# wedding question



## dragonariesphoto (Mar 10, 2013)

i am being hired to do a small wedding later this month. i currently have this equipment 

Cameras i have: canon rebel eos xs, and canon rebel t3 
Lenses:18-55mm,50mm fixed, 75-300mm, 58mm telephoto, 58mm macro wide angle 
430 ex II speedlite external flash

i am just curious if you think that will be enough.

i have done some research on equipment and found that alot say that the 70-300 is best, however i dont have 1000 dollars to spend to get it, i was wondering
 if this one ---> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=043-001B-00019 would work as good, or at least close to?


----------



## Buckster (Mar 10, 2013)

You're probably not going to like this, but...

You should probably encourage whomever is planning to hire you to hire a professional photographer instead.

If you want to get into the wedding photography business, you should find a professional wedding photographer that will let you work as an assistant/second shooter to learn the ropes.  From that experience, you will learn what gear you need and how best to use it.


----------



## katerolla (Mar 10, 2013)

When i did few weddings for friends, i only used a DSLR and two kit lenses, the wedding didn't turn out bad, they would not have hired a pro and no one else could do as good a job as i did. You have full coverage with your equipment, I'd say go for it


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Mar 10, 2013)

Buckster said:


> You're probably not going to like this, but...
> 
> You should probably encourage whomever is planning to hire you to hire a professional photographer instead.
> 
> If you want to get into the wedding photography business, you should find a professional wedding photographer that will let you work as an assistant/second shooter to learn the ropes.  From that experience, you will learn what gear you need and how best to use it.



Yeah I totally agree with this but there are few exceptions as noted below by katerolla where some people just don't care for photos so much to get a pro or they just don't have the budget so they resort to best people they know to do the wedding at a much lower cost to them.  If this is the case I'd go for it and see how you do.  If I were in your shoes though I would probably make the couple well understand that it's my first wedding and that I don't want a penny for it.  I'd do it for experience only.  If it turns out awesome and they insist on paying after - then great, if not, no hard feelings and I get some experience.


----------



## SCraig (Mar 10, 2013)

CaptainNapalm said:


> Yeah I totally agree with this but there are few exceptions as noted below by katerolla where some people just don't care for photos so much to get a pro or they just don't have the budget so they resort to best people they know to do the wedding at a much lower cost to them.  If this is the case I'd go for it and see how you do. * If I were in your shoes though I would probably make the couple well understand that it's my first wedding and that I don't want a penny for it.  I'd do it for experience only.*  If it turns out awesome and they insist on paying after - then great, if not, no hard feelings and I get some experience.



It's all well and good to make this plain at the beginning, and everyone will say that they understand and are willing to accept the risk.  It tends to change when the photographs come out looking like crap and reality sets in.

If you have not successfully shot wedding before I would STRONGLY recommend that you not shoot this one.  IF you are being paid that means that you are being hired to provide professional results.  IF you cannot provide those results, for whatever reason, then you have no business accepting the job.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 10, 2013)

this is one of those never ending debates...to do, or not to do a wedding when you dont have the proper equipment. 
CAN it be done? yes. does it often turn out very well? no.  do you have much photography experience? have you shot weddings before?
when you say you were "hired" to do this wedding, are you saying you are advertising yourself for this kind of work?
a lot of budget savvy brides might SAY they only care about getting some photos of the day and not care much about how "great" they are...but that can change FAST if you dont deliver good images. 
also, once you accept money for a job you open yourself up to a whole new level of legal obligations. i assume you already have your business license, tax ID, and insurance? some venues will NOT allow you to
work as a photographer there unless you can show proof of business license and insurance. 

you bring up a difficult question to answer for your first post. there is no easy answer. in the end, despite any advice given here, most people just go ahead and shoot the wedding under equipped and under experienced. 
they almost never share the results here. and when they do, more often than not, the results are sub-standard. 

anyway....welcome to the forum! there are quite a few experienced wedding photographers here, and many other fields. 
just to give you an idea of some of the equipment me and my wife bring to shoot a wedding.
two camera bodies
several fast zooms (all f/2.8), several prime lenses.
3-4 speedlights with stands/softboxes/umbrellas
tons of batteries
a good tripod
theres a ton of other misc. stuff, but you get the basic idea. backups for everything. never expect SOMETHING wont fail on you.


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Mar 10, 2013)

SCraig said:


> CaptainNapalm said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah I totally agree with this but there are few exceptions as noted below by katerolla where some people just don't care for photos so much to get a pro or they just don't have the budget so they resort to best people they know to do the wedding at a much lower cost to them.  If this is the case I'd go for it and see how you do. * If I were in your shoes though I would probably make the couple well understand that it's my first wedding and that I don't want a penny for it.  I'd do it for experience only.*  If it turns out awesome and they insist on paying after - then great, if not, no hard feelings and I get some experience.
> ...



This I agree with but at least it relieves you of any moral or legal liability down the line, that's why I suggested it.  If money was involved or the lack of experience wasn't disclosed it'd be a different story when the photos are not up to standards.  On the other hand, I know a few couples that got married (low budget) and they were completely satisfied with the snapshots their guests took with their point and shoots let alone someone with proper equipment who at least has some shooting experience as a hobby.  I think bottom line, is the OP has the best judgement on what to do here knowing the couple and their approach.  But I agree with Scott here also, better safe than sorry and you don't want ill feelings in the end.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Mar 10, 2013)

Usagani Photography | Our own wedding photography nightmare


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Mar 10, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Usagani Photography | Our own wedding photography nightmare



Wow this speaks volumes.  Sorry this happened to you and thanks for sharing.


----------



## Patrice (Mar 10, 2013)

Here we go again.

Not a bad first post wouldn't you say?


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 10, 2013)

Yes you have the equipment to shoot a wedding. It's really just another day in the lives of 2 people that will be looking forward to seeing the great pictures that will last a life time. 

The question should be  Do I have the skills?  But you must, you have accepted a shoot that you are getting paid for, and you have come to highest photo forum on the internet to ask  for advice so you don't accidentally walk into a situation that you are unprepared for. You're all set now.  Ready, Shoot, Aim.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 10, 2013)

SCraig said:


> CaptainNapalm said:
> 
> 
> > It's all well and good to make this plain at the beginning, and everyone will say that they understand and are willing to accept the risk.  It tends to change when the photographs come out looking like crap and reality sets in.
> ...


----------



## Designer (Mar 10, 2013)

dragonariesphoto said:


> i am being hired to do a small wedding later this month. i currently have this equipment
> 
> Cameras i have: canon rebel eos xs, and canon rebel t3
> Lenses:18-55mm,50mm fixed, 75-300mm, 58mm telephoto, 58mm macro wide angle
> ...



I see no light modifiers or stands listed.  

Can you post some examples of your photographs?   

Is this wedding of the "cold sandwiches and punch" type?

You say "being hired".  Does that mean you have already accepted the job?


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 10, 2013)

I believe in my post i asked the OP what kind of photography experience he had.  Still waiting to see the answer.  Im not saying he CANT do it,  but depending on conditions,  he is already handicapped a bit by his equipment which can only be made up for with experience. If he has the experience, then fine.  If not... would you still recommend he do it?


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 10, 2013)

Is it just me or does everyone assume that the majority of new wedding photographers are all men.  I think it may very well be the opposite.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 10, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > CaptainNapalm said:
> ...


----------



## Patrice (Mar 10, 2013)

I can see Steve's point. You don't have to be a professional wedding photographer to do a good job photographing a wedding. Steve also qualifies his remark with, "...if you're already a proficient photographer,.." The problem here is that the OP is asking;"I am just curious if you think that will be enough." That does not indicate proficiency.

There are numerous threads on this forum dealing with this topic. The OP only needs to do a simple search to uncover a wealth of opinions and advice, some of which are very helpful, others not so much. It seems the OP has not done much research on this topic, had he done so he could have come here with more pointed questions demonstrating a want for refinement in technique or some advice on a solution to a specific problem. As it stands this thread is going to turn into another marathon of acerbic posts likely to be divisive to the forum and un-encouraging to the OP.​


----------



## LouR (Mar 10, 2013)

It always makes my head spin when couples planning a wedding will generally go all out for things like flowers, venue and attire, but then hire someone to record the most important day of their lives who doesn't know if what he or she has can take the photos.  
I was hired by a couple (for whom this was their second marriage each) by them calling the school I went to looking for a student to shoot their reception.  I had a little Minolta Z2 and a tripod, charged them $50 an hour and shot some pretty decent images for 3 hours.  They then wanted posed group shots with various people.  I sent them 6 CDs of printable (to 11x14) images and they refused to pay for them.  Their reason? They tried to print the photos at home and didn't know how to open TIFFs.  I sent them nice examples with the word SAMPLE over their faces. Never heard back.
Never ever again will I say yes to something as important and stressful as a wedding.  Just my 2c.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 10, 2013)

After thinking about this a little bit, does anyone really care if the op or anyone else screws up a wedding shoot.  This is only going to affect 3 people, the wedding couple that made the choice based on what exactly?  and the photographer that managed to get the shoot in the first place.  That's it, the answer to the op's question should be a simple "yes"  I was sarcastic in my first comments, but really who cares?

This thread will go on for days, and at some point it will roll around to another unrelated thread on who knows what, the Op will look at a few of the responses and will  simply go off to book more weddings.  It does not matter what anyone on here says, if someone is determined enough to take some pictures, they will read between the lines,  and *find the words they want to see*


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 10, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> After thinking about this a little bit, does anyone really care if the op or anyone else screws up a wedding shoot.  This is only going to affect 3 people, the wedding couple that made the choice based on what exactly?  and the photographer that managed to get the shoot in the first place.  That's it, the answer to the op's question should be a simple "yes"  I was sarcastic in my first comments, but really who cares?
> 
> This thread will go on for days, and at some point it will roll around to another unrelated thread on who knows what, the Op will look at a few of the responses and will  simply go off to book more weddings.  It does not matter what anyone on here says, if someone is determined enough to take some pictures, they will read between the lines,  and find the words they want to see



Going by that reasoning,  noone would get any question answered here at all.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 10, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > After thinking about this a little bit, does anyone really care if the op or anyone else screws up a wedding shoot.  This is only going to affect 3 people, the wedding couple that made the choice based on what exactly?  and the photographer that managed to get the shoot in the first place.  That's it, the answer to the op's question should be a simple "yes"  I was sarcastic in my first comments, but really who cares?
> ...



This is quite true.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 10, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> After thinking about this a little bit, does anyone really care if the op or anyone else screws up a wedding shoot.  This is only going to affect 3 people, the wedding couple that made the choice based on what exactly?  and the photographer that managed to get the shoot in the first place.  That's it, the answer to the op's question should be a simple "yes"  I was sarcastic in my first comments, but really who cares?
> 
> This thread will go on for days, and at some point it will roll around to another unrelated thread on who knows what, the Op will look at a few of the responses and will  simply go off to book more weddings.  It does not matter what anyone on here says, if someone is determined enough to take some pictures, they will read between the lines,  and *find the words they want to see*


True, but you forgot the part where the experienced people recommending caution are blasted by the "How's he supposed to learn if he doesn't do?" crowd!


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 10, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> I believe in my post i asked the OP what kind of photography experience he had.  Still waiting to see the answer.  Im not saying he CANT do it,  but depending on conditions,  he is already handicapped a bit by his equipment which can only be made up for with experience. If he has the experience, then fine.  If not... would you still recommend he do it?



Sure.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he has experience as a photographer. I'm walking proof that one need not to have experience as a _wedding _photographer to successfully shoot a wedding...


----------



## Buckster (Mar 10, 2013)

Just reflecting a little due to the subject...

Nearly 44 years ago now, when I was 10 years old, I first got interested in photography when I saw the magic of a neighbor's TLR camera.  I immediately took my meager allowance and paper route money and bought my first cheap camera.  By age 18, I'd read everything in the local library on photography that they had, plus books on composition, art, and other associated subjects, had taken all the photos my limited funds would allow given the cost of film and developing, and bought my first SLR, a used Nikon F.

Nearly 36 years of continued learning and practice and gear acquisitions later (I'll be 54 in 2 months), I consider myself fairly competent when it comes to photography knowledge and experience.  Over those many years, I've explored many genres, styles and techniques, learned much along the way, and continue to do so.  It has been a lifelong interest, love and passion for me.

I've also turned down literally dozens of requests to shoot weddings over that same period. I've never shot one, and have no intention of shooting one. It's where I personally draw the line for myself.  I simply tell them that I appreciate the offer, but that wedding photography is a very specialized kind of work, and I'm not a wedding photographer, so I must decline.  To me, it's just that simple.

I draw that line for myself because I have no actual experience with that genre and haven't sought out the necessary experience through being assistant/second shooter to one who actually has the experience, which I wholeheartedly believe it takes.  I think wedding photography is one of the few unforgiving "get it right the first time - there's no second chance" situations one can have with a camera, and I'm not willing to take any chances with that singularly special day for any couple looking to document it in a way that leaves no photographic regrets.

I honestly think I could pull it off, but since I can't guarantee it, no couple will ever be my guinea pigs to find out.

But that's just my take on it...


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 10, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > I believe in my post i asked the OP what kind of photography experience he had.  Still waiting to see the answer.  Im not saying he CANT do it,  but depending on conditions,  he is already handicapped a bit by his equipment which can only be made up for with experience. If he has the experience, then fine.  If not... would you still recommend he do it?
> ...



your a ringer though...you can show that you can produce quality work. if the OP can as well, then I agree with you. if not...I kinda think its irresponsible to give someone my blessing to do a job I dont think they are capable of doing well. my other reasons were questions of legality. i dont personally think i could tell someone to take a paying job if they were not set up to, and willing to, pay their taxes on that income. nor do I think its responsible of people to tell someone to take  a paying job that isnt insured in case they are involved in an accident while working. 

its just an opinion. and opinions are like...well, you know.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 10, 2013)

Patrice said:


> I can see Steve's point. You don't have to be a professional wedding photographer to do a good job photographing a wedding. Steve also qualifies his remark with, "...if you're already a proficient photographer,.." The problem here is that the OP is asking;"I am just curious if you think that will be enough." That does not indicate proficiency.​




It doesn't indicate proficiency _as a wedding photographer.
_
Before I shot my one wedding, I sought advice, and ended up renting a lens because what I had, on a crop-body, wasn't wide enough. I'd never shot one, so I didn't know what was appropriate. That, in no way, says that I was not a proficient photographer...



> There are numerous threads on this forum dealing with this topic. The OP only needs to do a simple search to uncover a wealth of opinions and advice, some of which are very helpful, others not so much. It seems the OP has not done much research on this topic, had he done so he could have come here with more pointed questions demonstrating a want for refinement in technique or some advice on a solution to a specific problem. As it stands this thread is going to turn into another marathon of acerbic posts likely to be divisive to the forum and un-encouraging to the OP.



Of course, this could also be the beginning of the OP's research. Just because you would research it differently means nothing...


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 10, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Just reflecting a little due to the subject...
> 
> Nearly 44 years ago now, when I was 10 years old, I first got interested in photography when I saw the magic of a neighbor's TLR camera.  I immediately took my meager allowance and paper route money and bought my first cheap camera.  By age 18, I'd read everything in the local library on photography that they had, plus books on composition, art, and other associated subjects, had taken all the photos my limited funds would allow given the cost of film and developing, and bought my first SLR, a used Nikon F.
> 
> ...



yours is a totally different situation though. we KNOW you are a good photographer, and we KNOW you can put out quality work. you might not take wedding work as a personal preference, but it isnt due to a lack of photographic ability. you can say you cant "guarantee" you could pull it off, but I think you are selling your abilities short on that one. me and the wife would have NO problems letting you photograph our wedding if we got renewals done.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 10, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> your a ringer though...you can show that you can produce quality work.



But I'm _not _a ringer, I'm a photographer...



> if the OP can as well, then I agree with you. if not...I kinda think its irresponsible to give someone my blessing to do a job I dont think they are capable of doing well.



When I shot my one wedding, I was hired based on the quality of my landscape and concert photography. It's awfully presumptious of you to think the OP even wants your blessing, especially since he hasn't sought it out. He asked a question regarding equipment.

Look at it another way: I want to paint a room pink. I have a can of red paint and a can of white paint. Will that be enough?

Well, of course, it would be. Whether or not I've ever actually painted a room, or even mixed paint, isn't pertinent to the question...



> my other reasons were questions of legality. i dont personally think i could tell someone to take a paying job if they were not set up to, and willing to, pay their taxes on that income. nor do I think its responsible of people to tell someone to take  a paying job that isnt insured in case they are involved in an accident while working.



When I shot my wedding, I didn't have insurance, we didn't have a contract, and I didn't pay taxes. I was paid in cash that went straight into my pocket.

And it all went swimmingly.

Call it anecdotal, but I truly believe that we hear about 50 horror stories to every success, yet I truly believe the successes outnumber the horror stories...


----------



## Designer (Mar 10, 2013)

I'm not sure where this observation fits within this argument, perhaps not at all, but I've see plenty of examples of not-very-good wedding photography lately, some by posters who claim to be "professional" wedding photographers.

The technicalities aside, which I hope most can agree is something than can be learned, is the pure stress factor of orchestrating the wedding photography.  The photographer, experienced or not, has to be in certain places at certain times, with the chosen equipment (right or wrong), direct several people, whom he or she does not know, monitor the success (or failure) of the setup, change setups as required, try to direct people who have had way too much fun to concentrate, all while trying to get a certain amount of photography done in a set amount of time.

That is a tremendous amount of stress, regardless of the quality of outcome.  

And then, this may be a wedding in which there is no money budgeted for pictures.  I've attended some weddings like that.  The poor but happy couple was simply relying on their friends to give them copies of snapshots.

So if this wedding is of the "cold sandwiches and punch" caliber, then even poor photos will be better than what was expected.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 10, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Just reflecting a little due to the subject...
> ...



Knowing the quality of work hasn't stopped people from saying "Don't do it!". While I do agree that there are some that have genuine intentions and are actually looking out - the majority of the resistance are people who've never shot a wedding and don't really care if the OP does it or not. People just rather hop on popular band wagons of negativity, vs support the OP. Which is why C+C threads are 6 or 7 posts long, while negative threads go on for dozens of posts. Hell, even I recently made a thread like this and was met with the same kind of resistance. Some of the same people in this thread posted in mine, the majority were respectable of course.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 10, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > your a ringer though...you can show that you can produce quality work.
> ...



I didnt say it couldnt go swimmingly. i only said that i wouldnt personally recommend it. 
im not saying you are wrong steve, im only saying my opinion differs slightly. 
its difficult for me to seperate the technical question from the ethical one. 
I could give a technical answer to the OPs question on equipment, but i feel that would be basically saying i thought it was Ok to do it. 
maybe it is, maybe it isnt...im just telling you how i FEEL it is. and i cant, in good Conscious,  say go ahead and do it. 
I certainly dont have the years in you do, so i wont feel slighted in the least if the OP takes your advice over mine.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Mar 10, 2013)

If you don't know what equipment you need then it doesn't sound like you're ready to do this and the idea might need to be reconsidered. 

It's up to a couple to budget for their wedding costs and if they choose to not spend the money for professional quality photographs then they'll have to live with the results. 

Taking photos for free seems appropriate to do for a charitable cause; what other type work is done without any compensation?


----------



## Designer (Mar 10, 2013)

vintagesnaps said:


> ..what other type work is done without any compensation?



Relatives of bride make the sandwiches, relatives of the groom provide the music, cousins of bride do the dishes, uncle of bride gifts the couple the use of his timeshare, and guests bring their own drinks.  Happens like that a lot.


----------



## dragonariesphoto (Mar 10, 2013)

[/QUOTE]

It's all well and good to make this plain at the beginning, and everyone will say that they understand and are willing to accept the risk.  It tends to change when the photographs come out looking like crap and reality sets in.

If you have not successfully shot wedding before I would STRONGLY recommend that you not shoot this one.  IF you are being paid that means that you are being hired to provide professional results.  IF you cannot provide those results, for whatever reason, then you have no business accepting the job.[/QUOTE]

i have done 2 before, 1 i was a second shooter and they liked my pics better than the person they hired and 1 was a friends just for fun, i was the maid of honor but still managed to get some shots the photographer missed.


----------



## dragonariesphoto (Mar 10, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> Is it just me or does everyone assume that the majority of new wedding photographers are all men.  I think it may very well be the opposite.



you are absolutely right, i am not a man LOL


----------



## Buckster (Mar 10, 2013)

dragonariesphoto said:


> i have done 2 before, 1 i was a second shooter and they liked my pics better than the person they hired and 1 was a friends just for fun, i was the maid of honor but still managed to get some shots the photographer missed.


In that case, why don't you already know if your equipment is adequate to the task?


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 10, 2013)

OP, I found what I think is your Facebook page (is this you?  https://www.facebook.com/DragonAriesPhotography?fref=ts.) If the clients have seen your images, and are happy with that kind of quality, then go for it. I would strongly suggest posting some images here, and LISTENING To the C&C to improve!!


----------



## CCericola (Mar 10, 2013)

You can rent what you need from places like BorrowLenses and LensGiant.


----------



## dragonariesphoto (Mar 10, 2013)

because this will be my first where i am the main photographer. they found me from my ad on craigslist in my area, i do not state that i am professional by any means, i just say that i am trying to get my name out there, i focus on lower busget families that cant afford to go to a studio, i mostly do outdoor work but have done a couple inside, the 1 wedding i shot was indoors and i had only my on camera flash, now i have the external one. 

i am being paid to do this but not much, basically just travel time and editing, im not going to state how much because personally i dont think i should.

i have examples of my work on the ad, obviiously the couple saw those then contacted me so im guessing they were ok with my work. 

i did not come here to be put down by professionals, i just simply wanted to know opinions of my equipment. im sorry that i dont have the thousands of dollars to buy the top of the line stuff, but this is just a side job, i am a full time nursing student and work part time.


----------



## dragonariesphoto (Mar 10, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> OP, I found what I think is your Facebook page (is this you?  https://www.facebook.com/DragonAriesPhotography?fref=ts.) If the clients have seen your images, and are happy with that kind of quality, then go for it. I would strongly suggest posting some images here, and LISTENING To the C&C to improve!!



Thanks for looking


----------



## dragonariesphoto (Mar 10, 2013)

here is my website and facebook

- Home

https://www.facebook.com/DragonAriesPhotography?ref=ts&fref=ts


----------



## Tony S (Mar 10, 2013)

> OP, I found what I think is your Facebook page



  Yikes... so now we go back to the original question. 

  No, the equipment you have is not enough or adequate to do the job .  The lenses are too slow and the cameras you use are too noisy for the lower light levels(at higher ISOs) you find at weddings to do it properly.  You are going to find that your lenses don't have the quality to work in low light and will not focus quickly or accurately.  Using the single 430 flash is going to give you harsh lighting that will either throw harsh shadows behind your subjects, or when you are close enough it will light them too flat with no modeling to bring out facial features.

  If you insist on doing the shoot, then look into renting a camera and lenses that would be more fitting for lower light photography.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 10, 2013)

dragonariesphoto said:


> here is my website and facebook
> 
> - Home
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/DragonAriesPhotography?ref=ts&fref=ts



so..you already do photography. complete with business website and FB page.  why are you asking basic equipment questions? we were all under the impression that you had never shot an event before, which is apparently not true. im guessing the stuff on your web page were all done with the equipment you listed? if its working for you thus far, not much "need" to change it. unless you just want to.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 10, 2013)

dragonariesphoto said:


> because this will be my first where i am the main photographer. they found me from my ad on craigslist in my area, i do not state that i am professional by any means, i just say that i am trying to get my name out there, i focus on lower busget families that cant afford to go to a studio, i mostly do outdoor work but have done a couple inside, the 1 wedding i shot was indoors and i had only my on camera flash, now i have the external one.
> 
> i am being paid to do this but not much, basically just travel time and editing, im not going to state how much because personally i dont think i should.
> 
> ...


If they're happy with the work you've shown and the price point, enough to hire you, then I don't see a problem with it.  If you did that work with your current gear, then I don't anticipate that there will be a problem with that either.

At this point, I'm not even sure why you asked.


----------



## dragonariesphoto (Mar 10, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> dragonariesphoto said:
> 
> 
> > here is my website and facebook
> ...



basically just because this situation was new to me and i dont really have anyone personally that i can talk to about this stuff, so i was just looking for some feedback, i wasnt expecting to get hammered right from the start though, but oh well i have learned a lot of the things i should have be a professional but at this point thats not where i stand in the real world, nor do i think i ever will be, i love to take photographs and i am pleased that the people i photograph are happy with the results.


----------



## dragonariesphoto (Mar 10, 2013)

Buckster said:


> dragonariesphoto said:
> 
> 
> > because this will be my first where i am the main photographer. they found me from my ad on craigslist in my area, i do not state that i am professional by any means, i just say that i am trying to get my name out there, i focus on lower busget families that cant afford to go to a studio, i mostly do outdoor work but have done a couple inside, the 1 wedding i shot was indoors and i had only my on camera flash, now i have the external one.
> ...



lol at this point i am sorry i asked the way i did, i guess i should have stated or put my links in the original post  i am new to forums all together, was just looking for some feedback i dont have anyone that i can talk to about photography


----------



## Buckster (Mar 10, 2013)

dragonariesphoto said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > dragonariesphoto said:
> ...


Don't take it personally.  It's just kind of a hot-button issue around here.


----------



## dragonariesphoto (Mar 10, 2013)

[/QUOTE]Don't take it personally.  It's just kind of a hot-button issue around here.[/QUOTE]

lol i can see that


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 10, 2013)

dragonariesphoto said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > dragonariesphoto said:
> ...



I promise you, no matter where you ask this question online, you will meet the same wall. In fact, what you saw here is extremely delicate compared to some other forums. I'm afraid this was your best case scenario lol.


----------



## dragonariesphoto (Mar 10, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> dragonariesphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



well even with all the constructive criticism i am glad that i have found this forum


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 10, 2013)

i looked over your FB business page, and I did notice its a lot of baby and maternity with some weddings and portraits. a lot of soft focus issues, a lot of selective coloring, and a lot of shadows that you could probably easily fix by utilizing your speedlight a little better with some modifers. im not saying its all bad however. I think your white balance is decent (maybe needing some minor correcting) and your color isnt bad either. (although i am not a fan of the pics you desaturated, and your B&W conversions lack good contrast. your posing is decent, and has a "lifestyle" look to it. hopefully this is an aesthetic choice by you and not just on accident. I personally prefer (and shoot) more formal posing with backdrops and studio lighting, but again, personal taste. 

equipment wise...since this is really what you were asking about, and sorry it comes late in the thread. 
in MY OPINION you need faster lenses. zooms with a constant f/2.8 aperture. 
if you and your clients are happy with what you are currently producing, then what you have is perfectly adequate. 
however, you will have an easier time getting better results with some faster lenses. you have a good flash, so I hope you are using it. do you do any off camera flash?
you can get amazing results by putting your flash on a stand off to the side of your subject, depending on where the rest of the lighting falls. do you have any diffusers for your flash?
get a good softbox to diffuse and spread out the light a bit if you dont already have one. 
how about a good tripod? for portraits, a good tripod can REALLY help you out. you can use a slower shutter speed, allowing you to use a smaller aperture for a sharper photo, and a lower ISO for less noise.  (also get a remote shutter release) 

if you are feeling the urge to do some upgrading, I recommend upgrading your glass first.  budget wise, grab a tamron or sigma 17-50 f/2.8 and since you already have a 50mm, look at an 85mm f/1.8 (its a great portrait lens)


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 10, 2013)

dragonariesphoto said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > dragonariesphoto said:
> ...




Yes, there are many to learn from here, but there are also a few that can't help with out getting on their soapboxes and lecturing about morals and such first. Luckily that didn't really happen in this thread, but it could have been way worse. You handled yourself well.


----------



## dragonariesphoto (Mar 10, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> i looked over your FB business page, and I did notice its a lot of baby and maternity with some weddings and portraits. a lot of soft focus issues, a lot of selective coloring, and a lot of shadows that you could probably easily fix by utilizing your speedlight a little better with some modifers. im not saying its all bad however. I think your white balance is decent (maybe needing some minor correcting) and your color isnt bad either. (although i am not a fan of the pics you desaturated, and your B&W conversions lack good contrast. your posing is decent, and has a "lifestyle" look to it. hopefully this is an aesthetic choice by you and not just on accident. I personally prefer (and shoot) more formal posing with backdrops and studio lighting, but again, personal taste.
> 
> equipment wise...since this is really what you were asking about, and sorry it comes late in the thread.
> in MY OPINION you need faster lenses. zooms with a constant f/2.8 aperture.
> ...



i haven't had the speedlight for very long, it was a Christmas gift

i have the diffuser that goes over the flash for my speedlight

yes i try to get natural shots, and i am a bigger fan of outdoors with natural light, as u can see i have not done alot of indoor shoots

i have 2 good tripods

i have a remote also

thanks for the lens suggestions


----------



## dragonariesphoto (Mar 10, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> dragonariesphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...



thank you, i try not to be a judgmental person and a good listener and take constructive criticism, i believe that in life that is how you learn, but sometimes too much negativity gets me defensive


----------



## ronlane (Mar 10, 2013)

OP, I am in OKC area. If you are in this area and are considering faster glass, then go to Baker Photo and Video in Yukon and see about renting from them for this event. Hank and the crew are a good source for rental here in OK and are very helpful.


----------



## Tony S (Mar 10, 2013)

Hang around here and don't get discouraged. You will find that in the long run the comments here are to try to help you out, just put on your thick skin, don't take anything personal, and find a way to always take something from a thread that you can use later to help you improve.  Also, don't be shy about adding in your thoughts on questions or comments about other peoples work. Sometimes you can learn a lot by looking at other work and commenting or finding out what someone was thinking to get to the point they were when they took a picture.


----------



## ianivey (Mar 10, 2013)

Pixmedic mentioned the Tamron 17-50 mm f/2.8 (you want the VC version) -- which you can rent -- and I'd second that. Having that for the wedding day (and frankly, if you can afford to pop for a new lens, in general) likely will significantly improve your results.


----------



## ronlane (Mar 10, 2013)

Tony S said:


> Hang around here and don't get discouraged. You will find that in the long run the comments here are to try to help you out, just put on your thick skin, don't take anything personal, and find a way to always take something from a thread that you can use later to help you improve.  Also, don't be shy about adding in your thoughts on questions or comments about other peoples work. Sometimes you can learn a lot by looking at other work and commenting or finding out what someone was thinking to get to the point they were when they took a picture.



Hang around here long enough and you'll get think skin even if you didn't have it before.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 10, 2013)

Tony S said:


> You will find that in the long run the comments here are to try to help you out



The sad thing is, this isn't true all the time. Many times, you'll get members who have no idea what they are talking about critiquing, giving advice, putting down other members etc, all to get their voice heard.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 10, 2013)

If you have someone who can act as your assistant, consider putting that off camera flash on a stick in their hands, with an umbrella to soften the light (like this).  The advantage of the assistant is huge in that you can quickly have the off camera light re-positioned by just telling the assistant where to stand, how high to hold it, where to point it, etc.  The advantage with the umbrella is that you won't have such harsh shadows and lines in play on or behind your subjects.

Find some videos of David Ziser to get some ideas on this.  Here's one:


----------



## ronlane (Mar 10, 2013)

Buckster, good video and addition to this thread. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 10, 2013)

ronlane said:


> Buckster, good video and addition to this thread. Thanks for sharing.



+1 ditto


----------



## Designer (Mar 10, 2013)

dragonariesphoto said:


> i haven't had the speedlight for very long, it was a Christmas gift
> 
> i have the diffuser that goes over the flash for my speedlight
> 
> ...



At the wedding, presumably indoors, you need to aim the speedlight at the ceiling, or a nearby wall to "bounce" the light off a much larger surface.  The relatively small diffuser still only has an effective area of only a few square inches, which, although somewhat diffused, could still appear harsh, especially when the flash is in the hotshoe pointed straight at the subjects.  Bouncing the light will soften the light quite a bit.

Outdoor light is naturally soft and diffuse, which is why you like it so much.

You might be able to turn one of your tripods into a light stand.  If you set your flash to "slave" function, and place a large white umbrella in front of the flash, you will get a fairly large white light, which will be soft.  Your built-in flash can be the trigger to fire the speedlight, but be sure to modify that flash as well.

If your camera is on a tripod for the group pictures, use the remote to release the shutter.  That way, your full attention can be directed toward the group of people where you can watch everybody's eyes.  When everyone is looking, trip the shutter.

This works fine for single portraits as well, but once again, modify the BI flash.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 10, 2013)

Just looked at your facebook page.

The pictures are not the worst I've seen, but I'd rate them at just above a complete amateur.  You're doing some good things... filling the frame with the subject, not dead-centering everything, etc.  You've got some of the right ideas.  However, lots of focus issues, lots of quality issues that are probably part you and part your gear, popped flashes in people's faces, cliche processing, poor lighting, etc.

In short, you're not ready.  Not even close.

I also choked when I saw your valentines prices.  $40-50?  For 1.5 hours, 15 edits, etc?  If you're a SPEED DEMON you're making maybe $15 an hour at those rates.  That's crazy, man.  Better than McDonalds, sure, but yeesh.  I bet if you factor in all your time (and ignoring equipment costs, gas money, etc.) you're probably making $7-10 an hour.  Throw gas money and such into that and you're probably making $5.  Better off at McDonalds at that point.

Like a million other people who have come on here, posted about this, gotten bashed, and moved on to do it anyway... you may be fine, you may not.  The couple you shoot may love the results, they may hate them.  People aren't as clued in as we snobby photographers about what does and doesn't make a good photo.  Many people won't even notice focus issues and such, but get one that does, and you could be in a bad bad spot... and what's more is you could wreck someone's memories of their "special day".  Is it going to ruin your life? No.  Theirs? No.  However, how would you feel if it happened to you?  How would you feel if you were responsible for it happening to someone else?

The simple fact is your pictures are NOT going to be very good.  You're too inexperienced.  And no, this isn't a point for debate.  This is a fact.  The pictures on your facebook page are almost undoubtedly your best... and they're mostly not great, some verging on fairly bad.  So, you're going to go shoot a wedding and shoot between 500 and 2000 pictures, and you're going to walk away with probably 5-10 that are "not horrible", and probably get 2-3 pretty decent ones.   That's just not cool.

Not to mention I'm not even getting into the stress of the wedding that has NOTHING to do with the pictures.  Imagine a priest or pastor who suddenly gets in your face telling you that you can't do this or that with your camera in his church.  Are you ready for that?  What about a drunken bride or groom who won't cooperate?  Do you knnow what to do there?  What about the mom or relative who is dictating what you do and forcing you to do things you know won't work?  Ready for that?  How about when everything is late and everyone is rushed?  What about when one of the guests starts coming on to you?  I mean it just goes on and on and on.

And what about equipment failure?  Does your camera have the capability to write pictures redundantly?  Do you have an extra body in case yours fails?  Do you know how many flahes you can get out of that battery pack?  Do you know how many you need?  What happens when you can't USE a flash because you're in a church?  How is the ISO handling on that camera you're using?  Do you have the right focal lengths?  What focal lengths will you need?

You need to seriously step back and rethink this.  You're seriously in WAY over your head.

Will you be ready for this someday?  Certainly!

Today is not the day.  You've got at least a couple years of very hard work and practice ahead of you, and if you're like a lot of people, you're looking at 5+.

I'm just being honest with you.  Take it for what it is.


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 10, 2013)

OP, I would seriously consider redesigning your watermark also, if you truly want to appear professional. The large red DAP with the tribal style dragon around it is a bit much, especially when you allow it to take up a large part of the images. Consider something a little more elegant, less garish!


----------



## dragonariesphoto (Mar 10, 2013)

ronlane said:


> OP, I am in OKC area. If you are in this area and are considering faster glass, then go to Baker Photo and Video in Yukon and see about renting from them for this event. Hank and the crew are a good source for rental here in OK and are very helpful.



thank you, i will check them out!


----------



## dragonariesphoto (Mar 10, 2013)

Buckster said:


> If you have someone who can act as your assistant, consider putting that off camera flash on a stick in their hands, with an umbrella to soften the light (like this).  The advantage of the assistant is huge in that you can quickly have the off camera light re-positioned by just telling the assistant where to stand, how high to hold it, where to point it, etc.  The advantage with the umbrella is that you won't have such harsh shadows and lines in play on or behind your subjects.
> 
> Find some videos of David Ziser to get some ideas on this.  Here's one:



i do have a friend going as an assistant and so i wouldn't be alone, that's a great idea!


----------



## dragonariesphoto (Mar 10, 2013)

Designer said:


> dragonariesphoto said:
> 
> 
> > i haven't had the speedlight for very long, it was a Christmas gift
> ...



thanks for the tips, i think that will help alot


----------



## dragonariesphoto (Mar 10, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> OP, I would seriously consider redesigning your watermark also, if you truly want to appear professional. The large red DAP with the tribal style dragon around it is a bit much, especially when you allow it to take up a large part of the images. Consider something a little more elegant, less garish!



the watermark is just for online purposes to protect my images, when a customer gets their prints, its not on there at all


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 10, 2013)

dragonariesphoto said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > OP, I would seriously consider redesigning your watermark also, if you truly want to appear professional. The large red DAP with the tribal style dragon around it is a bit much, especially when you allow it to take up a large part of the images. Consider something a little more elegant, less garish!
> ...



Very easily removed! If you want protection.. do something like a low opacity DAP in white, from one corner all across the image diagonally... nearly impossible to remove without a ton of work, and yet is not near as distracting either. But would prevent any prints being made by any reputable print lab.

Like This....


----------



## kathyt (Mar 10, 2013)

Your positive attitude is really going to help you in this forum, because some of us can be a bit harsh. If you can survive...you will grow.  Honestly, I would say you are not ready for this wedding, (I looked at your site), BUT I really think you should continue to second shoot to improve your skills. I am a wedding photographer, and it is HARD even with the best of gear.


----------



## Designer (Mar 10, 2013)

Aww.. Triplets, Charlie, and they're ADORABLE!


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 10, 2013)

Designer said:


> Aww.. Triplets, Charlie, and they're ADORABLE!



hahaha... that is actually a triple exposure I shot on film, back in the mid 80's! A friend's little girl had a Rainbow Brite doll she asked me to shoot, so I did. lol!


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Mar 10, 2013)

2.5 years ago i got my cam.  Instant pro!


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 11, 2013)

dragonariesphoto said:


> because this will be my first where i am the main photographer. they found me from my ad on craigslist in my area, i do not state that i am professional by any means, i just say that i am trying to get my name out there, i focus on lower busget families that cant afford to go to a studio, i mostly do outdoor work but have done a couple inside, the 1 wedding i shot was indoors and i had only my on camera flash, now i have the external one.
> 
> i am being paid to do this but not much, basically just travel time and editing, im not going to state how much because personally i dont think i should.
> 
> ...



Google good lenses for weddings. I suggest the Canon 50 1.4 and the mentioned Tamron.

Also; if you don't consider yourself to be a professional then I would consider reusing your About Me page on your website.


----------



## katerolla (Mar 11, 2013)

I just had a quick look at your website and your packages, wow you are cheap, how do you make money?


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 11, 2013)

katerolla said:


> I just had a quick look at your website and your packages, wow you are cheap, how do you make money?



I don't think the op is planning on making a living from photography, or is using this money as a sole source of income, but more of an amateur with a camera trying to make a few extra dollars, "few" being the big word.  When these type of camera owners jump into playing business, they see a cheque at the end, but never factor in all the expenses that got them the cheque. 

Cheque is for $75, but there are $100 in throw away and hidden expences, doesn't matter though, they are holding a cheque for $75.


----------



## Designer (Mar 11, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> 2.5 years ago i got my cam.  Instant pro!



Ah, the man with the real triplets!  

I enjoyed reading about your decision to become a wedding photographer.


----------



## ABJayce (Mar 11, 2013)

I haven't done a wedding before but have been asked a few times. I finally accepted to do one for a friend NEXT June as in 2014 lol. They are well aware that while I take good photographs that I've never done a wedding before. So this year I plan on shadowing/assisting a few wedding photographers around the DC area to see what goes down in this scene. Maybe you should think about going the same route? Hit up some local photographers if you have time before the wedding. You have the lense range covered but don't know about all the other equipment needed, do you know the venue, etc etc. I photographer that has done weddings could probably shoot one on very limited equipment and have it come out perfect. But someone that hasn't done one before would probably want to bring the armory.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 11, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> katerolla said:
> 
> 
> > I just had a quick look at your website and your packages, wow you are cheap, how do you make money?
> ...



Take out photography and camera and you can use this sentence for literally any hobby/trade. If you don't have any experience or training in business, you're not going to know that there are expenses to do a job. I've never shot professionally, but I know that there are expenses and fees to do jobs.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 11, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> katerolla said:
> 
> 
> > I just had a quick look at your website and your packages, wow you are cheap, how do you make money?
> ...



I've always found this intriguing. I think it all comes down to what she might spend her time doing if she wasn't shooting this wedding.

If I hadn't shot the wedding I did, I probably would've spent that time shooting something. I'd have driven myself to wherever I wanted to be, using my gas and wear and tear on my vehicle. I'd have spent my time shooting which would constitute wear and tear on my equipment. I would spend hours in front of the computer editing, which would constitute my time. 

Either way, I'd have been shooting that afternoon. The only difference ended up being what I shot, and that it was actually putting money in my pocket...


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 11, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Usagani Photography | Our own wedding photography nightmare



It's been said that my one very successful wedding shoot is nothing more than anecdotal and, for that reason, isn't really worthy of consideration.

How is the example linked above not also anecdotal?

Again, I think there are far more success stories than horror stories. The reason we hear more about the horror stories is that they're more fun to read about...


----------



## kathyt (Mar 11, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > Usagani Photography | Our own wedding photography nightmare
> ...



Steve, quit being so casual when it comes to weddings! If you were a girl you would understand. This is a once in a lifetime, (or 2, 3, 4, ....) opportunity for a young woman to put on that dress and have her moment. Give her the gosh darn moment and some amazing pictures! Weddings are not a Sunday brunch.  Stop encouraging these shenanigans! (all in fun here, all in fun....)


----------



## ronlane (Mar 11, 2013)

Dang it, the poor have a right to have their weddings recorded too. Not every wedding has a $5,000 budget, let alone that just for the photographer. (Wow, that sounds like a Democrat, lol).

That being said, who is going to shoot these weddings for nothing or close to it? Not everyone can afford Robin or Kathy or Steve to do a great job photographing their wedding. And I wouldn't dare ask them to shoot a wedding for free or a deep discount.

There is a market there that needs serviced. Who's going to or supposed to fill this need/demand?

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't do it at this time because I realize how important of an event it is to them and I don't want to be responsible for screwing it up. (I have a ton to learn before I could even think about that.)


----------



## Double H (Mar 11, 2013)

Between this far-too-lengthy thread, the one about newbies killing the biz, and some other one recently, I'd say there seems to be a whole lot of folks on here who feel the need to validate their own level of photographic know-how, and competence therein.


----------



## ronlane (Mar 11, 2013)

Double H said:


> Between this far-too-lengthy thread, the one about newbies killing the biz, and some other one recently, I'd say there seems to be a whole lot of folks on here who feel the need to validate their own level of photographic know-how, and competence therein.



Interesting take on it.


----------



## kathyt (Mar 11, 2013)

ronlane said:


> Dang it, the poor have a right to have their weddings recorded too. Not every wedding has a $5,000 budget, let alone that just for the photographer. (Wow, that sounds like a Democrat, lol).
> 
> That being said, who is going to shoot these weddings for nothing or close to it? Not everyone can afford Robin or Kathy or Steve to do a great job photographing their wedding. And I wouldn't dare ask them to shoot a wedding for free or a deep discount.
> 
> ...



STOP in the name of love! You can market yourself to whomever you wish and price yourself accordingly. That is my whole point. You can do extremely well doing so, BUT you have to have a plan in place prior to whipping out the, "Sure I can shoot your wedding card." There is a market for every budget. Just because a bride doesn't have a large budget doesn't mean she should get a completely unexperienced photographer. She just might not get the most sought after.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 11, 2013)

ronlane said:


> Dang it, the poor have a right to have their weddings recorded too. Not every wedding has a $5,000 budget, let alone that just for the photographer. (Wow, that sounds like a Democrat, lol).
> 
> That being said, who is going to shoot these weddings for nothing or close to it? Not everyone can afford Robin or Kathy or Steve to do a great job photographing their wedding. And I wouldn't dare ask them to shoot a wedding for free or a deep discount.
> 
> ...



Before I shot the one wedding I did, I was told by so-called "pros" that I should decline; that the couple should be "forced" to hire a "professional". After I shot it, I was lambasted because I "stole" a job from a local "pro". When I asked one self-proclaimed "pro" criticizing me if a "pro" would've shot the wedding for six hundred bucks, he said "Of course not!". When I told him the couple could only afford six hundred bucks, he was at a loss to then explain how I "stole" anything from anybody, but he still insisted I had. He was adamant that I shouldn't have shot it, and even went so far as to suggest that, if the couple couldn't afford a "pro", that they shouldn't have photos from their wedding.

He was critical not only of me shooting the wedding, but also of the photos I'd posted. When I asked to see examples of his work, he admitted that he hadn't actually shot any weddings yet. He had nothing. No experience. No portfolio. Nothing.

My experience, with the aforementioned clown and with others, is that those who are the most critical are the ones who couldn't get hired to take passport photos.

Look at it this way: If someone asks "Can a Ford Pinto win the Indy 500?", it doesn't matter if the person asking is my next door neighbor or Bobby Unser, because the reality is that a Ford Pinto _can't _win the Indy 500, _regardless _of who's behind the wheel.

Debating whether or not the OP should do it is meaningless, simply because she's already made that decision. So, now the only thing left is to be either helpful or unhelpful, and address the question that was actually asked...


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 11, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > Dang it, the poor have a right to have their weddings recorded too. Not every wedding has a $5,000 budget, let alone that just for the photographer. (Wow, that sounds like a Democrat, lol).
> ...



The experience question is meaningless here. This is a question which pertains only to equipment. Can a successful wedding shoot be performed with the equipment listed? 

Period. 

Being critical of the person asking it is nothing more than an admission that you simply don't know the answer to the question...


----------



## flashgangster (Mar 11, 2013)

I only shoot weddings for people who have been referred to me and when I can't avoid it. Weddings are tough. I will give you this advice:

Bring many small storage cards. Don't jump in there with a single 16 gig card. If it fails, you're screwed. Bring a bunch of 1 gigs. Shoot formals on one, set-ups on one, etc.

You have two bodies. That's a good thing. Check your ISO and the like several times throughout the event.

Have a good contact at the event. Someone who can round up all of the people you need, when you need them.

If they have a DJ, get to know him/her well before the event. You and the DJ run the show (unless they hired a wedding planner, but I'm betting they didn't). If they didn't hire a DJ, run. Run fast. Whatever you're making for this, it's not enough.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 11, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Before I shot the one wedding I did, I was told by so-called "pros" that I should decline; that the couple should be "forced" to hire a "professional". After I shot it, I was lambasted because I "stole" a job from a local "pro". When I asked one self-proclaimed "pro" criticizing me if a "pro" would've shot the wedding for six hundred bucks, he said "Of course not!". When I told him the couple could only afford six hundred bucks, he was at a loss to then explain how I "stole" anything from anybody, but he still insisted I had. He was adamant that I shouldn't have shot it, and even went so far as to suggest that, if the couple couldn't afford a "pro", that they shouldn't have photos from their wedding.
> 
> He was critical not only of me shooting the wedding, but also of the photos I'd posted. When I asked to see examples of his work, he admitted that he hadn't actually shot any weddings yet. He had nothing. No experience. No portfolio. Nothing.
> 
> ...



Totally fair but I think you're focusing more on the price issue and less on the skills issue and preparedness issue.

Yeah, I think charging so little is crazy, but that's probably because I'm a limited time kind of guy and I can make more per hour with many things that I do.  Not always the case for everyone, so possibly less of a concern.

However, having neither technical competence or preparedness to handle all the complexities of a wedding and shooting one is the real problem here.  You had a good experience (good point on the anecdote, btw- I didn't miss that), but from what I understand you know your gear and you're not exactly wet behind the ears in life.  You were maybe better equipped to handle this from the get go than the OP.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 11, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> The experience question is meaningless here. This is a question which pertains only to equipment. Can a successful wedding shoot be performed with the equipment listed?
> 
> Period.


Then the question is simply, "will this camera and lens take a picture".  The answer to that oversimplification is, of course, "yes".

But that doesn't really answer the foundational question underlying it: Can this camera and lens be used to shoot A WEDDING, and that's an oversimplification of the REAL QUESTION: Can this camera and lens be used to make wedding photos worthy of that genre?  And THAT is where the experience question DOES come into play.

Put that camera and lens in the hands of a 5 year old who's never used one before, and the answer is an emphatic "NO!" - regardless of the fact that photos CAN be made using that gear.

Put that camera and lens in the hands of David Ziser though, and the answer is an emphatic "YES!" because he's got the experience to work even inferior gear and get good results.

The difference IS EXPERIENCE, and the photographer's experience is the most important piece of "gear" there is in photography.  It's the software between the ears that drives the whole thing, and without those photographic experience programs stored away in the ol' gray-matter-hard-drive, you get crap, no matter how good the gear is.

This is not a reflection of the OP's capabilities, by the way.  She has the experience she has and if that proves to be enough for her clients, then it's enough.  Same with you Steve - your photographic experience prior to shooting that first wedding proved to be enough to pull off that job.

But that doesn't mean everyone has the background photographic experience necessary to pull off a wedding shoot, no matter how good the gear is.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 11, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > The experience question is meaningless here. This is a question which pertains only to equipment. Can a successful wedding shoot be performed with the equipment listed?
> ...



I'm curious as to what _is_ worthy of that genre. In other words, where is the line drawn from unacceptable to acceptable?


----------



## Buckster (Mar 11, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...


I think that's ultimately up to the client.  It sucks if they draw that line AFTER the shoot, AFTER the big day is over and can't be repeated, AFTER the dress is trashed - and decide that the results are totally unacceptable.

I think that the chances of that happening when the photographer has a strong photographic background and knowledge base are slimmer than the chances of it happening if the photographer is a noob who just got their first DSLR and a kit lens for Christmas and hasn't had the time or experience to work out the posing, lighting, composition, etc. that would render the shoot and the results as a whole "acceptable".

That said, photographers familiar with photographic standards certainly have an opinion on what is acceptable, and that can often differ from a client's expectations.  It's no secret that around here, we'd notice things about photos that a client (or noob shooter) likely never would, and we might find them unacceptable whereas they do not, because we have a deeper photographic knowledge base and therefor higher expectations than the average bride.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Mar 11, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



It's kind of a floating target. because what may be a nice line that works out for one person who has a backyard shoot in great lighting where basic equipment is the only thing needed and the buyers expectations are low is diffrent then a dark church wedding where the expectations may be high. 

When the target is moving and someone asks the question it's safer to err on the don't do it side then the hey go for it, what can happen. so much in photography can be redone. weddings can't


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 11, 2013)

manaheim said:


> However, having neither technical competence or preparedness to handle all the complexities of a wedding and shooting one is the real problem here.  You had a good experience (good point on the anecdote, btw- I didn't miss that), but from what I understand you know your gear and you're not exactly wet behind the ears in life.  You were maybe better equipped to handle this from the get go than the OP.



Actually, I had to ask if what I had was enough to do the job, and the answer was "no"; I didn't have anything considered wide enough. I went out and rented a 16-35mm, and all was right with the world.

But my expertise in shooting a wedding was absolutely nil...


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 11, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Period.


Then the question is simply, "will this camera and lens take a picture".  The answer to that oversimplification is, of course, "yes".[/quote]

But that's just the thing. It's not an over-simplification of anything. It's exactly the question that was asked...



> But that doesn't really answer the foundational question underlying it: Can this camera and lens be used to shoot A WEDDING, and that's an oversimplification of the REAL QUESTION: Can this camera and lens be used to make wedding photos worthy of that genre?  And THAT is where the experience question DOES come into play.



Perhaps it does.

But if you put A.J. Foyt in a Yugo, and you put me in his Indy car, I'll beat him, every time. Experience will mean completely nothing.

But the point is that the question was, quite simply, gear related. I'm not saying that experience can't be discussed, I'm saying that it does absolutely nothing to address the question and, therefore, is completely unhelpful as it pertains to answering the question.

You have to stop reading so much into things...



> But that doesn't mean everyone has the background photographic experience necessary to pull off a wedding shoot, no matter how good the gear is.



Could you direct me to where the question of "photographic experience" was brought up?

I've never shot a bullfight before. If I ask "Is my 24-70mm sufficient to shoot a bullfight with?", the answer would probably be "no". Does that mean I have no business shooting a bullfight? No, it doesn't. It means I'll use my 70-200mm, or rent something longer, and go shoot a bullfight.

Whether the OP has the experience to do it or not isn't what she was asking. Is the gear capable of it.

The answer, by your own admission, is an emphatic YES...


----------



## Buckster (Mar 11, 2013)

Steve, what camera can NOT be used for a wedding?


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 11, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Steve, what camera can NOT be used for a wedding?



Would you attempt to shoot a wedding with a pinhole camera?

Me neither.

What if someone asks "Is a Digital Rebel and a Quantary 1200mm lens sufficient to shoot a wedding with?" Well, clearly, the answer is "no", unless you happen to be shooting in bright daylight from the other side of town.

Realistically, could the equipment listed in the OP be used to shoot a wedding?

The answer is "yes"...


----------



## Greiver (Mar 11, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > Dang it, the poor have a right to have their weddings recorded too. Not every wedding has a $5,000 budget, let alone that just for the photographer. (Wow, that sounds like a Democrat, lol).
> ...


Sounds like just another egotist, all self-justified complaining when he doesn't get the job and no logic.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 11, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Steve, what camera can NOT be used for a wedding?


This might not be my first choice....


----------



## Buckster (Mar 11, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Steve, what camera can NOT be used for a wedding?
> ...


Technically, either the pinhole camera or the Digital Rebel and a Quantary 1200mm _*could*_ be used to shoot photos of a wedding.  You or I might not do it, but that doesn't mean someone else wouldn't.  I've been to weddings where the only cameras were disposable cardboard ones at every table, and the bride got snapshots.  I guess that was good enough for that couple, so cardboard disposable cameras are therefore proven good enough for wedding photography.

In point of fact, if the sole criteria is that it can make photos, and quality doesn't matter, then the question, "is this gear good enough" is moot, because they can all make photos.

Of course, anyone with a brain and common sense knows that's an oversimplification of the actual question being asked, like I said.

But you stick to your guns on this one Steve.  It's fun to watch.


----------



## Greiver (Mar 11, 2013)

tirediron said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Steve, what camera can NOT be used for a wedding?
> ...


If the wedding is 4 days long that could be adequate.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 11, 2013)

Greiver said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...


Or, if the bride said, "I want just 6 particular shots, and I want them done with THAT camera."


----------



## tirediron (Mar 11, 2013)

I think we're trying to split hairs between what is _*theoretically *_possible and what is reasonable.  Granted, it is theoretically possible to photograph a wedding with any device which will expose focused light onto a recording medium, but there are certain limitations to what is reasonable, and I would submit that pin-hole cameras, 16x20 view cameras and cameras with 1200mm Quantary lenses, while they could do the job, are not reasonable equipment with which to shoot an average wedding.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 11, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Technically, either the pinhole camera or the Digital Rebel and a Quantary 1200mm _*could*_ be used to shoot photos of a wedding.  You or I might not do it, but that doesn't mean someone else wouldn't.  I've been to weddings where the only cameras were disposable cardboard ones at every table, and the bride got snapshots.  I guess that was good enough for that couple, so cardboard disposable cameras are therefore proven good enough for wedding photography.



Okay, you've officially left the reservation, I see, and wish to argue from a position of extreme silliness instead of realistically discussing the topic.

_Realistically_, no one will use a Digital Rebel and a 1200mm Quantary lens to shoot a wedding. Realistically, someone with the gear listed in the OP very well could. If you ever find yourself enjoying a passing relationship with "realistically", perhaps you'll acknowledge that...


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 11, 2013)

tirediron said:


> I think we're trying to split hairs between what is _*theoretically *_possible and what is reasonable.  Granted, it is theoretically possible to photograph a wedding with any device which will expose focused light onto a recording medium, but there are certain limitations to what is reasonable, and I would submit that pin-hole cameras, 16x20 view cameras and cameras with 1200mm Quantary lenses, while they could do the job, are not reasonable equipment with which to shoot an average wedding.



I can paint your wedding photos for the right price Tirediron:greenpbl:


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 11, 2013)

tirediron said:


> I think we're trying to split hairs between what is _*theoretically *_possible and what is reasonable.  Granted, it is theoretically possible to photograph a wedding with any device which will expose focused light onto a recording medium, but there are certain limitations to what is reasonable, and I would submit that pin-hole cameras, 16x20 view cameras and cameras with 1200mm Quantary lenses, while they could do the job, are not reasonable equipment with which to shoot an average wedding.



Hey, can we dispense with the common sense, please?

After all, there are hissy-fits to be had...


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 11, 2013)

I have to be honest, I laugh at people who feel so full of themselves that they're completely comfortable offering up unsolicited advice on a subject they were never asked about...


----------



## Buckster (Mar 11, 2013)

tirediron said:


> I think we're trying to split hairs between what is _*theoretically *_possible and what is reasonable.  Granted, it is theoretically possible to photograph a wedding with any device which will expose focused light onto a recording medium, but there are certain limitations to what is reasonable, and I would submit that pin-hole cameras, 16x20 view cameras and cameras with 1200mm Quantary lenses, while they could do the job, are not reasonable equipment with which to shoot an average wedding.


And I would similarly submit that using someone with little or no photographic knowledge for wedding photography, while they could do the job, is unreasonable, regardless of the gear.  Knowledge and experience makes enough of a difference that it needs to be factored into the oft-oversimplified "gear" question.

As far as I'm concerned, the photographer's brain and all the photographic knowledge and experience it contains, is part of the gear used.  If you don't believe it, just try shooting a wedding without one and see what happens.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 11, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> _Realistically_, no one will use a Digital Rebel and a 1200mm Quantary lens to shoot a wedding.


That doesn't mean it _*can't*_ be done.  Since it *can* be done, that gear *can* be used.  That said, if someone came in and asked if if _*can*_ be used, not, "is it ideal" or "is it recommended", just "_*can*_ it be used", you'd have to answer with a simple, but emphatic, "YES!!!"

Hey, it's your rule, not mine.


----------



## Greiver (Mar 11, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Greiver said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...


Lots of weird people out there.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 11, 2013)

Greiver said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Greiver said:
> ...


Got that right...


----------



## Greiver (Mar 11, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Greiver said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...


I work at a grocery store, I've seen some things....>_<


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 11, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > _Realistically_, no one will use a Digital Rebel and a 1200mm Quantary lens to shoot a wedding.
> ...



Okay, I guess I have to talk slow.

REALISTICALLY, could a small wedding be successfully photographed with the equipment listed in the OP?

REALISTICALLY, could a small wedding be successfully photographed with a Digital Rebel and a 1200mm Quantary lens? 

REALISTICALLY, the answer to the first question is "yes", and the answer to the second question is "no".

You appear to be having some issues wrapping your head around what's "realistic" and what's not, though, so we'll give you a pass on this one...


----------



## Buckster (Mar 11, 2013)

REALISTICALLY, it _*COULD*_.  The small wedding could be outside on a nice sunny day, in a park with lots of room for the photographer to back up.  The bokeh would be stunning.

In addition, the OP didn't use the qualifier, "REALISTICALLY".  You made that up all on your own, which you just admonished others for: Answering questions that weren't specifically asked.

You lose, sir.


----------



## Greiver (Mar 11, 2013)

Dorothy581 said:


> Is it just me or does everyone assume that the majority of new wedding photographers are all men


It's just you.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 11, 2013)

Greiver said:


> It's just you.


You'er replying to a spammer, whom I've already reported.


----------



## Greiver (Mar 11, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Greiver said:
> 
> 
> > It's just you.
> ...


I was not aware of such. *attaches a sticky note to my laptop* Thanks for that. (not sarcasm)


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 11, 2013)

Greiver said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Greiver said:
> ...


 When you usually see a reply with a bunch of broken images at the end, it's usually a spammer.


----------



## Greiver (Mar 11, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> Greiver said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...


I didn't see any broken images.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 11, 2013)

Greiver said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > Greiver said:
> ...


Sometimes they're broken, sometimes they're just smilies from another web site.  The messages they post are always copied from some previous post in the thread.  And the user names have a number on the end - probably the number of times they've spammed this forum over time.  Each time they get banned, they come back with a new name and number, almost every evening.


----------



## Greiver (Mar 11, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Greiver said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...


There was nothing at the end that i saw. Good to know though.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 11, 2013)

A new member has to post X number of times before their images show up, I believe.


----------



## Greiver (Mar 11, 2013)

Buckster said:


> A new member has to post X number of times before their images show up, I believe.


Solid forum rule.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 11, 2013)

Greiver said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Greiver said:
> ...


I think there's more in here...  :crazy:


----------



## Greiver (Mar 11, 2013)

tirediron said:


> Greiver said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...


Well this is the internet. :lmao:


----------



## dragonariesphoto (Mar 11, 2013)

just an fyi, i found a 40d that will be here by friday


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 12, 2013)

dragonariesphoto said:


> just an fyi, i found a 40d that will be here by friday



Good for you. I think you'll be happy with that. I shot my one wedding with a 20D...


----------



## Buckster (Mar 12, 2013)

dragonariesphoto said:


> just an fyi, i found a 40d that will be here by friday


Great camera!  I've still got my 40D as a backup.


----------



## dragonariesphoto (Mar 12, 2013)

Buckster said:


> dragonariesphoto said:
> 
> 
> > just an fyi, i found a 40d that will be here by friday
> ...



awesome!


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 12, 2013)

I still have my 40D as a backup, as well.

I'm a tad partial to the 5D, though...


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 12, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> I still have my 40D as a backup, as well.
> 
> I'm a tad partial to the 5D, though...



I wasn't too impressed with the 5D Classic. I recently helped photograph a wedding and I almost exclusively used my 1D Mark II. The colors seem so much more accurate than my 6D or any other camera I've ever used.

It's just so damn good at capturing the scene exactly how I want it to. I think it ha to do with all of the Canon Picture Styles BS


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 13, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> I wasn't too impressed with the 5D Classic. I recently helped photograph a wedding and I almost exclusively used my 1D Mark II. The colors seem so much more accurate than my 6D or any other camera I've ever used.



I've not used a 1D Mk Anything, but I'd imagine they're pretty good.  

Honestly, the only thing I don't like about the 40D is the viewfinder. It just seems so damn tiny compared to the 5D. I never realized it until I started shooting with a full frame. It's a real chore for me to go back to the 40D, simply because it's a crop. I love everything else about it...


----------



## hirejn (Mar 13, 2013)

I'm confused as to why you're wondering whether what you have is enough. It appears you've shot weddings before. Skill is more important than equipment. What you have is plenty. Focus on photography, not equipment.


----------



## manaheim (Mar 13, 2013)

hirejn said:


> I'm confused as to why you're wondering whether what you have is enough. It appears you've shot weddings before. Skill is more important than equipment. What you have is plenty. Focus on photography, not equipment.



Another qualified comment.

Ever shoot in a dark church with a D100 and a kit lens with no flash?  No?  Didn't think so.

Gear matters. Period.


----------



## kokonut (Mar 25, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> Yes you have the equipment to shoot a wedding. It's really just another day in the lives of 2 people that will be looking forward to seeing the great pictures that will last a life time.
> 
> The question should be  Do I have the skills?  But you must, you have accepted a shoot that you are getting paid for, and you have come to highest photo forum on the internet to ask  for advice so you don't accidentally walk into a situation that you are unprepared for. You're all set now.  Ready, Shoot, Aim.



I totally agree with that opinion. It is not only the equipement, it is the skills. You have to shoot and capture et the best moments. You need to be discreet et capture not only pictures of portaits but also details. That make the difference. i am not a wedding photographer but that is what I would like to have in my wedding photographs.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 25, 2013)

almost the end of the month. I am wondering if we are going to see any of the results of this wedding shoot. 
to be honest, I am very curious to see how it turned out.


----------



## Mully (Mar 25, 2013)

^^^^^^^^ Me too!


----------



## KmH (Mar 25, 2013)

Buckster said:


> A new member has to post X number of times before their images show up, I believe.


There is no restriction.


----------



## dragonariesphoto (Mar 25, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> almost the end of the month. I am wondering if we are going to see any of the results of this wedding shoot.
> to be honest, I am very curious to see how it turned out.



in my opinion i think it turned out awful... but the couple was happy with the results and had no complaints so i guess it went well. you all were absolutely right about the low light, it was terrible  i am definitely looking into getting a better lens before i ever agree to do another wedding.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 25, 2013)

dragonariesphoto said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > almost the end of the month. I am wondering if we are going to see any of the results of this wedding shoot.
> ...



the fact that you recognize the issues you had, and are willing to be unhappy with the results even though the clients seemed OK with them is actually a good thing. (for you) it gives you some insight on what equipment you need and why you need it, as well as skills you may need to improve before the next one. weddings can be a very humbling experience for unprepared photographers. 

I would recommend you post a few of the photos you think turned out the best of what you took, and maybe we can help fine tune your future equipment choices  and techniques.


----------



## dragonariesphoto (Mar 25, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> dragonariesphoto said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



they are on my facebook page, under j and s wedding


----------



## cgipson1 (Mar 25, 2013)

This one? https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.572062306145871.1073741827.274945709190867&type=1


----------



## vintagesnaps (Mar 25, 2013)

I think low light can make for challenging conditions for photography, and along with looking into different lenses you might need to think about your exposure settings, how you're framing and composing images, noticing details and backgrounds, etc. 

I think once you start accepting payment for your work that brings a certain expectation and obligation of being able to produce professional quality results, and I think it takes time and practice to be able to learn to do that consistently.


----------



## Tee (Mar 25, 2013)

OP: best of luck to you.  Don't forget to pay your taxes.  My buddy's wife was recently pinched by the taxman even though she made the same claims as you.  As far as equipment goes, if that's all you have then you gotta do what you gotta do.  I'm assuming there's another member of the household bringing in the Benjamin's in which I'd suggest you start saving what little you're making and invest in hands on classes and workshops.


----------



## dragonariesphoto (Mar 25, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> This one? https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.572062306145871.1073741827.274945709190867&type=1



yes


----------



## manaheim (Mar 25, 2013)

Wow.  I know this is harsh, but those are really pretty bad.

You need more than gear before you go do another one of these.

Please go apprentice with another photographer for a while.

You're quite fortunate the couple is happy.  I seriously would have been taking you to court over those.


----------



## dragonariesphoto (Mar 25, 2013)

manaheim said:


> Wow.  I know this is harsh, but those are really pretty bad.
> 
> You need more than gear before you go do another one of these.
> 
> ...



i warned you...


----------



## manaheim (Mar 25, 2013)

dragonariesphoto said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. I know this is harsh, but those are really pretty bad.
> ...



Technically, I believe it was _we_ who warned _you._


----------



## dragonariesphoto (Mar 25, 2013)

manaheim said:


> dragonariesphoto said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...



lol touche'


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 25, 2013)

manaheim said:


> dragonariesphoto said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...



To be fair, she has other weddings on her FB page that aren't nearly as bad as this. 
OP, Light is by no means the culprit here. There's so much more here wrong than low light.  
I know that you know they are bad, but why did you tank so hard?

Are the other weddings your photos?


----------



## dragonariesphoto (Mar 25, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > dragonariesphoto said:
> ...



honestly im not sure why i tanked so hard maybe i just pyched myself out too bad  trying to make sure everything you guys had said sank in, i dunno, i didnt even want to post them i thought they were that bad, and tried to tell the couple that, but they were so backwoods that it didnt seem to matter to them 

yes the other wedding was taken by me


----------



## dragonariesphoto (Mar 25, 2013)

i think my main flaw was using the new camera, i didn't really get to mess with it a lot before i used it, i should have just stuck to my t3 that i know all the mechanics of, all i can say is i am not going to put myself in that position again, i will stick to outdoor families and children


----------



## manaheim (Mar 25, 2013)

The problems in those shots had _nothing _to do with the camera.

Seriously.

I'm not saying this just to be mean.  In fact, I've typed and removed a whole bunch of comments that I felt were just too unkind... even though they were totally honest and quite fair.

Even if you avoid weddings going forward, you need a lot of work.  Nothing wrong with that, and I'll tell you that if you stick around here and can keep a thick skin you can learn quite a bit from some folks just on this forum alone.  Read some more books, spend a lot of time looking at other people's work and generally analyze what a good photograph is and you'll get there.


----------



## kathyt (Mar 25, 2013)

Holy moses. Yeah, my advice would be to second shoot for at LEAST a year before you try your hand at another wedding. I do give you credit for owning your mistakes and moving forward from here, because you will grow very quickly. It shows your maturity.


----------



## dragonariesphoto (Mar 25, 2013)

thanks


----------



## kokonut (Apr 2, 2013)

I am just curious and I wanted to know if you got paid for this wedding shoots...


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 2, 2013)

kokonut said:


> I am just curious and I wanted to know if you got paid for this wedding shoots...



It was stated that she was being hired, so that would imply that she was being paid.

As critical as some here may be, what matter above all else is that the bride and groom were happy with the photos. They're the ones footin' the bill, after all...


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 2, 2013)

dragonariesphoto said:


> i am being hired to do a small wedding later this month. i currently have this equipment
> 
> Cameras i have: canon rebel eos xs, and canon rebel t3
> Lenses:18-55mm,50mm fixed, 75-300mm, 58mm telephoto, 58mm macro wide angle
> ...



Canon Rebel at a wedding is like riding a Honda Rebel to a Harley bike night


----------



## 12sndsgood (Apr 2, 2013)

dragonariesphoto said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...




But you did post them and owned up to them. and that's a good thing. the abillity to be critical of your own work and want to do better is a good thing. you just need more time behind the camera. working with someone with some good experience to help you grow and get better.


----------



## Buckster (Apr 2, 2013)

2WheelPhoto said:


> Canon Rebel at a wedding is like riding a Honda Rebel to a Harley bike night


I guess for some people, the status symbol is more important than whether it can get the job done.  I think Freud addressed that at length, actually...


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 2, 2013)

Buckster said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rebel at a wedding is like riding a Honda Rebel to a Harley bike night
> ...



oh...for the love of all things photographic...can we PLEASE not get back on this horse. surely it has been beat quite enough. thanks.


----------



## billyboybad (Apr 2, 2013)

Buckster said:


> You're probably not going to like this, but...
> 
> You should probably encourage whomever is planning to hire you to hire a professional photographer instead.
> 
> If you want to get into the wedding photography business, you should find a professional wedding photographer that will let you work as an assistant/second shooter to learn the ropes.  From that experience, you will learn what gear you need and how best to use it.



When i got hired for my very first shooting for a wedding, fortunately I turned out to be better than the rest of the photographers, lots of photos turned out to be good, but night shots were bad, cant blame the lighting, but hey every day cannot be sunday, even after Monday & Tuesday the Callander says W T F ...... 

Sent from my GT-N8000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Buckster (Apr 2, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > 2WheelPhoto said:
> ...


Gee, I dunno... Do you think 2WheelPhoto can refrain from interjecting gear-snobbery where it's not needed?


----------



## manaheim (Apr 2, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Gee, I dunno... Do you think 2WheelPhoto can refrain from interjecting gear-snobbery where it's not needed?



Probably as easily as you can avoid pouncing on him for the perceived slant after the fact.

In other words, neither of you is really helping this, so my suggestion would be for everyone- including you- to just let it go.

The OP, I believe, learned some critical lessons and this thread should be done and gone.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 2, 2013)

Buckster said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



I'm all about the right tool for the right job, wasn't intending to be snobbish.  But your post made me LoL....I even googled your phrase.


----------



## terri (Apr 2, 2013)

So long, thread... I never knew you until you got reported, but I enjoyed getting to know you.  

  I'll miss you - you're a classic!     The usual snarky comments to a less experienced photographer who shows up asking for help; the ever-popular "is THIS your website?" post brought in for all to see; the tender off-topic side-trip discussing spammers somewhere along page 8, the insults, the inside jokes, none of which the OP will understand, the half-page gear lectures, everyone's opinion about the lecture, and finally the exasperation and annoyance seeping in that got you reported!     

Go thee, into the night.    *blows kisses*

To the OP: if you have clients who are happy you captured images of their day, and are satisfied, then you succeeded that far.   The fact you know you can do better work is the more relevant success, and you don't need TPF members to tell you that.     

Keep shooting and learning!


----------

