# My first wedding photography



## Deathender (Dec 18, 2014)

Hey everyone!

I have been into photography for over 10 years, but have always done it as a hobby and had my own projects. I live in Toronto.

Recently I was asked to do an Engagement/Wedding photo shoot which involved three photo sessions: one casual, one traditional and one formal.  Then I showed all the photographs to the couple and they selected 50 images for me to edit.  The editing process was extensive since they wanted some major changes in their look and it took me over an hour to edit each photograph. They gave me lots of time to edit and I stretched the editing process over two months.

I used two Cannon 7D cameras (one mine and one I borrowed) - one with a portrait lens and one with a wide angel.

This is my first project and I wasn't really sure what I was doing, so I watched about 10 hours of wedding photography editing videos on the internet and tried to do what I thought would look best.  It was also very hard for me to work, since I am used to doing what I want with my photography, and here I was trying to do what the customers wanted, and it was almost completely opposite of what I like to do (or used to doing) with photography. I charged them $1000 at the end.

I am contemplating if I should ever do a project like this again and would really appreciate any and all criticism.  I would like to know where I stand in terms of quality with the work I did.  Any suggestions on equipment or editing would really help!  And in terms of price, I would like to know how much a project like this costs, or is worth.

Here is a Flickr set I have made for the couple:
Jake and Christina - an album on Flickr


----------



## Trever1t (Dec 18, 2014)

Cool that the groom wore Ao Dai, I wore a nearly identical one at my wedding. 

Critique. Many of your shots are mixed light, shadow/light on faces, a big nono in my book. Many are under-exposed. Some are spot on and nice.

ALWAYS work the style you do. Why would you do anything different from what you normally do? My 2 centavos.


----------



## Deathender (Dec 18, 2014)

Trever1t said:


> Critique. Many of your shots are mixed light, shadow/light on faces, a big nono in my book. Many are under-exposed. Some are spot on and nice.



Thank you for your responce Trever.

I would have probably not selected over half of the images the couple did.  And there were a few that I liked that they did not want me to use.  And while I was taking pictures I was experimenting alot since I really did not know what to do for a wedding shoot.  Even though I looked up alot of material.



Trever1t said:


> ALWAYS work the style you do. Why would you do anything different from what you normally do? My 2 centavos.



If only I knew what my style was when it comes to wedding photography.  May be that is what I am trying to figure out now, after all is done. 

Thanks again!


----------



## tirediron (Dec 18, 2014)

The good:  Many orders of magnitude better than most first, second (or tenth) weddings sets I've seen.  Some imaginative poses, and good attention to the details such as backgrounds.

The not so good:  As Trever mentioned... Exposure.  Most of these have exposure issues ranging from moderate to severe, and some shouldn't never have even made the cut to be included in proofing.  

The puzzling:  What took an hour to edit in each image?  I would expect to spend <5 minutes/image on 90% of them, between 5 and 15 minutes on about 8% of the remainder, and >30 minutes on only the couple remaining, assuming they were going to be purchasing large wall-art pieces.  Given the hours worked, $1000 is way, way under-priced, however given that perhaps some of those would not have been necessary with a little more experience, probably not altogether unreasonable.  

Summary:  Not bad at all for a first go-round!


----------



## kathyt (Dec 18, 2014)

I am confused as to what style of editing or "Theme" they/you were trying to achieve here, because to me it looks like a mixed bag and not very cohesive. In wedding photography, being cohesive and consistent is key. That is what brings referrals to you. I do not seeing this being cost effective. Stick with what you enjoy, and the style you WANT to shoot. Then it doesn't become a chore. I do see some good images, but they might need a tad more editing.


----------



## Deathender (Dec 18, 2014)

tirediron said:


> The puzzling:  What took an hour to edit in each image?  I would expect to spend <5 minutes/image on 90% of them, between 5 and 15 minutes on about 8% of the remainder, and >30 minutes on only the couple remaining, assuming they were going to be purchasing large wall-art pieces.  Given the hours worked, $1000 is way, way under-priced, however given that perhaps some of those would not have been necessary with a little more experience, probably not altogether unreasonable.



They wanted me to have the female in the pictures look thinner and the guy bigger (he is a little smaller than her), so I ended up resizing them in every photograph.  And removing/shifting some other things around in pictures.  

I don't own or know how to work with flash photography, but I think I should buy some lighting equipment and learn how to use it if I ever do a project like this again. 

Thank you for your reply!


----------



## tirediron (Dec 18, 2014)

Deathender said:


> ...I don't own or know how to work with flash photography, but I think I should buy some lighting equipment and learn how to use it if*before* I ever do a project like this again.


FTFY

Okay, I can understand the time based on that, but I'm going to go with, "You wayyyyyyy under-charged".


----------



## Deathender (Dec 18, 2014)

kathyt said:


> I am confused as to what style of editing or "Theme" they/you were trying to achieve here, because to me it looks like a mixed bag and not very cohesive. In wedding photography, being cohesive and consistent is key. That is what brings referrals to you. I do not seeing this being cost effective. Stick with what you enjoy, and the style you WANT to shoot. Then it doesn't become a chore. I do see some good images, but they might need a tad more editing.



I tend to work with every photograph individually, so I try to think of what style of editing is better for each photograph, sometimes trying out different ones and chosing the one that works best.   Thank you for the tips, will have to learn how to be consistent if I ever do this again. 

P.S. If you could point out where or what could be edited more, that would really help.

thank you for your reply!!!


----------



## Designer (Dec 19, 2014)

Deathender said:


> They wanted me to have the female in the pictures look thinner and the guy bigger (he is a little smaller than her), so I ended up resizing them in every photograph.



This is utter insanity.  Either yours for agreeing to do it, or theirs.  I think if someone asked me to do that I would have simply ended the interview right then and there.  

I hope your next wedding will be between two sane people.  

FWIW: I agree with the comments above; pick a style, any style, and do that, not three or four.


----------



## JoeW (Dec 19, 2014)

Deathender said:


> Hey everyone!
> 
> I have been into photography for over 10 years, but have always done it as a hobby and had my own projects. I live in Toronto.
> 
> ...



Okay, a bunch of comments....

1.  Wedding photography is not for everyone.  The people who are good at this, specialize at it--it's 90% of their work.  They market extensively (and no, I don't mean a website or ads, I mean that they know the local wedding photographers, they're well known at the popular wedding destinations, the local bridal gown and tux shops have their pictures and cards there).  I rarely do weddings (and usually only b/c of a special circumstance).  I don't like dealing with bridezillas or mothers of the brides or people trying to cheat on pirating copies.

2.  I don't have a lot to add on most of the technical feedback you got.  Yep, mottled faces--that's a no-no.  Yep, exposure issues--I won't beat a dead horse.  So look at those and make 'em a learning experience.  To me (if those were my photos), it would tell me how critical it is to have an assistant (to be johnnie on the spot with a giant reflector).  Or for me to learn how to master fill flash/light for a lot of these settings.

3.  If someone came to me and asked me to re-size people, that would be (no pun intended) a HUGE issue.  Unless you just love playing with PS or view this as play and not work, that's a huge time commitment and should be priced accordingly.  Far better to do modest pre-shoot, in-camera adjustments (shoot closer and have the man stand marginally in-front so you get a bit of size distortion with him, pose him standing and her sitting, have him wear lifts and she wears shorter heels, stuff like that) b/c otherwise you're going to be (as you know) spending a ton of time just on the resizing.  And you'll lose some shots that were good shots but the resizing (b/c of shadows or the setting) won't work effectively.

4.  For those who criticized the style, my take is that the couple asked for 3 different looks, he shot them and then showed us a mix.  That's why the portfolio looks a bit grab bag (informal, formal, traditional).  Furthermore, when I think wedding style, it's more like:
--traditional (formal) all of the standard shots you'd typically see in a wedding...you could compare this album with one from your parents and see exactly the same poses and shots in each.  You'd look at this album and feel like you've seen it in a hundred other albums...unless you're family and then you're going "isn't that a great portrait of Uncle Sid and Aunt Hester?"
--photojournalist (tell a story from start to finish, just like you were covering a political campaign event or a convention, fewer traditional poses, some from the spectators' perspective like instead of focusing solely on the couple during the ceremony you have some shots of the audience as they look on during the vows or the mother in tears).  Basically this is a documentary.  You'd look at their album and have a pretty good idea of how the wedding went, what happened (if they had a reception on-site or a different location, had a band or just a guitarist, how long it ran, about how many people were there).
--artistic or fine art (you might have photos of empty tables with plates of half-eaten cake, a DoF shot of rice on the sets, a long exposure of the car driving away with the cans bouncing in a colored blur behind it, silhouetted wedding party in which you can't tell who is who but it's a beautiful set of silhouettes).   You might see a daguerreotype or sepia or aged photo in here.  Often goes well with vintage dress (someone wearing grandma's dress for the wedding). Instead of a sharp photo of the bride with her ring, it's a narrow depth of field focused on just the ring with the bride a white blur behind the hand.  Very little focus on the traditional poses.  You'd look at their album and ask "hey, can I get a copy of this photo to hang on my wall?  It's really beautiful"
--epic or event focused (typically focusing on key moments, big backdrops, lots of drama).  Shots of the entire group, of the great setting and location, the place settings, the catering.  Saturated colors, f8 or bigger.  Dazzle.  This is for couples that are trying to say "look how much we spent on this wedding" or "we went someplace mind-blowing to get hitched--look at the views!"   Think of it almost as a sales catalog for a wedding planner that says "look at how grand and amazing our weddings are--pick us, pick us!"  You should look at their album and think "damn, wish I'd been there--that looks cool!" or "that must have cost a pretty penny."
--contemporary (where the focus is less on the event and the background and more on the portraits).  This style has a very intimate and personal touch and often will be very casual or relaxed in dress and setting.  It may also involve a lot of humor.  Rather than shoot the entire group, you'd break everyone down by pairs or family.  You might intentionally ask everyone to make a silly face. There's no/few formal poses and you might not even have people looking at the camera (but instead at each other).  Photos from this approach should feel warm and personal, or relaxed, or funny.  If you didn't know the couple and saw their photos, you'd walk away going "wow--I'd really like to get to know them" or "they sure are in love!"

Now, realistically, every wedding has a bit of a mix.  But you can't do them all.  When you're off doing an artistic pose, you're missing some reportage/photojournalism shots.  When you're shooting formal/classic/traditional poses then people aren't dressed for contemporary themes.  So every wedding is going to have a particular approach that predominates.  And this is where the advice about "styles" fits in.  If the couple wants to pose for portraits in traditional or formal or informal wear, that's fine.  But as a photographer, you'll have a wedding style you're most comfortable with (and it's not so much about the clothing they're wearing, it's about what type of shots you look for, how you compose the shots, how candid or posed your work is, the mood of the shots).  And in that instance, THAT's the style you don't want to mess with.


----------



## kathyt (Dec 19, 2014)

Designer said:


> Deathender said:
> 
> 
> > They wanted me to have the female in the pictures look thinner and the guy bigger (he is a little smaller than her), so I ended up resizing them in every photograph.
> ...


I will fix blemishes, maybe help with a double chin on an image that will be hung on the mantle if asked, but I would NEVER make the female thinner and the male bigger in EVERY picture. Oh my. That is crazy. Boudoir is a little different. I have to do a little more nip/tuck with that, but I probably would not have worked with these clients, with these kinds of requests, in the first place. That is a lot of work in PP!


----------



## Parker219 (Dec 19, 2014)

Yep, I agree with what everyone else said.

I really like img 5446ed.

That was the best of the bunch in my opinion. 

Im sure they will be happy with these.


----------



## kathyt (Dec 19, 2014)

Deathender said:


> kathyt said:
> 
> 
> > I am confused as to what style of editing or "Theme" they/you were trying to achieve here, because to me it looks like a mixed bag and not very cohesive. In wedding photography, being cohesive and consistent is key. That is what brings referrals to you. I do not seeing this being cost effective. Stick with what you enjoy, and the style you WANT to shoot. Then it doesn't become a chore. I do see some good images, but they might need a tad more editing.
> ...


I am a huge fan of back lighting. In a lot of your images you have some really dreamy light to work with, but you're not using it to your advantage. Two things would have helped you here. A larger reflector and a speedlight. (Oh, and an assistant ) Their faces are mainly in the shadows, and that gives them that grayish tone to their faces. That tells me that thier skin is generally underexposed. In the silhouette images its no problem to not have that second light source, but I can tell you were losing light fast with nothing to fill in with. In some of the images, your subjects are way beyond the light source. So just moving them closer would help tremendously. You would still need a second light source though to fill in thier faces.

So, I wanted to add that on certain images:
4273...I would bring your blacks down to add some contrast. You will know when you are close when his jacket is less gray.
4420...she is very cool. I would warm her up. 
4326...needs to be warmed up as well. 

I wouldn't mind editing 4420 and 4326 so I can show you what I mean if you would like. Are you using LR or PS? Or both?


----------



## Deathender (Dec 20, 2014)

JoeW said:


> Deathender said:
> 
> 
> > Hey everyone!
> ...


Thank you for the really in detail information.  This really helps me understand the field of wedding photography!
I did come to the forum before I took on the project and looked around for information, but wished I have made a post and gotten a reply like this before I started the project!


----------



## Deathender (Dec 20, 2014)

kathyt said:


> Deathender said:
> 
> 
> > kathyt said:
> ...


I made 4274 lighter and changed the tone a bit to fit in better with the set, thank you. (I could not find 4273, so I assumed you were taliking about 4274)
IMG_3274ed | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Thank you for offering to help out, I don't mind you editing my imiges. This would really help!
  I am using PS, don't use LR.


----------



## kathyt (Dec 20, 2014)

Deathender said:


> kathyt said:
> 
> 
> > Deathender said:
> ...


In the future if you plan on continuing weddings, LR will be your best friend. It will save you hours, if not days of editing. For example, if you have an image in similar lighting conditions as 50 others, you can edit just that one, and then sync the others to the same settings. I still have to tweak from there, but it is a major time saver.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 20, 2014)

Next time, if the groom is shorter than the bride, bring a small step stool.


----------



## Chris_1071 (Dec 21, 2014)

I did not read through all the comments so I am unsure if this has been said or not but here goes.

First and foremost, great effort for your first time out. I think you have some keepers in there that the couple is going to love. They did choose them after all.

Second, if you really want to get into wedding photography then try working as a second shooter with someone that has a lot of experience and may agree to guide you.

Third, don't be afraid to turn away clients. I shoot my own style and edit my own style. If a client ever told me that they wanted it done another way then I would shuffle them on to the next photographer. Develop and stick to your way of shooting....it's YOUR style, not theirs.

I know that when first starting out it can be tough and you are going to want to accept anything that comes along. I have been there and when I look back at those images today I always shake my head and say what was I thinking?

Be yourself, be true to your style, and do not accept anything less.


----------



## D-B-J (Dec 21, 2014)

Designer said:


> Deathender said:
> 
> 
> > They wanted me to have the female in the pictures look thinner and the guy bigger (he is a little smaller than her), so I ended up resizing them in every photograph.
> ...



I would never alter individuals like that. Smoothing skin, fixing hair, etc, sure! But not alter bodies like that.


----------



## Granddad (Dec 24, 2014)

kathyt said:


> In the future if you plan on continuing weddings, LR will be your best friend. It will save you hours, if not days of editing. For example, if you have an image in similar lighting conditions as 50 others, you can edit just that one, and then sync the others to the same settings. I still have to tweak from there, but it is a major time saver.



Amen Kathy!

You did some good work here. LR would have saved you hours and saved some of the too dark photos.

Personally I don't touch weddings unless the couple are broke, doing it on a serious budget AND close friends or relatives I can use the photos as a wedding present for. FOR ME there is too much stress and responsibility.


----------



## Deathender (Dec 25, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> Next time, if the groom is shorter than the bride, bring a small step stool.


I am not sure if you are joking, but that sounds like a good idea!


----------



## Deathender (Dec 25, 2014)

Chris_1071 said:


> I did not read through all the comments so I am unsure if this has been said or not but here goes.
> 
> First and foremost, great effort for your first time out. I think you have some keepers in there that the couple is going to love. They did choose them after all.
> 
> ...



Thank you for your advice and comments, I would have probably loved coming along as a second shooter.  Would of been a lot of pressure off my shoulders. 

I am not really sure if I even have a style in photography in general.  I tend to approach each project I do individually, and often it seems to me that I don't really have a certain style.  This may only seem that way to me, but when I see other photographer's work I usually see their define style.  When it comes to wedding photography, I never thought I would ever be doing it.  So it was even more pressure when I was asked to do it, since I had no idea what I would be up against and only a few weeks to figure it out before the first shoot.  It turned out that wedding photography is a whole another world in terms of photography.


----------



## Deathender (Dec 25, 2014)

D-B-J said:


> I would never alter individuals like that. Smoothing skin, fixing hair, etc, sure! But not alter bodies like that.



Is it because of time consumption, or something else?


----------



## D-B-J (Dec 25, 2014)

Deathender said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > I would never alter individuals like that. Smoothing skin, fixing hair, etc, sure! But not alter bodies like that.
> ...



Morals? It's just wrong, personally.


----------



## Deathender (Dec 25, 2014)

Granddad said:


> kathyt said:
> 
> 
> > In the future if you plan on continuing weddings, LR will be your best friend. It will save you hours, if not days of editing. For example, if you have an image in similar lighting conditions as 50 others, you can edit just that one, and then sync the others to the same settings. I still have to tweak from there, but it is a major time saver.
> ...



They were my friends and on a tight budget, but it didn't seem to take the presure off at all.  It actually seemed more stressful than doing it for strangers.

I tried using LR before, but I still end up tweeking each image individually, and then using PS anyways.


----------



## Granddad (Dec 25, 2014)

Deathender said:


> I tried using LR before, but I still end up tweeking each image individually, and then using PS anyways.



I use an old version of LR (3.1), I set my own presets and then tweak individually from there - I rarely get away with batch processing. Then I put them in PS and do some things that PS does better. For portraits (particularly of "ladies of a certain age") I also use Portrait Professional combined with PS. If I just used PS I could probably still achieve the results I do but with the combination of software it saves time ... but it's still a long process.


----------



## kathyt (Dec 25, 2014)

Granddad said:


> Deathender said:
> 
> 
> > I tried using LR before, but I still end up tweeking each image individually, and then using PS anyways.
> ...


Instead of Portrait Professional, I use Portraiture. I can use this in LR or PS, but some images just have to be pulled into PS. I just try not to when editing large bulks of images.


----------

