# Bride went from loving her wedding pics to "not up to my standards"



## clickchick_23 (Oct 10, 2009)

Ok folks, I need some advice.  
This summer I shot my first wedding.  I met the bride through a her mother.  I made it extremely clear that I had never shot a wedding on my own, and I had only been a second shooter.  The bride was ok with that (especially considering I was WAY cheaper than anyone else she had looked in to).  Shot the wedding, was pretty pleased with my results considering it was my first one and ALL outdoors on a day that couldn't decide if it was cloudy or sunny.  I posted the slide show of the pics online and both the bride and her mother called to tell me how much they loved the pictures and they wanted to reccommend me to friends.  The bride ordered 2 prints and a panoramic of the whole wedding party jumping in mid air.  Suddenly today, I get a phone call from the bride and she is literally chewing me a new one about how crappy the pictures are ("Did you even look at these!?!?!?") and they are not up to her standards or worth what she paid for them.  She tells me my first step is to call the lab and find out what went wrong, and if that doesn't work, she's expecting some other form of redemption.  First, I'm crushed because I put an extrodinary amout of work into them, sencond I'm confused because she told me repeatedly that she loved them....and now I'm angry and frustrated!  I told her I would try to make it right, but how many times can I reprint things until I get them to her standards (she thinks all the prints are too dark, grainy, blotchy, insert any negative adjective you can think of relating to pics, she said it).  Any advice!?!?!?  HELP!!!!!


----------



## Billhyco (Oct 10, 2009)

post up one that she is complaining about, i'd like to see just to get both sides of the story.  also, are you sure the print lab didn't mess up something?


----------



## Overread (Oct 10, 2009)

Bill makes 2 good points - the first that we can't make any judgement about the images or your abilty without seeing the images and that yes the lab could have got something wrong - could be some colour calibration problem between you and the lab themselves - so that would be the next important point to check.

Also when/if you post an example shot it would be good if you could post a 100% crop from the shot- that is a crop taken from the shot at fullsize - that way you can post a resized version of the shot for the net and a cropped out section of the shot (a crop suitable for web display in size) with no resizing - so that we have an idea of the fullsize look of the image


----------



## RMThompson (Oct 10, 2009)

Is it because they ordered prints from the web versions?


----------



## MelodySoul (Oct 11, 2009)

It sounds like you need to clarify with her what exactly the issue is. Is it just with the prints or did she change her mind about the photos in general?


----------



## clickchick_23 (Oct 11, 2009)

MelodySoul said:


> It sounds like you need to clarify with her what exactly the issue is. Is it just with the prints or did she change her mind about the photos in general?



I believe it's just the prints.  I'm calling the lab on Monday because some of the images do seem a bit darker in print than they do on my computer screen.  I'm not claiming to be a pro and I made that EXTREMELY clear to her.  This was supposed to be more of a favor to a friend.....the friend being her parents. I don't believe the quality is outstanding....nor should it be I guess for someone who up until this wedding had never done any type of professional work.  Here is the link if anyone cares to look at it.  PLEASE be gentle in your comments.  ale:

Mayer Wedding | Roxio PhotoShow


----------



## Double H (Oct 11, 2009)

I thought your had some very nice shots, some that any bride should be more than happy with. There were a few that needed some color balance, and a few that looked a bit out-of-focus (could that have been the slideshow I wonder). Overall, I say you did a fine job. Check with your lab, try another lab and compare. Make sure your monitor is calibrated properly. Don't back down.


----------



## clickchick_23 (Oct 11, 2009)

Double H said:


> I thought your had some very nice shots, some that any bride should be more than happy with. There were a few that needed some color balance, and a few that looked a bit out-of-focus (could that have been the slideshow I wonder). Overall, I say you did a fine job. Check with your lab, try another lab and compare. Make sure your monitor is calibrated properly. Don't back down.



Thank you thank you thank you!!!!!  You have no idea how happy it makes me to hear that I didn't totally screw this up!


----------



## DeadEye (Oct 11, 2009)

I allways review prints then forward them to client. I gotta see them first then I know what they get.

  Mpix Pro shipps fedex on all orders and its only 4.00 or free on large orders.


----------



## Overread (Oct 11, 2009)

Monitor calibration could be your falling point. Do you have/use a monitor calibration device - like a Spyder? I know there are free online options, but they do not work as your eyes are highly subjective and adaptive to the light from a screen, whilst a hardware based calibrator is not.
Its an important step to helping you get a calibrated screen so that when you send images tothe printers you can get a kown result back (a period of trial and error where you send test images off is also good to do so that you know your images will print well).

I also second the advice of Deadeye - getting the prints yourself to check first might make deliveries a little longer, but it does mean you can prevent problems like this occuring in the future


----------



## iolair (Oct 11, 2009)

This is your first wedding shoot, and its important you sort this out.  Personally, I would travel over there and look at the exact prints with her, get her to show you what the problems are.  Then you know for sure where you are, and you get plus points for customer service.


----------



## robdavis305 (Oct 11, 2009)

You can tell that they were not done by a pro and you made that clear to the bride before you took them. Some are out of focus and the whites could have been whiter since the camera sees 18% grey. And some are a little grainy and has a little noise, but overall I think you done a fine job and not trying to be nosey but considering her gripe it would be nice to know what you did charge her.


----------



## epp_b (Oct 11, 2009)

I'd say that you have some good shots and a few great shots, though what I mostly see is that a quite a lot of them are underprocessed with the wrong white balance.  That's not too bad, even less so if you were shooting in raw.  I think there are a good number of them could go from "good" to "stellar" with some more processing.


----------



## clickchick_23 (Oct 11, 2009)

Overread said:


> Monitor calibration could be your falling point. Do you have/use a monitor calibration device - like a Spyder? I know there are free online options, but they do not work as your eyes are highly subjective and adaptive to the light from a screen, whilst a hardware based calibrator is not.
> Its an important step to helping you get a calibrated screen so that when you send images tothe printers you can get a kown result back (a period of trial and error where you send test images off is also good to do so that you know your images will print well).
> 
> I also second the advice of Deadeye - getting the prints yourself to check first might make deliveries a little longer, but it does mean you can prevent problems like this occuring in the future



I didn't know there was such a thing to calibrate the monitor.  I do think this is where I could have my issue.  Is spyder the best one to use?


----------



## clickchick_23 (Oct 11, 2009)

epp_b said:


> I'd say that you have some good shots and a few great shots, though what I mostly see is that a quite a lot of them are underprocessed with the wrong white balance.  That's not too bad, even less so if you were shooting in raw.  I think there are a good number of them could go from "good" to "stellar" with some more processing.



Can you give me a little more info on what you mean by more processing?  Do you feel these images are too dark online?  Thanks for the help....obviously I'm super new at this!!!


----------



## Andrew Sun (Oct 11, 2009)

More processing meaning: more editing. Now, editing itself is a whole new topic that can be discussed in fine detail but in general, it can either save some of your no-good images or enhance the already-great images.

Most of your images are already mentioned by a number of people in this thread. Under-exposed, under-processed and many are out-of-focus. All in all, it isn't the end of the world. This whole experience (including dealing with clients who seems quite confused themselves) will only make you better.


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 11, 2009)

I thought the shots were very good.  Even some of the posed shots looked very natural.  It sounds like the customer did not have a problem until she saw the prints, so, like those above said, if there is indeed a problem with the finished product it was in the processing of the prints, or how they appear printed.

As unpleasant as it can be, sometimes it is the high maintenance or demanding customers that "help" you sort out problems or shortfalls in what you do.

Regards


----------



## Tinstafl (Oct 11, 2009)

epp_b said:


> I'd say that you have some good shots and a few great shots, though what I mostly see is that a quite a lot of them are underprocessed with the wrong white balance.  That's not too bad, even less so if you were shooting in raw.  I think there are a good number of them could go from "good" to "stellar" with some more processing.



I looked over the shots you posted. I think you need to calibrate the monitor as has been said. Also, the white balance issue seems to be in the beginning of the wedding shot in the preparation phase.  It might have come from different lighting and the flash not overpowering it.  Also i saw a few where you cut off feet legs and hands. Other than that, you have a bunch of good shots and she should be pretty happy with them when they are processed and printed.


----------



## FarrahJ (Oct 11, 2009)

> I didn't know there was such a thing to calibrate the monitor.



Then you should NOT be charging people.  I realize that you made it VERY clear to the bride that you are not a pro and they agreed...but if you don't know what you're doing, then you shouldn't jump to a single wedding shooter.  A wedding is a one time event...no re-shoots available.  

I also agree with epp_b about the processing...but IMO, you have VERY few good shots.  The processing is inconsistent.  You have some that are under exposed and some where the whites are blown.  You have some that are OOF and I wouldn't even show them.  Most of the indoor ones have wonky WB issues.  Your BW conversions are also inconsistent and mostly muddy...as though you used a few actions... badly.  Even the posed family shots were done in dappled light.  THAT is something you should notice when setting up the shot.  Really, I would have thought these were taken by a random guest and not the hired wedding photographer.

I know I'm coming out harsh, but I would seriously re-consider shooting a wedding again until you can guarantee good photos.


----------



## molested_cow (Oct 11, 2009)

I myself have turned down many requests to be event photographer because I have only shot photos for my own pleasure and cannot guarantee anything. Plus, I shoot with 35mm which means it's even more unforgiving if the light condition isn't favorable. I'd say if you want to become an event photographer, start with doing it for free, or as the second/back-up photographer. Communication with your client is also very important. You NEED to deliver up to, or surpass their expectations. An event like wedding is one of the hardest. I'd suggest really know the schedule inside out, when things are expected to happen and plan for them. Also, know the venue inside out too. You need to be at the right place at the right time. Knowing the weather is another thing. If it's going to be cloudy, then have a strategy to make the best use of it.

Equipment for wedding event is also very demanding. Good lens for indoor shots. Portrait and wide angle to telephoto, you almost need everything, not to mention a good mobile flash set up and the skill to use them properly. You need a lot of experience for sure. That's why people spend 4 years in photography schools.

Here's a really good example of someone who started out as a recreational photographer and became a pro:

* ±BÂ§¬ö¿ý½g* Photo Gallery by Albert Jou at pbase.com

The message below actually says he's sorry that he cannot take any more reservations because he's completely booked for the rest of the year.

With regards to monitor calibration, this is very important for ANY profession that deals with image output. Photographers, graphic designers, publishers etc. Basically, you need to calibrate all of your imaging devices, from scanners, monitors to printers. Design consultancies will hire professionals to calibrate EVERY scanner, monitor and printer that they own. It's useless to create an image that looks to be beautiful on your own screen and turn out to be off when printed on the final medium. My laptop has really inaccurate color saturation which is beyond adjustment, so I use a separate monitor that is closer to my printer whenever I need to process any image. Also, when making a print from a commercial printer, always proof read them before them make the actual print. This isn't about making sure that there's no spelling error, but making sure if the image comes out right. Otherwise, you will be wasting both time and money.

So, going pro is not just about being able to click your camera trigger. You need to be able to provide the whole package, from the beginning to the final output. Whether you outsource part of  your service or not, you need to have a network of resources to back you up. If you cannot make prints yourself, then establish a good relationship with a trust worthy commercial printer to do the work for you. Rule of thumb is, everything that goes out to your clients represents your reputation. Everything you send out should go through your hands before they are delivered.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 11, 2009)

I went through the first 125 shots in the slide show,looking at each and every shot. Your quality is about 60/40, varying between adequate and inadequate. Incorrect white balance (excessively yellow indoor shots), failure to use fill-flash when needed,and lots of tilted horizons for no artistic reason. Indoors, a lot of your stuff done at the tables has a simply atrocious, large, black flash shadow, almost as if you rented a lens for the event, and used it with a pop-up flash that casts a big shadow right in the bottom center of every shot done with the lens zoomed to XX point. 

Your indoor stuff at the reception ranged from okay to flatly unacceptable and out of focus. Sprinkled in are some nice shots, like their hands touching on the top of the head table, but there is a lot of stuff that's slightly to serious OOF, and a few shots that probably ought not to have been included, like the one of the seated infant right after the cake cutting. I can tell by looking that you do not have the kind of camera gear that ensures spot-on or even reasonably spot-on, easy Autofocusing in a dim,indoor area.

The slide show had 352 shots--probably removing the weakest shots and the "similars" would improve the look of the slide show. There are still some clunkers that are in the slide show. Consistency and quality is the name of the game,and the slide show demonstrates inconsistency across a  number of areas. I did not see the shots she ordered and was unhappy with; it *is* possible that the lab printed smaller prints from the thumbnail images instead of the large JPEGs--I have actually had that unfortunate thing happen on simple machine re-print orders, where the machine will for some reason, print a 4x6 or 5x7 from a 14k thumbnail instead of a 1.2 MB sharpened, processed DSCF_0XXX_Print.JPG file...


----------



## epp_b (Oct 11, 2009)

Yes, some of them are too dark and a number of them a much have a overly-warm colour balance.

A couple of quick edits of some shots I thought were better...

Brightened up, added some contrast, boosted the saturation to bring out the dress colours and added a bit of vignetting:






Used auto-adjust, which brightened up and added contrast.  A few more contrast and tone adjustments, B&W conversion and vignetting:






Again, these are just quick edits of low-res JPEGs.  I'm also hopelessly colourblind :\

Fill-flash would definitely have helped with some of these.

As I said, you have some good shots and a few great shots, but you should really refine your selection process.


----------



## kkamin (Oct 12, 2009)

I'm pretty sure she said in her post to be gentle with the comments.  I think the few people who have been grinding into her are missing the point of the post.  It's not about how much you know, or about judging her, it's that she wants advice for her situation and she wants to improve.  

And she stated outright that the bride agreed to have her wedding be her first shoot.  She has experience as a second shooter, and by browsing her online gallery, she knew the protocol.  

I think for you have some nice shots.  I agree with others who said they just need to be corrected a little more.  There is a great 12-hour video series at Lynda.com called "Photoshop Portrait Retouching" by Chris Orwig.  If you are familiar with Photoshop, that series would address some of the issues people have pointed out, If you want to learn about color management by way of video, they have a course on that too.  I highly recommend it, it's only $25 a month for a membership.  (I swear I don't work there, I just think it's a tremendous resource).

Just try to get your monitor calibrated, if you can't spring for a colorimeter, do whatever you can online or in your preferences.  Just make sure whatever color space you assign to your photos, the lab supports it (e.g. sRGB, Adobe RGB, etc.) and get some test prints from them to see how you guys match up.

Good luck,

K


----------



## clickchick_23 (Oct 12, 2009)

kkamin said:


> I'm pretty sure she said in her post to be gentle with the comments.  I think the few people who have been grinding into her are missing the point of the post.  It's not about how much you know, or about judging her, it's that she wants advice for her situation and she wants to improve.
> 
> And she stated outright that the bride agreed to have her wedding be her first shoot.  She has experience as a second shooter, and by browsing her online gallery, she knew the protocol.
> 
> ...



Thank you so much for the nice words.  :hug::
I was feeling a bit like I was being kicked while I was down.  I spoke to the lab this morning and they are going to take a look at the pics I sent in and get back to me with help getting things right.  Thanks again!


----------



## FarrahJ (Oct 12, 2009)

> I'm pretty sure she said in her post to be gentle with the comments. I think the few people who have been grinding into her are missing the point of the post. It's not about how much you know, or about judging her, it's that she wants advice for her situation and she wants to improve.



Gentle comments and Candy-Ass compliments aren't going to make her a better photographer.  I feel she deserves the truth.

The original post wanted us to confirm that the bride was being unreasonable about prints we'd never seen.  Instead of showing us a few of the shots, or the ones the bride ordered, she showed us the entire slide show.  This tells me that she was pretty confident that the overall package was at least "good enough" for someone's first solo wedding.  By telling her that she "has some great shots" or "they aren't that bad" it only re-enforces her confidence and she moves on to produce images of similar quality for the next bride.  Why would I waste my time looking at over 300 images if I didn't want to help her improve?

And...I guess I was really put off by the fact that any MWAC has a calibrated monitor and she'd never even heard of such a thing. =(

As far as what to do about the prints...Every quality lab is overly generous with test prints to compare the image you see on your screen and their prints...so even having an uncalibrated monitor is no excuse for not knowing why a print doesn't look like the image on your screen.


----------



## Foques (Oct 12, 2009)

Went through the whole slideshow. First shots I loved.

then, it turned into underexposed set of snapshots..with a little too tight cropping.

While many pictures were very nice, I don't know if I would order prints. 
I would definitely put more time into PP.
Farrah <3, do me a favor, do that to my shots that I post.. I LOVE hearing constructive critique. (not being funny or a smartass here, I truly mean that).


----------



## Derrel (Oct 12, 2009)

Here's a recently posted thread here on TPF. This guy and his daughter are two of the best naturalistic style wedding shooters on the web...not flashy, not a lot of tilted camera stuff, not a lot of odd angles, just simple, straightforward, direct, natural wedding work. They shoot Nikon full-frame and rely on the 14-24 and 24-70 lenses quite a bit, and the 70-200 as well if my memory serves me correctly. Their images are not the type of highly over-processed stuff so many aspire to; this is what quality, modern equipment can do with a competent shooter behind the eyepiece, without a lot of Photoshop effects and actions and weird borders...just pure, straight photography

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/people-photography/180351-wedding-anastasija-aleksandr.html

And they turn out weddings like this every time.


----------



## epp_b (Oct 12, 2009)

^ Very interesting.  They do, however, have the advantage of shooting full-frame with Nikon's holy trinity of lenses (14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 ... all constant f/2.8 lenses).  Full-frame creates a much larger circle of confusion than any crop frame, which just seems to give the photos so much character.

That certainly doesn't replace or deprecate the requirement to compose, light and capture the expressions so elegantly the way they have, but it sure helps.


----------



## katy625 (Oct 12, 2009)

I say that there are more good shots than there are bad.  There are quite a few in the beginning that were out of focus.  I am always scared of how the pics will turn out once they are printed. I agree with the last post regarding more processing.  There are some pics in the mix that with more Editing/PP the pics would go from good to stellar.  There are a couple of the girl and what I imagine is her father and the Hue is very blue and they don't seem to be edited at all. Those would be good to make sure that they are edited.


----------



## flea77 (Oct 12, 2009)

Derrel said:


> Here's a recently posted thread here on TPF. This guy and his daughter are two of the best naturalistic style wedding shooters on the web...not flashy, not a lot of tilted camera stuff, not a lot of odd angles, just simple, straightforward, direct, natural wedding work. They shoot Nikon full-frame and rely on the 14-24 and 24-70 lenses quite a bit, and the 70-200 as well if my memory serves me correctly. Their images are not the type of highly over-processed stuff so many aspire to; this is what quality, modern equipment can do with a competent shooter behind the eyepiece, without a lot of Photoshop effects and actions and weird borders...just pure, straight photography
> 
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/people-photography/180351-wedding-anastasija-aleksandr.html
> 
> And they turn out weddings like this every time.



Utterly amazing! If I shot weddings, THAT is what I would strive to create. No fake B&Ws, no hyper processing, just beautiful shots, one after another.

Allan


----------



## FarrahJ (Oct 12, 2009)

> I say that there are more good shots than there are bad.



No offense...but that's mostly because you're also a beginner and don't have very high standards yet.  I'd love to hear your opinion a year from now.


----------



## kkamin (Oct 12, 2009)

FarrahJ said:


> > I say that there are more good shots than there are bad.
> 
> 
> 
> No offense...but that's mostly because you're also a beginner and don't have very high standards yet.  I'd love to hear your opinion a year from now.



I don't understand your insistence on being so blunt?  I honestly think you have good points and are insightful, but for some reason it goes in tandem with making people feel bad--and personally I think that takes away from the good things you are saying.

I'm trying to understand your approach the best I can.  Maybe you believe people will take the "tough love" advice, give it some deep thought, and allow it to shake up their self-view and how they see photography, and allow themselves to grow.  Rather, I think it just upsets people.

My screenwriting professor in art school said something that has stayed with me.  "Truth can be used to enlighten, and truth can be a sword."  He was speaking in the context of critiques.  Probably things would be different if we were all face to face in a crit, rather than on a message forum with relative anonymity--but there is still someone on the other end.

Another maxim I like is that "One who is good with a hammer tends to think everything is a nail."  Just because a blunt, in-your-face critiquing style might work with one person, doesn't mean it works with everyone.  And in my opinion it is probably the least appreciated.  There is a non-offensive and constructive way to say almost anything.  I think your intent is to impart your opinion and wisdom, and there are countless delivery options, with varying degrees of success, it depends on the person you are talking to.   

If it sounds like I'm talking down to you, then I guess this reply is like a metaphorical mirror.

:thumbup:


----------



## epp_b (Oct 12, 2009)

> No fake B&Ws


And, how, pray-tell, would you make a B&W digital photo that _isn't_ "fake"?  I'm not aware of any current digital camera on the market without a colour filter over the sensor.

There's nothing wrong with B&W.  B&W can often bring attention to a spot in a particular photo where colour might distract away from it.


----------



## FarrahJ (Oct 12, 2009)

> If it sounds like I'm talking down to you, then I guess this reply is like a metaphorical mirror.



I didn't get that at all, but I rarely feel people are talking down to me.  If that was your intent...perhaps you should have been more blunt. 

Look...I get what you're saying and I'm sorry if you think that being blunt=being hurtful.  I don't have a lot of patience and I don't like to waste my time.  If I didn't have the intention of helping someone, then I wouldn't post at all.  My intent is not to be hurtful, but truthful...and probably that also means being truthful in as few words as possible.  I belong to a few other photo forums in which being blunt is standard and you just learn to put on your big girl panties and take cc as the way it's intended.  I guess I see it in this way...If you get 10 "great job" comments and 1 "your photos are under-exposed and your WB is off"...the next time you shoot, which is the comment you'll remember and do something to improve?

As for the statement you quoted, there was nothing in that at all that was hurtful.  I took the time to look at her recent post, give CC on it, and make the observation that she is indeed a beginner.  I don't understand what you find offensive in that?


----------



## ClickyPicky (Oct 12, 2009)

I'm assuming she viewed the photos on her own computer initially (when she loved them)?

Try to talk to her and let you look at the slideshow on HER computer screen - to get an idea of what she was seeing and what her expectations were so you can make the necessary corrections.


----------



## clickchick_23 (Oct 12, 2009)

FarrahJ said:


> > If it sounds like I'm talking down to you, then I guess this reply is like a metaphorical mirror.
> 
> 
> I didn't get that at all, but I rarely feel people are talking down to me.  If that was your intent...perhaps you should have been more blunt.
> ...



Your intent may have been to be truthful, but you came off as extremely rude.  I find your manner very inappropriate, and not at all "helpful".  If you truly intend to help a person improve, cutting them down is not the way to go.  It will just be met with resentment and disgust.  Just curious....if you are so impatient, and don't like to waste your time....why do you continuously come back to this thread?


----------



## newrmdmike (Oct 12, 2009)

more processing doesn't mean better photos. . . but better processing does.

MANY of those photos could be corrected and be much more presentable.  i saw exposure, and white balance issues.  if the bride saw your other work and was okay with it, and the wedding photos are on par with the other photos you showed her before hand then point it out to her.


----------



## newrmdmike (Oct 12, 2009)

also, i would follow farrahj's advice of not being a single shooter at weddings until you know more.

the bottom line is that if you are the photographer then people will expect that expertise from you . . . ESPECIALLY if your taking money, regardless of how little.  i can relate, i had an unhappy wedding client once, and it was one of the worst things i ever experienced.  BUT i also took a lot of knowledge away from the experience. (screen your clients for mental disorders )


----------



## flea77 (Oct 12, 2009)

epp_b said:


> > No fake B&Ws
> 
> 
> And, how, pray-tell, would you make a B&W digital photo that _isn't_ "fake"?  I'm not aware of any current digital camera on the market without a colour filter over the sensor.



One word, FILM. Which is why even when I go to shoot digital, there is always a film camera (35mm, MF, LF) right there with me.



epp_b said:


> There's nothing wrong with B&W.  B&W can often bring attention to a spot in a particular photo where colour might distract away from it.



No, there is nothing wrong with B&W, never said there was. The vast majority of digital B&W I see looks like junk, fake. There are some people who take the time and effort to really make it look good, but those are very few and far between. Most of the B&W digital I have seen in wedding photos look like the photographer said "well this shot looks like garbage, wonder what it would look like in B&W?".

Allan


----------



## epp_b (Oct 12, 2009)

> One word, FILM. Which is why even when I go to shoot digital, there is always a film camera (35mm, MF, LF) right there with me.


The reason I don't shoot film (often) is because I can't afford the time or money to process it in the same way I process digital.



> The vast majority of digital B&W I see looks like junk, fake. There are some people who take the time and effort to really make it look good, but those are very few and far between. Most of the B&W digital I have seen in wedding photos look like the photographer said "well this shot looks like garbage, wonder what it would look like in B&W?".


I only convert to B&W when I feel it will have a greater impact on the viewer and I never just desaturate it, I always make further adjustments bespoke the photo as a B&W.


----------



## flea77 (Oct 12, 2009)

epp_b said:


> > One word, FILM. Which is why even when I go to shoot digital, there is always a film camera (35mm, MF, LF) right there with me.
> 
> 
> The reason I don't shoot film (often) is because I can't afford the time or money to process it in the same way I process digital.



I understand. I can process all three formats in about 15 minutes in my bathroom for around a couple dollars a pop. A "good" conversion from color digital in photoshop to B&W takes at least 15 minutes PER IMAGE (I develop two 36 exposure rolls at a time, 15 minutes, 72 frames, that is 12.5 seconds per image). I am by no means wealthy, but to me at least, that seems fast and cheap. You may of course see things differently.



epp_b said:


> I only convert to B&W when I feel it will have a greater impact on the viewer and I never just desaturate it, I always make further adjustments bespoke the photo as a B&W.



A large amount of the "junk" I see is not simple desaturation. Not that I am saying that yours are junk, just that 99.999999999% of the people who's "junk" I have seen also think they did a fantastic job at it and that it really looks as good as film. Very rarely does it. The latitude isnt there, the graduation isnt there, the grain (if there is any) looks contrived, and the contrast is overdone. But that is just me, again, YMMV.

Allan


----------



## epp_b (Oct 13, 2009)

> I understand. I can process all three formats in about 15 minutes in my bathroom for around a couple dollars a pop. A "good" conversion from color digital in photoshop to B&W takes at least 15 minutes PER IMAGE (I develop two 36 exposure rolls at a time, 15 minutes, 72 frames, that is 12.5 seconds per image). I am by no means wealthy, but to me at least, that seems fast and cheap. You may of course see things differently.


I'm also talking about the work that goes into printing and the various requirements for adding effects and processing for them.


----------



## flea77 (Oct 13, 2009)

epp_b said:


> I'm also talking about the work that goes into printing and the various requirements for adding effects and processing for them.


Well that is why I said YMMV. I do not tend to add effects to my B&W most of the time, printing takes the same for me either color or B&W so that is a wash. When I need to do some processing on the computer I just scan them in, takes another couple of minutes, no big deal. 

Allan


----------



## clickchick_23 (Oct 13, 2009)

newrmdmike said:


> also, i would follow farrahj's advice of not being a single shooter at weddings until you know more.
> 
> the bottom line is that if you are the photographer then people will expect that expertise from you . . . ESPECIALLY if your taking money, regardless of how little.  i can relate, i had an unhappy wedding client once, and it was one of the worst things i ever experienced.  BUT i also took a lot of knowledge away from the experience. (screen your clients for mental disorders )



Ha ha!  Thanks!!  I probably should have known when her parents told me what a spoiled brat she was and that she stomps her foot to get her way.  I believe the term "bridezilla" was used on multiple occasions!


----------



## zerofourtwo (Oct 13, 2009)

@ Clickchick

At least you can learn from this experience and work towards becoming a better photographer, granted you do not want to earn your experience at anyone's expense (literally and figuratively) but, nonetheless you do need to learn and you will only get that from shooting. Farrahj does make some very strong points, in that you really do need to be on your game if your going to shoot a wedding, especially alone. My personal advice would be to make friends with a photographer in town that has a lot of experience shooting weddings and or shoots full time and request to tag along in order to learn more, the worst they can say is no. As for the problems with the wedding shoot, incorrect WB, OOF, lack of fill flash, these are all really basic mistakes i won't argue that, but they are issues that are easily prevented, and some easily corrected. I say learn from this and continue to evolve.


----------



## harleyrider (Oct 26, 2009)

hi i looked at your slide show and i think your very good at setting up the shots.i did see faces that were to dark,in some shots it looked like you should have used fill flash and didnt those ones looked like auto(outside)shots.there were i thought alot of faces to dark.
there were alot to were the lighting was good.
i think if you can get your lighting better i think you will be good at it because i think you have a good eye for the shots.


----------

