Professional wedding photographer......FAIL
Posted 03/03/2010 - 21:24
Link
PG wrote:
Having better gear is always nice though
Fair point, but what would Ziser, Zucker and Yervant charge to shoot a wedding?pentaxian450 wrote:
Are you joking? Any photographer with a little bit of knowledge knows weddings are ALWAYS bad when it comes to lighting, so they don't go there with "cheap" kit lenses. They use zoom and prime lenses with large opening, not something that has an opening of 5.6 at the long end. Their equipment is substandard for the job. And no back up at all. A camera with only 6 megapixels can do the job, but not a lens with an opening of 5.6.
You don't really need fast lenses for wedding photography. They're nice to have, but they are not absolutely essential. If you take a look at the work done by people like David Ziser, you'll see that he uses the Canon 18-200mm for a lot of his shots. Many of them are shot at around f/5.6. Here's a photo he's taken with an 8 MP Canon 30D with the kit lens (i.e. 17-85mm which regularly gets slated by pixel peepers for the amount of distortion and CA). In fact he doesn't use anything faster than the 70-200mm f/2.8 and even then he rarely uses it. Give that 6 MP camera to photographers like David Ziser, Monty Zucker, Yervant, etc and they'll churn out master pieces. To me, that suggests that the photographer is far more important than the equipment used.Are you joking? Any photographer with a little bit of knowledge knows weddings are ALWAYS bad when it comes to lighting, so they don't go there with "cheap" kit lenses. They use zoom and prime lenses with large opening, not something that has an opening of 5.6 at the long end. Their equipment is substandard for the job. And no back up at all. A camera with only 6 megapixels can do the job, but not a lens with an opening of 5.6.
Having better gear is always nice though
Out of interest, would you book someone for your own wedding without any fast glass in their bag? One would suspect the answer would likely be no, which pretty much means fast glass is an essential for a professional wedding photographer.
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.
Apparently.
Apparently.
Posted 03/03/2010 - 21:30
Link
But does the average client know about such things as fast glass etc ? [ ummm I don't ]
You lot know what you are doing - the average couple getting married don't
You lot know what you are doing - the average couple getting married don't
let the education continue
proud owner of a couple of cameras and a few bits and bobs
proud owner of a couple of cameras and a few bits and bobs
Posted 03/03/2010 - 21:40
Link
technoidiot wrote:
But does the average client know about such things as fast glass etc ? [ ummm I don't ]
You lot know what you are doing - the average couple getting married don't
And that's why they need to be protect in my view.But does the average client know about such things as fast glass etc ? [ ummm I don't ]
You lot know what you are doing - the average couple getting married don't
Like I said it wouldn't be bad that there would be some requirements needed to call yourself a professional photographer so that you at least know your wedding photographer knows the basics.
The ones in the video doesn't even know what f-stop there lens is
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 03/03/2010 - 22:08
Link
OK - yes and it's appropriate there
now I'll make you all ROTFLYAO [ plural of ROTFLMAO ]. Next year I am expecting my younger daughter to get married . I asked about a photographer and was told they really had no option - it would be his daughter who was doing photography at College . I've been told that I am expected to be there with my K-x I'm going to have to improve a heck of a lot before then
now I'll make you all ROTFLYAO [ plural of ROTFLMAO ]. Next year I am expecting my younger daughter to get married . I asked about a photographer and was told they really had no option - it would be his daughter who was doing photography at College . I've been told that I am expected to be there with my K-x I'm going to have to improve a heck of a lot before then
let the education continue
proud owner of a couple of cameras and a few bits and bobs
proud owner of a couple of cameras and a few bits and bobs
Posted 03/03/2010 - 23:12
Link
I`ve watched it and I have to agree - amateur screams out at me.
But hey, the judge was about as impartial as a vegan in an abbatoir and the two numptys who were suing the photogs looked like they were out for a quick rebate like some of the " dissatisfied buyers " on ebay who scream "bad seller" and demand their money back.
Cheap television on a par with the sort of Cr*p I hear about on daytime British tv - sensationalism at its worst - I`m sure there will be a chef on one week being sued for the height of his souffles !!
Get a life !!
Tony
But hey, the judge was about as impartial as a vegan in an abbatoir and the two numptys who were suing the photogs looked like they were out for a quick rebate like some of the " dissatisfied buyers " on ebay who scream "bad seller" and demand their money back.
Cheap television on a par with the sort of Cr*p I hear about on daytime British tv - sensationalism at its worst - I`m sure there will be a chef on one week being sued for the height of his souffles !!
Get a life !!
Tony
K20D,*istD ( now a dedicated M42 digital ),K100D,MZ5N,P50,ME Super,Spotmatic 1000,Spotmatic,ESII,ES,H2.18-55 II,18-55,75-300 FAJ,35-80 FA,80-200 F,28-105 FA,Sigma 24-70 AF Aspherical,Sigma 28-300 Hyperzoom , Praotor II 500 M42,Centon 500mm mirror,and a few Pentax M42 Taks,super-Taks,smc Taks,A and M lenses.Benbo trekker,7dayshop monopod and a Lowepro rucksack.
I am now on Flickr which is nice !
I am now on Flickr which is nice !
Posted 04/03/2010 - 00:27
Link
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 04/03/2010 - 04:41
Link
pentaxian450 wrote:
Those photograph you link are NOT done in churches with a "no flash rule". The "no flash rule" in churches is pretty standard in North America. That photographer should have known at least about the possibility. At least 75% of the weddings I do have the no flash rule. And the lighting in old churches is way below substandard most of the time, hence fast glasses.
In a wedding album that you produce, what percentage of the photos are in the poorly lit church? How large do they get printed, and would they survive being shot at high ISO speeds and then converted to black and white? Even in rainy Britain, you can get away with pushing the camera and converting the ceremony images into black and white. If the lighting is that bad, you're not going to get brilliant colours fast lens or not so you might as well go B&W. Those photograph you link are NOT done in churches with a "no flash rule". The "no flash rule" in churches is pretty standard in North America. That photographer should have known at least about the possibility. At least 75% of the weddings I do have the no flash rule. And the lighting in old churches is way below substandard most of the time, hence fast glasses.
No offense, but I don't think this is going anywhere. So this is me bowing out of this discussion.
PhilipGoh.com - Wedding and Portrait Photographer
Posted 04/03/2010 - 04:51
Link
robbie_d wrote:
Fair point, but what would Ziser, Zucker and Yervant charge to shoot a wedding?
Their studios turn over more than a million dollars a year so I think they charge a fair bit.Fair point, but what would Ziser, Zucker and Yervant charge to shoot a wedding?
Quote:
Out of interest, would you book someone for your own wedding without any fast glass in their bag?
I can tell you I wouldn't pay less then £2000 for the wedding photos and I would need to review the portfolio beforehand. Like I've said in a previous post, if you're cheap then you'll get cheap results. Beyond that, I would let the photographer use whatever equipment they're comfortable with.
Out of interest, would you book someone for your own wedding without any fast glass in their bag?
PhilipGoh.com - Wedding and Portrait Photographer
Posted 04/03/2010 - 09:49
Link
PG wrote:
Beyond that, I would let the photographer use whatever equipment they're comfortable with.
Would you let me take pictures of your wedding with an old Kodak Brownie and magnesium flash?
Beyond that, I would let the photographer use whatever equipment they're comfortable with.
Yves (another one of those crazy Canucks)
Posted 04/03/2010 - 10:02
Link
Quote:
Would you let me take pictures of your wedding with an old Kodak Brownie and magnesium flash?
Up to about a year ago I could have supplied you with magnesium ribbon or flash powder, as you preferred. Now they have been safely disposed of, I'm afraid only the Brownies remain.
Would you let me take pictures of your wedding with an old Kodak Brownie and magnesium flash?
Best regards, John
Posted 04/03/2010 - 10:16
Link
pentaxian450 wrote:
PG wrote:
Beyond that, I would let the photographer use whatever equipment they're comfortable with.
Would you let me take pictures of your wedding with an old Kodak Brownie and magnesium flash?Beyond that, I would let the photographer use whatever equipment they're comfortable with.
PG wrote:
and I would need to review the portfolio beforehand.
Yves your Brownie photos must be pretty good
and I would need to review the portfolio beforehand.
Tim
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27”, Macbook Pro 17”, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr • Fluidr • PPG • Street • Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27”, Macbook Pro 17”, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr • Fluidr • PPG • Street • Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!
Posted 04/03/2010 - 10:47
Link
PG wrote:
Exactly my point. The majority of couples getting married don't have that sort of money for wedding photos, meaning a less skilled photographer with fast glass is a far more likely solution than a world class photographer with a 6mp SLR and a kit lens.
robbie_d wrote:
Fair point, but what would Ziser, Zucker and Yervant charge to shoot a wedding?
Their studios turn over more than a million dollars a year so I think they charge a fair bit.Fair point, but what would Ziser, Zucker and Yervant charge to shoot a wedding?
If you can't say something nice about Pentax, you won't say anything at all.
Apparently.
Apparently.
Posted 04/03/2010 - 12:22
Link
It's a tricky one.
Apparently there's a similar individual around here, doing wedding shoots for £50 with a DSLR which appears to be jammed on full auto. Now, I have a couple of friends who are pros and I can see their argument that it's damaging their businesses (they have to charge more as they put more time and effort in, use better gear and better processing). However, from what I hear I don't get the impression that the people using this individual's services would be able to afford a proper photographer and they seem happy with the handful of reasonable photos that result from the day.
I also suspect that once you get into bargain basement wedding shoots you cannot get out again. Word will get around that you charge very little, and should you put the effort in to improve then you'll find you can't put your prices up as your current client base won't be able to afford you and those who can afford you will remember you as the "cheap photographer". Plus as digital cameras improve it will get harder to convince customers that you're a better bet than just asking their friends to email their photos of the day and printing the best results as an album.
Interestingly another friend of mine owns a Canon Digital Rebel and has been asked to photograph his sister's wedding. He plans to hire a decent lens for a fortnight, giving him time to learn how to use it and also get some other shots he wants to try.
Apparently there's a similar individual around here, doing wedding shoots for £50 with a DSLR which appears to be jammed on full auto. Now, I have a couple of friends who are pros and I can see their argument that it's damaging their businesses (they have to charge more as they put more time and effort in, use better gear and better processing). However, from what I hear I don't get the impression that the people using this individual's services would be able to afford a proper photographer and they seem happy with the handful of reasonable photos that result from the day.
I also suspect that once you get into bargain basement wedding shoots you cannot get out again. Word will get around that you charge very little, and should you put the effort in to improve then you'll find you can't put your prices up as your current client base won't be able to afford you and those who can afford you will remember you as the "cheap photographer". Plus as digital cameras improve it will get harder to convince customers that you're a better bet than just asking their friends to email their photos of the day and printing the best results as an album.
Interestingly another friend of mine owns a Canon Digital Rebel and has been asked to photograph his sister's wedding. He plans to hire a decent lens for a fortnight, giving him time to learn how to use it and also get some other shots he wants to try.
Matt
Shooting the Welsh Wilderness with K-m, KX, MX, ME Super and assorted lenses.
Shooting the Welsh Wilderness with K-m, KX, MX, ME Super and assorted lenses.
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
1603 posts
18 years
North of Montreal,Quebec,
Canada
Are you joking? Any photographer with a little bit of knowledge knows weddings are ALWAYS bad when it comes to lighting, so they don't go there with "cheap" kit lenses. They use zoom and prime lenses with large opening, not something that has an opening of 5.6 at the long end. Their equipment is substandard for the job. And no back up at all. A camera with only 6 megapixels can do the job, but not a lens with an opening of 5.6.
Having better gear is always nice though