) wedding photographers with paid gaffers, grips and 2nd shooters everywhere. There isn't. I know. I live in the rural midwest. Over 95% of the available market is either farmers or blue collar wage labor. Joe Zeltsman, Monte Zucker and the guys you've mentioned would starve to death here from lack of business. The market here cannot afford them . . . or anyone else daring to charge over $1500 for a wedding (that's top end; better have a "package" of some type for under a kilobuck or you won't book very many). Regarding "style" . . . And that is why many wedding photographers in the county I live in (and the very rural counties around it) are retirees (early on in their retirement), or part-timers with a good paying "day job." The full-time photographers cannot live off of weddings; there aren't enough of them and the market will not bear anything over $1500 tops. They shoot school class portraits, senior portraits, family portraits, sports events, sports teams, work proms, work parent-child school dinners, and anything else that someone is willing to pay to have photographed. They work everything "solo" unless the spouse is willing (and available) to be gaffer, grip and equipment porter or 2nd shooter. Folks around here wouldn't recognize Maui Jim sunglasses or Vera Wang dresses if you told them what they were (and many would think you utterly wasteful of your money buying such things if you told them the cost). Bottom line . . . -- John Lind
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
Hey John, thanks for the reality check. I do live in a weird place. Orange County and LA County have the highest income per capita in the country. So, my vision, since this is the ONLY place I have worked, is totally skewed. I have associates who work in areas you are talking about who, at $2,000, are really high end. Sometimes I forget about that. Style, too, is defined by the region. I also forget about that, often. Again, my experience is LA/OC. Although I know there's a whole 'nother world out there, sometimes I forget. It's all relative. Cheers,
|
|
|
|
||
|
anonymous |
Oh oh!!!! Say Hi to Ryan and Marissa for me from the OC!! LOL Didn't realise you lived there - well that just explains everything! Oh, BTW - I paid $2,600 for my wedding photography! This is my wedding photographers website, and yes that is me laughing as my bridesmaids put my dress on! http://www.glenda.com.au/Glenda_Warren_Photography_WG2_06.htm
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Jerry, I lived in your neck of the woods for a decade . . . worked for Hughes in Fullerton. Very high cost area. Portions of OC like Costa Mesa, Irvine, Tustin (up in the hills), and Anaheim Hills can afford real high end work (if it's not all going to pay the mortgage). A business strategy similar to yours would have to be used to work some areas around Chicago too (Aurora, Hoffman Estates, Schaumburg and the Lakeshore corridor all come to mind). Forgot one other modest money-maker here . . . shooting a barn raising . . . after which (if it's July or August) one can go sit and listen to the corn growing. ;-) [Seriously . . . one can hear it if the field is big enough, it's quiet enough and the temperature and humidity are right . . . it's the expansion and contraction of the rough husks against each other and the kernels.] Back to Justin's question . . . One of my personal frustrations has been lack of market for "fine art" photography . . . which is what I enjoy doing most. As you might guess from my other remarks, most people simply want a mass-produced litho or poster for $10 or less from Wal-Mart to cover a crack in their wall. It's is a tough market everywhere. There is a modest market for "stock" photos but royalties from that don't pay much unless you're getting them from many photos that happen to be of things currently in demand. -- John Lind
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
1.Jeff Ascough has good stuff. Notice the percentage of his portfolio that is outside, or inside with a big window very close by. Scenery and where you do it does play a big part. 2.Haven't been around a while, just observant. 3.Can we get farther out there and talk about the correlation between income potential, marriage, sex, and who ends up hooking up with whom? Remember, you're all mad a Jerry Frazier for bringing up more atractive brides with more money to spend.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Gregory Asked: "3.Can we get farther out there and talk about the correlation between income potential, marriage, sex, and who ends up hooking up with whom? . . ." Gregory, you left out two important criteria for the correlation dialogue: Wouldn't want it to suffer from boredom. -- John Lind
|
|
|
|
||
|
Rick Richardson |
Justin's silence is deafening.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Shari Morris Contact Shari Morris Shari Morris's Gallery |
John, I think that you should also add parental income to your suggestions regarding Gregory's question 3......
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
Is that a bad thing, Eric? Sorry. Can't hold my tongue any longer. The reason I said that I was trying to resist the temptation of joining this thread is that I just can't shake the feeling that we're being played. Justin - if I am somehow misjudging you, I apologize. Just please clear a few things up for me. Last week you posted that you shot 10,000 images at 11 weddings last month. So many images that you had to pay a service to Photoshop them for you. Remember that? And you booked enough weddings that you could put a downpayment on a house. This week, you want to know how you can book any weddings without a portfolio? Am I missing something?? I appreciate that it generated some interesting debate about wedding photography in different markets. I just don't appreciate how it all started. If you get a kick out of winding us up and watching us go, then good for you. If I'm wrong, clear it up for me, and I'll admit I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Chris, You get the Adler-Auge Award for spotting this. I found the thread about getting a Medium Format "look" from PhotoShop that contained it (and read it to see the entire posting). 10,000 images at 11 weddings? -- John Lind
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
The Kazoo, I mean, the emperor and his clothes.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
You are very perceptive Chris. In the other thread, Justin was shooting digital. In this one he is shooting film. There is one other thing that sounds fishy too. He says he took the guy to court. If that is true, the judge is not very well versed in the law. While it is true that you own the copyrights to an image and that image is copyrighted when you press the shutter release, there is one exception. If you are hired by someone else to shoot, like a newspaper or a wedding photography company, you are only an employee. The copyright belongs to the owner of the film, even if you supplied your own camera. A little over 30 years ago, I shot both for myself and for another company. When I shot for them, I got the film from them (good old VPS), shot the wedding, and returned the exposed film to them. I got paid a fee and they owned everything. BTW, is Justin the guy who keeps changing his name like Gregory changes his avatar? (Love the Snuffy Smith one, Gregory.) Maybe we should just ignore him.
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
Hey John, I know a guy who has broken 8,000 shots in one wedding twice. He averages around 5,000 per wedding. Crazy, but that's what he does. I found out that it's not too uncommon, although most are probably in the 1,000 to 2,000 range. That's one of the great things about digital. No bigge.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Jerry, Just a little math about this guy you know . . . At 8,000 frames over (presuming) 8 hours of active shooting which would be a long affair is an average of 1,000 per hour, and 16-2/3 per second. At that burn rate, why not use a 35mm cinema camera? 8-) It's not hard to imagine a wedding pushing 800+ with a 2nd shooter running as hard as the 1st one during a very long, enormous wedding with huge guest list, and coverage of it perhaps starting the evening beforehand. Digital allows a somewhat faster burn rate too. However, the back end work required to edit 8,000 is mind-boggling and leaves me wondering what the delivered yield rate is . . . and if that many is really necessary. Also brings to mind . . . in stark contrast . . . Cartier-Bresson's book, The Decisive Moment, and the life and photographic style of one of the most unique photojournalists, Charles Hoff, of the New York Daily News. His nickname was "One Shot Charlie." His most famous photograph is the Lakehurst Naval Air Station, NJ, Hindenburg Zeppelin in flames (he didn't get the nickname for that one). His sports photography was phenomenal. -- John Lind
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
John, he's actually well known for speedy workflow. He does seminars on it. He developed the [b] workflow. Anyway, he goes through them just as fast. One thing, he finally explained to me the other day, is that during formals, for instance, he shot-guns. So, he holds the button and lets it fire about 5 or 6 times. He does this with all the shots. the way, he just very qucikly picks the best one or two, and that's what the client gets. For movement, like a processional, he just shoots while holding the button down all the time. So, when he is editing, he can pick the best. I think his approach is very "out there". However, he is very successful. And, is becomeing one of the premier wedding photog's in the country. It's just something to consider, although, I wouldn't recommend copying that style, unless you had a really good reason for doing it. He has people who do his post production. He told me that he hasn't even done an album design in years. So, although his process is standardized, he doesn't have to do it. So, I'm sure his 'people' hate it when he comes home bragging that he hit 8,000 again. Jerry
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Jerry, A correction: " . . . and 16-2/3 per second." should be: " . . . and 16-2/3 per minute." I had surmised he required a team to do the back end work for him. Wondering what he's using for light if he's sequencing a half-dozen for the "formals." There is a recovery time for strobes. Still mystified why he feels compelled to do it though. Whatever works for him and his willingness to hire a team for the back end. I have a motorized winder for the 35mm SLR system and it works well but it's rarely used as it adds a fair amount of weight. In over 25 years I've used it in sequence mode only once . . . about 2 years ago at 3 fps to photograph the demolition of a gas tower. In more stark contrast to his shooting style, I regularly use a 50 year old RF: When I use it, it's a reality check that makes me think about what I'm doing and how I'm doing it. Forces me to work in "One-Shot Charlie" mode. There is a special joy in knowing the decisive moment has been captured. With experience one knows whether or not it's on film when the shutter is fired; waiting for the film to be developed is unnecessary. -- John Lind
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
John, that's awesome. I think that sometimes, when it comes to clients, I forget what I am doing. In other words, I am so concerned with getting it right, that I forget that it's fun too...sort of. You know what I mean...you have to deliver. But, there's the artistic, creative, and fun side of it all. I have been wanting to get a Leica with a 50mm lens. And, just do city street photography with that. Kind of like the old photojournalist type of stuff...where you only get one shot to capture that decisive moment. It does add a new dimension.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
Kerry - Yes, this Justin is Justin Ritz, Slick Digital, Digital King, Savy, and something about a Watermelon. I've tried ignoring him, I just don't like seeing people sincerely trying to help someone and give them advice, when you can't even tell when the guy is telling the truth. Things just didn't add up.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Jerry, I forgot the third thing it doesn't necessarily force, but that it allows more [of] . . . thinking about why I'm doing it. My medium format use is very "deliberate" . . . visualizing the photograph first and thinking about what I will do and how I will do it, hand held for portraiture, but on tripod for over 95% of everything else. Its size and weight make it different from using the Contax IIIa. Found the old Z-I Contax while browsing through the large used equipment section of a brick and mortar camera store. Lens is pristine and crystal clear; I can make out the shutter segments through it when the lens is wide open. Thirteen aperture blades with curved edges keep the "hole" very nearly round throughout the aperture range. Realized it had been a "closet camera" for quite some time and would need a shutter overhaul, but had to have it . . . a machinest's mechanical "work of art" . . . glass, brass and steel covered by real leather. Shortly after I bought it my Other Half talked me into taking an adult education photography class. Didn't learn much I didn't already know from the lectures, but the instructor and I spent a fair amount of one-on-one critiquing everything I shot which was of great value. Told a friend at work I was taking the class and he asked how much camera gear it would be used to justify buying. Replied that I could do it all with nothing more than 50mm on an old RF. He dared me to actually do that and I accepted. In retrospect it was one of the best things I ever did. Made me think about everything. Some of the assignments were extremely difficult requiring "well outside the box" interpretations of the task. By talking about it with some of the old-timers who cut their teeth on the manual, mechanical Nikon, Leica and Zeiss Ikon 35mm RF's, I learned a few of their tricks. They didn't try to do everything all at once; they preset as much as possible while observing and anticipating what would happen, where the climax of the action to tell the story would occur, then lay in wait for it . . . positioning themselves for the lens focal length on the body (envisioning the composition), pre-setting shutter speed and aperture, pre-focusing at the anticipated distance for the decisive moment, then letting the subjects and action move into what had been envisioned and anticipated. The can still tell you the distances at which various compositions of the average adult nearly fill the frame for a 50mm or 35mm lens (the latter a favorite of news photographers). At once they were both observer and participant in was happening as they danced with it to make the photograph. The old adage: "F/8 and be there" has much truth in it for the street shooters that used them. If you do get a vintage RF, look seriously at the Leica M2 or M3. They're easier to maintain (repair) and their shutter mechanicals are not as complex as the Z-I Contax. On the older LTM's, the RF viewfinder for focusing is separate from the main viewfinder for composing the photo. The best of the LTM's (IMHO) are the IIIf Red Dial/Self Timer and the IIIg . . . they're also the most expensive as collectors covet them. The LTM's are also a PITA to load with film through the bottom plate (back doesn't come off or open, only the bottom comes off). The Leica LTM's and M2/M3, and the Z-I Contax are expressions of two different design philosophies by two companies competing head-to-head hammer and tongs . . . a 35mm Holy War that started in the early 1930's and makes Canon vs. Nikon pale by comparison. They each have a unique "they don't make 'em like they used to" beauty. -- John Lind
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
John - The Decisive Moment was required reading in one of my photography classes. The professor brought in his 8x10 view camera and we all went outside to watch him unpack it, set it up, meter his subject, and take one exposure. He challenged us to approach some of our subjects with that kind of patience. It inspired me. I searched a few pawn shops and found a YashicaMat TLR in mint condition. I used it for the rest of the class, and really enjoyed it. A great bargain entry into medium format. Fully manual, with no internal meter. Short rolls of 120 taught me to take my time and have some patience. I'll admit, I don't always exercise that kind of patience and restraint today. But it's nice once in a while. Digital gives me the freedom to shoot without feeling like I'm wasting film, but I still try to take each shot as an individual picture. I rarely bracket exposures, I just try to take my time and get it right. I'm not knocking anyone who does. Or anyone who shoots 8000 shots in order to guarantee they'll get 200 or 300 good ones. Whatever it takes to get the job done.
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
John, I pull out my Mamyia RZ67 once in a while just for that purpose. I love it. But, it's a different kind of photography...very purposeful. And the BW that results is amazing (I don't shoot color with it) - I'm not saying that my work is amazing, I'm saying that despite my lack of vision, the beauty of BW film shot with that monster is simply to die for. Probably the biggest mistake I ever made was buying the Av priority prism finder. While it's very cool, it took away some of the manual process that I enjoyed. I don't have to use it, though. Jerry
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
wow! I missed this thing taking off. Had a photoshoot for a hotel for 4days. Back to the homestead. Anyway, if you want to know why alot of brides that have money look better is because they can afford better stylist. MAKE-UP and HAIR make all the difference in the world (trust me). If it wasn't for gret make-up alot of wedding pics would be a flop. Ive shot some models, that would without it not be worth the tear sheet. 1000 is the norm, I shoot about 500 and my assistant shoots about the same. A friend of mine shoots anywhere from 3000 to 5000, but thats because he brackets 6exposures for every one shot. His assistant is the one who spends 3 days going through all the shots. Yes I shot film starting in 2000 and moved over to digital once it got over 4mp. I would love to show some of my wedding pics, but I don't think the brides would like that. OF coarse they signed a model release, but I still respect them.
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
If your sure or not, shoot in Raw so you can color correct and brighten or darken. Then you can batch save to a Jpeg. If you cant afford enough gigs then you shouldn't be shooting weddings
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
Justin, You're wrong! Many of the best wedding photographers in this country shoot 100% JEPG, and they have very good reasons for doing so. Never say never or always. And more importantly, please refrain from telling others what they should or should not be doing. There are many ways to do things. Shooting RAW is not the ONLY way to shoot a wedding.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
I would never shoot a wedding in the RAW, not with a body like mine.
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
Jerry, never say "You're wrong!" or "You're right!". Why would you half a$$ it. That would be like bying cheaper film. By the way I don't see the word never or always, hmmm. Yeah, I know alot of the photographers that shoot Jpeg exclusive. I see their photos at the expo's and ask them if they ever think about shooting RAW and they say its too much work and the brides are happy with what they get. Then I pull out my version of 3D. Set on a tripod I have three identical shots. 1 as a jpeg 1 shot on RAW+L and the last as a RAW and then the Jaws drop. Just the batch color correction alone is a great improvement. By the way, Im serious about someone's special day SHOULDN'T you be
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
That's just silly. A print from JPEG and a print from RAW shot in exactly the smae circustances is exactly the same print. No difference. Unless, of course, you are manipulating the results in favor of RAW. Out,
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
Not manipulating (thats a neg term). Thats like a unfinished painting. Do you actually think that magazine shots are not airbrushed, give me a break. You go for alls I had to do was shot cause Im so good, and I go for the whole package. Even perfect models need a touch-up
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pat Wimpee |
Hey Jus Relax- Would you mind uploading those three photos to your gallery? I'd love to see the difference between the photos. Thanks
|
|
|
|
||
|
Craig m. Zacarelli |
well to the original Poster, it looks like you've burned a Pretty Important bridge.. lesson learned! Instead of running right to the law Suit ( I know I know, wer'e raising are youth to believe this is the end all to any problems wer'e having) you should have asked your former Boss for your shots or some of them, when he said no, you should have at least tried to reason with him that then, the very least he could do is agree to give you a good reccomendation if he got any calls as to how good you were.. I mean, this guy isnt that big a J/O is he? if so, then you would have been right to sue.. if he says no then at least you have good reason for it.. as you said, you didnt care about your work and in at least marking what you did and what he did... sounds like you learned an important lesson, now go out and do a couple weddings for free or next to it and SAVE your work and remember this when you hire someone else.... let them pick a couple of their better shots for a portfolio or YOU may be the one Hauled into court and haveing to deal with all this stuff!
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||
