# Shooting my first wedding - Help



## burstintoflame81 (Dec 16, 2009)

I am shooting a wedding for my sister in law for free. It is going to be a laidback wedding. I just wanted to toss this out here and ask everyone to give their #1 most important piece of advice they could give for a first time wedding shooter. Keep in mind that this will be slightly traditional but not overly formal. I will be shooting with a Canon T1i with a Sunpak PZ42X flash and I will probably mostly use my 50mm F/1.4 lense. I am going to order a grip and two extra batteries ( so I will have a total of 4 ) and will have 2 16gb cards with a few 2gb cards as a backup.


----------



## inTempus (Dec 16, 2009)

burstintoflame81 said:


> I just wanted to toss this out here and ask everyone to give their #1 most important piece of advice they could give for a first time wedding shooter.


You're in for an ear (eye) full over this subject.  It gets beaten to death at least once a week.

My advice?  Find a professional and have them shoot it.  Weddings are the most demanding photography gigs known to man (outside of being a combat photographer).  You need nerves of steel, great people skills, lots of knowledge and lots of experience with a camera and associated gear.

Screwing up someones wedding isn't cool, and it could likely land you in court.  I don't care if they're family... ESPECIALLY family.  Wedding photogs are the most sued professionals on the planet.

My second peice of advice:  If you insist on going threw with this shoot get a good contract from a competent lawyer.  You're probably thinking "they're family, they'll forgive me if a screw a few shots up".  Wrong.  You need to do a little research on the net if you don't think a contract is important.  I don't know how many horror stories I've read where family and friends sue their photog buddy/relative over screwed up wedding photos.  Hell, you're better off screwing up a complete strangers wedding photos as you don't have to seem them every year at Christmas dinner.

Get a pro or get a contract.

Good luck, I know few people listen to this sound advice.


----------



## T-town photographer (Dec 16, 2009)

inTempus said:


> burstintoflame81 said:
> 
> 
> > I just wanted to toss this out here and ask everyone to give their #1 most important piece of advice they could give for a first time wedding shooter.
> ...


 

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Michael


----------



## flyin-lowe (Dec 16, 2009)

It won't take long to realize that if you are asking questions in this part of the forum you should not be the one photographing the wedding.  It might not be a bad idea to follow the photographer around for the day and learn a thing or two but weddings are a different animal.


----------



## clbd39 (Dec 16, 2009)

well looks like they covered it lol

I recently had a friend ask me to shoot her wedding and I told her I don't think it's a good idea, and that was that

I told her to hire someone she doesn't know personally but to make sure it's a sound photographer


----------



## Scout (Dec 16, 2009)

If you are going to do the wedding, I recommend getting a backup camera and lens. Would hate to see the camera get dropped (or anything else) at the beginning and miss the wedding!


----------



## Darkhunter139 (Dec 16, 2009)

inTempus said:


> burstintoflame81 said:
> 
> 
> > I just wanted to toss this out here and ask everyone to give their #1 most important piece of advice they could give for a first time wedding shooter.
> ...



How are they going to sue him if he does it for free....


----------



## Aritay (Dec 16, 2009)

Have them hire a pro.

Then you can roam at free, for free, and take candids.  Surprise them afterwards with some nice candids.

DO NOT BE THE PHOTOGRAPHER OF RECORD.


----------



## chip (Dec 16, 2009)

you will need two persons to cover a wedding. Divide the coverage between the two of you. You should have two cameras apiece. You need one camera with a 24-70mm 2.8 and another with a 70-200mm 2.8. No time to change lens during the ceremony. You will also need a tripod.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 16, 2009)

Well, there's always a first time. MY best advice would be to abandon the idea of shooting the event with a 50mm lens on a crop-body Canon,and buy yourself a Sigma or Tamron 17- or 18-50mm f/2.8 zoom lens, and PRACTICE shooting with the lens indoors using the flash before the day.

Honestly, I think you might be unprepared and unqualified to shoot the wedding--but hey....it happens all the time. Stay calm. Check the LCD periodically. KEEP THE ISO AT 400 INDOORS, and do not tempt the fates. Do not worry about ISO 100 quality being better than 400. Shoot EVERYTHING in RAW mode, as a CYA security measure. Stay calm. Realize that you as the official photographer,payed or not, can help stage and direct the action. On the cake-cutting shot, best man's toast,garter and bouquet toss, first dance, etc,etc, YOU must instruct the couple on what to do,and you must ensure that your shooting position is not interfered with by some guest with a camera. THINK about your shutter speed and do not let it get too slow.

Make sure you have spare batteries for the flash,and a backup system would be really,really,really nice to have. Ideally, I would try to convince them to hire a professional, but these days, many "pro" wedding shooters are really just weekend warriors of very modest abilities. Oh, and no alcohol...


----------



## DerekSalem (Dec 16, 2009)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with shooting a wedding on a "crop-body Canon". I know 2 men (actually my father and a friend's father) that have shot 20-30 weddings a piece (my dad's well over 50) on Canon's 40D/50D line. They both have a good selection of glass, but the point of discussion here is that both of those cameras are cropped frame.

I'd definitely agree on as wide a zoom-lens as you can get, especially with a crop body (my father uses a 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron as his base lens with another quick lens and an 18-200 f/3.5 for his zoom), but the full-frame is not a requirement.


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Dec 16, 2009)

17-18mm isn't really that wide on a crop sensor. More like 10-12mm.  I guess I should say it's not considered ultrawide like a 14mm would be on full frame.  

I wants me a FX camera just so I can use the 14-24, though I could use it on my body, i'd be paying a lot to use the center of the image...  But that's off topic, hehe. 



> How are they going to sue him if he does it for free....


 
How _couldn't_ they? The fact that he's doing it for free won't matter if the bride is unhappy and wants to make him pay for it.


----------



## Darkhunter139 (Dec 16, 2009)

If he is doing it for free there wont be any kind of contract involved.  How would they have any kind of case if they tried to sue him? He doesn't have to shoot their wedding for them if he does not want to.  If they are not paying him anything and are unhappy what are they going to sue him for, to get their $0 back?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Dec 16, 2009)

Wake up and smell the world we live in.


----------



## Darkhunter139 (Dec 16, 2009)

Who me? How would it even be a case if someone tried to sue their brother who took pictures at their wedding FOR FREE?


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Dec 16, 2009)

Darkhunter139 said:


> If he is doing it for free there wont be any kind of contract involved. How would they have any kind of case if they tried to sue him? He doesn't have to shoot their wedding for them if he does not want to. If they are not paying him anything and are unhappy what are they going to sue him for, to get their $0 back?


 
If I am the bride and I'm pissed because my photographer took ****ty pictures, I am going to sue because my once-in-a-lifetime moment that should have been captured correctly was not because even though my photographer said he could do it, couldn't, and he's going to pay for lying to me. She can sue for all sorts of things, pain and suffering, loss of the photo album that she should have had, etc.... It's pretty simple. 

Whether or not there is a contract, and whether or not the photographer is getting paid is irrelevant. If the photographer says they can satisfy the bride's wishes, and doesn't, the photographer could get sued, and could very well lose.

Besides the point, the OP doesn't have the experience here, and doesn't have the equipment.  I would never shoot a wedding without at least two bodies(one zoom and one wide angle), and that right there means he shouldn't be doing it.  Weddings are nothing to **** around with, if you can't do them properly, don't do them at all.


----------



## Darkhunter139 (Dec 16, 2009)

How could they lose if there is no contract?!?!? He doesn't even have to be there technically.  There would be nothing to prove he guaranteed good pictures.  That would be like trying to sue some random person and your wedding walking around with a camera practically.


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Dec 16, 2009)

Darkhunter139 said:


> How could they lose if there is no contract?!?!? He doesn't even have to be there technically.


 
_facepalm_


----------



## Darkhunter139 (Dec 17, 2009)

If she paid nothing for the service, has no proof he guaranteed anything and tried to sue him there is no way she would win. Its not pain and suffering to lose you're wedding pictures because you were not smart enough to hire a professional photographer.


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Dec 17, 2009)

You're 100% right.


----------



## GeneralBenson (Dec 17, 2009)

DerekSalem said:


> There's absolutely nothing wrong with shooting a wedding on a "crop-body Canon". I know 2 men (actually my father and a friend's father) that have shot 20-30 weddings a piece (my dad's well over 50) on Canon's 40D/50D line. They both have a good selection of glass, but the point of discussion here is that both of those cameras are cropped frame.
> 
> I'd definitely agree on as wide a zoom-lens as you can get, especially with a crop body (my father uses a 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron as his base lens with another quick lens and an 18-200 f/3.5 for his zoom), but the full-frame is not a requirement.



I think Derrel's point was that a 50mm on a crop body is a pretty tight lens and wouldn't be the best thing to have as your primary lens.  50/1.4 is a great wedding lens, even on a crop body, but very often you need something much wider.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Dec 17, 2009)

Darkhunter139 said:


> How could they lose if there is no contract?!?!? He doesn't even have to be there technically.


Verbal. If he doesn't show up, they could certainly sue.



Darkhunter139 said:


> Who me? How would it even be a case if someone tried to sue their brother who took pictures at their wedding FOR FREE?


 
Free doesn't matter. He is entering into a verbal contract to do something. I agree that a contract be made explaining expectations and limitations, and being free from "damages".

If I washed your car for free, and scratched it because I got gravel in the sponge, are you able to sue me, or can you not because it was a "free" carwash?

Regardless of the cost, he is providing a service, and if he fails to deliver...hilarity will ensue!


----------



## Olympus E300 (Dec 17, 2009)

fiveoboy01 said:


> If I am the bride and I'm pissed because my photographer took ****ty pictures, I am going to sue because my once-in-a-lifetime moment that should have been captured correctly was not because even though *my photographer said he could do it*, couldn't, and he's going to pay for lying to me. *She can sue for all sorts of things, pain and suffering, loss of the photo album that she should have had*, etc.... It's pretty simple.
> 
> Whether or not there is a contract, and *whether or not the photographer is getting paid is irrelevant*. *If the photographer says they can satisfy the bride's wishes, and doesn't, the photographer could get sued*, and could very well lose.
> 
> Besides the point, the OP doesn't have the experience here, and doesn't have the equipment. I would never shoot a wedding without at least two bodies(one zoom and one wide angle), and that right there means he shouldn't be doing it. Weddings are nothing to **** around with, if you can't do them properly, don't do them at all.


 
First off...I tend to lean towards Darkhunter's position on this one. I know that I'm a nobody but here's my take on some of your comments...

(1) "...*my photographer said he could do it*..."
I'm fairly certain that you are putting words into the OP's mouth here. In my mind, its pretty simple really - Don't say that! Simply state that you will do your best and should there be any doubts, hire a professional.

(2) "*She can sue for all sorts of things, pain and suffering*..."
I'm not sure where the pain and suffering theory comes from. Why? I assume you are implying because she didn't obtain grade A photographs at the end of the day? There will still be a product, however, the quality of that product may not meet the expectations...Nobody was given a personal guarantee of the quality of the final product...Read #1 again.

(3) "...*She can sue for all sorts of things, ...loss of the photo album that she should have had*..."
You can't sue for the loss of something you never had. Technically, this would fall under the "pain and suffering" tab. Read #2 again.

(4) "...*whether or not the photographer is getting paid is irrelevant*..."
Incorrect. The following was told to me by a lawyer years ago - In order for a contract to be valid (verbal or written), a monetary sum must flow from one side of the contract to the other. For example : if you ride share with somebody to work and get into an accident - you can't sue your driver unless you have compensated him/her for the service or have agreed to compensate him/her in advance? The total sum of money that exchanges hands is irrelevant. It can be as little as a single dollar.

(5) "...*If the photographer says they can satisfy the bride's wishes, and doesn't, the photographer could get sued*..."
Again, I believe that you are assuming that the OP is offering some form of guarantee. Personally, I would never make such a statement. In fact, I would highly recommend that the OP states something to the following : "I will do my best". Again, this is the same as the first statement that I commented on. Read #1 again.




Bitter Jeweler said:


> Free doesn't matter. He is entering into a verbal contract to do something. I agree that a contract be made explaining expectations and limitations, and being free from "damages".
> 
> *If I washed your car for free, and scratched it because I got gravel in the sponge, are you able to sue me, or can you not because it was a "free" carwash?*
> 
> Regardless of the cost, he is providing a service, and if he fails to deliver...hilarity will ensue!


 
(6) "...*If I washed your car for free, and scratched it because I got gravel in the sponge, are you able to sue me, or can you not because it was a "free" carwash?*..."
Tricky one...None-the-less, there is physical damage done to personal property. Whether or not you were washing the car or just walking by and bumbed it with a shopping cart, there is valid cause for a lawsuit. The theoretical contract is irrelevant - damage has been done to personal property, hence a lawsuit for "damages".


The law is a funny thing and relies much on langauge and wording. Having said all of this, you yankees sue eachother (civil suits) over the most radiculous stuff. I admit, I know very little when it comes to US law and above is my interpretation of *Canadian* law. With that said - I don't know where the original poster is from...

These are just my views and oppinions. I'm entitled to them just like everyone else. Perhaps we should simply agree to disagree.

My advice to the OP is simply this : Speak to a lawyer and find out EXACTLY where you stand. Furthermore, the smart money would be on making a contract which completely relinquishes you of ALL and ANY "potential" damages.  Oh...And take LOTS of pictures!! You can always exclude pictures from the album - you can't fabricate photos after the fact.  

Cheers!
- Dan


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Dec 17, 2009)

There are no rules when it comes to lawsuits. 

Even if it didn't go that far, it's family and if the bride gets pissed, it could strain the relationship and maybe the OP doesn't care about that, but I would.  

I'd politely decline the "offer" to shoot the wedding for a relative.


----------



## iolair (Dec 17, 2009)

I may be doing a wedding shoot for a friend next year, so I've been doing plenty of reading on the subject - here are some articles I've found helpful.

How to shoot a wedding - Lesson 1
READ THIS PAGE FIRST!

Wedding Photography Tips (for photographers) --- Information About How To Photograph a Wedding for Beginners

Wedding Photography Survival Tips: The Preparation

50 &#8216;Must Have&#8217; Wedding Photography Shots

Photographing a Friend's or Relative's Wedding

Wedding Photography &#8211; 21 Tips for for Amateur Wedding Photographers

Wedding Photography 101 - Tutorials

Wedding photography 101 :: Photocritic photography blog


The most recurring bits of advice seem to be:

1) Say No.

2) If you say yes, be clear about what they can expect from you as a non wedding-professional.

3) Go in with a list of shots you're aiming to get.

4) Go to the rehearsal, shoot in the venue in advance so you know which settings will work before the day.

5 - and the most repeated piece of advice of all) Have spare of everything.  Spare camera body.  Spare lenses.  Spare batteries.  More spare batteries.  Spare memory cards.  Spare photographer. etc etc.
Consider getting one (or more) of the many books on wedding photography too...

6) Don't let the used memory cards out of your sight until you've backed up.


----------



## Olympus E300 (Dec 17, 2009)

fiveoboy01 said:


> *There are no rules when it comes to lawsuits. *
> 
> Even if it didn't go that far, it's family and if the bride gets pissed, it could strain the relationship and maybe the OP doesn't care about that, but I would.
> 
> I'd politely decline the "offer" to shoot the wedding for a relative.


 
Ummm....I'm not sure I completely agree.  The entire basis of a lawsuit hinges on law ("rules").  More specifically, the breaking of a rule or rules.  In this case, the breach of a theoretical contract (which I don't believe even exists in this case).  Without laws ("rules") there would be no lawsuits.  Having said that, the best protection, I would think, would be a contract which protects you regardless of the outcome.

If in doubt, speak with a lawyer! Advice offered in this thread will be nothing more than hearsay or speculation...


----------



## Jeffro (Dec 17, 2009)

Where have I seen this all before!????  oh yeah in the other 20 threads like this. hehehehe


I like the way I did it.  My friend asked me to shoot there wedding 3 months ago and I said no.  So he went out and hired some one!   Then I was going to the wedding anyway and I said Hey man I think I will bring my camera and goof off a little.  Would you mine!  He said fine have fun.  After the wedding I brought them about 10 really cool shots that they loved and come to find out there "PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER"  Sucked and did not do half the stuff they said they would and I turned into a hero for having some great shots.  Now we have gone through the other 300 shots I took and they found a few more!  So I am happy to be the good guy and I had no responcablity if all my stuff sucked~    

I think it was a great learning experience!

After all that I am still scared of Weddings!!! LOL


----------



## iolair (Dec 17, 2009)

I read one story online where the guy got a call FORTY MINUTES before the wedding saying "Hey, mate, we kind of forgot to hire a photographer - you've got a good camera haven't you?".


----------



## Olympus E300 (Dec 17, 2009)

My story : Even though I was strictly a guest, I arrived at my sister-in-laws wedding with my camera in tow.  My photography was very much in its infancy and my equipment was nothing more than a single Olympus E-300 and a 14-45mm lens.  No tripod, no extra lenses and no flash.  Naturally, being a fairly outgoing fella, I started snapping shots throughout the wedding with the bride & grooms blessing.  It didn't take long to realize that the photographer they had hired wasn't going to be able to capture the day as expected.  She had a simple point and shoot, pocket camera and by the second hour was alrady sending guests out to buy her more batteries.  After realizing this, I ramped up the number of pictures I was talking and my approach.  I was not very well prepared for the event physically or mentally.  Realizing this, I thought that the only way I might be able to salvage the day was to snap alot of pictures and sort through them in the end.  So I took over 900 pictures throughtout the day.  I had to do a fair bit of post production on the better ones and spent countless hours fixing this and fixing that.  In the end, they got a decent photo album and it cost them nothing.

In this story, the original photography (if you can call her that) was not prepared for the challenge and completely dropped the ball.  By being semi-prepared to offer support, I was able to capture the most important moments of the day.  It cost the bride and groom nothing, I was free from any responsibiliy and we all still talk to eachother....LoL.

Again...My advice, speak with them and let them know that you may not be prepared for such a shoot, speak with a lawyer just to get some real legal advice and then take TONS of photos!!  Surfing around the web and finding interesting wedding pictures and bringing samples of stuff that you like with you for reference is not a bad idea either I don't think.  In the heat of the moment, one might get nervous and suffer "photographer's block" and be unable to envision pleasing or different compositions.

Jusy my $0.02.


----------



## Nikkor (Dec 17, 2009)

Oh man, get ready for reply-overload. 

Rule #1 - Bring backup everything
Rule #2- Do WHATEVER the bride tells you to do.

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned (especially a bridezilla)


----------



## bigtwinky (Dec 17, 2009)

Friend of mine asked me to shoot her wedding this past summer, in August.  

While I had been on TPF for almost a year, I had seen many posts about people recommending NOT to shoot the wedding.

So I did the opposite.

What I did do was ensure that she knew my limitations, both of my equipment and lack of expertise at doing weddings (I had not done one before lol).  She knew my pictures, knew what she was getting into.

Once she knew that, and was OK with it, I asked a friend to come along...someone whom I know can shoot good photos but is at the same level in knowledge and learning that I am.  The bride was fine with this, so I now had my backup camera, which happen to come with a backup person 

I practiced my flash shooting, did alot of reading, thought about poses, and scoped out the place ahead of time (even though its a 1.5 hour drive).

In other words, I prepared myself the best I could, made sure the bride had the right expectations and off I went.

Had a great time, bride was very happy with the pictures.


----------



## Double H (Dec 17, 2009)

bigtwinky said:


> Friend of mine asked me to shoot her wedding this past summer, in August.
> 
> While I had been on TPF for almost a year, I had seen many posts about people recommending NOT to shoot the wedding.
> 
> ...



Best post and advice in this hijacked-thread. Everyone of us has shot a wedding for the first time, gotta start somewhere. Just be prepared

Some of you need to get out of the house and shoot more, you're too tense.


----------



## Olympus E300 (Dec 17, 2009)

bigtwinky said:


> Friend of mine asked me to shoot her wedding this past summer, in August.
> 
> While I had been on TPF for almost a year, I had seen many posts about people recommending NOT to shoot the wedding.
> 
> ...


 
Exactly what I would recommend.  I think you did the right thing.  Just my opinion...


----------



## bigtwinky (Dec 17, 2009)

I understand why the community here is mainly against shooting weddings, as I believe it is tied in the the type of people that usually come to these forums, the drive by posters, those who buy a camera and think they are a photographer for no other reason than having $699 to get the kit at Best Buy.

But if people are serious about photographer, have a good understanding of light, lenses and techniques and MOST importantly, that the client's expectations are 100% correct, then there should be no reason not to shoot.

Yes, the bride and groom deserve the best they can get.  But in the case of my friend, it was either me with my assistant/second shooter or giving eveyone disposable cameras.  It wasn't me or a pro, it was me or nothing.


----------



## Jeffro (Dec 17, 2009)

burstintoflame81 said:


> I am shooting a wedding for my sister in law for free. It is going to be a laidback wedding. I just wanted to toss this out here and ask everyone to give their #1 most important piece of advice they could give for a first time wedding shooter. Keep in mind that this will be slightly traditional but not overly formal. I will be shooting with a Canon T1i with a Sunpak PZ42X flash and I will probably mostly use my 50mm F/1.4 lense. I am going to order a grip and two extra batteries ( so I will have a total of 4 ) and will have 2 16gb cards with a few 2gb cards as a backup.





So I am wonder if we are gonna hear back from HIM OR HER?   Are you going to do the wedding and If you do I would love to see a few shots!


----------



## Derrel (Dec 17, 2009)

GeneralBenson said:


> DerekSalem said:
> 
> 
> > There's absolutely nothing wrong with shooting a wedding on a "crop-body Canon". I know 2 men (actually my father and a friend's father) that have shot 20-30 weddings a piece (my dad's well over 50) on Canon's 40D/50D line. They both have a good selection of glass, but the point of discussion here is that both of those cameras are cropped frame.
> ...



YES, GeneralBenson,your reading comprehension is excellent--that was my point exactly...a straight 50 on 1.6x is too restrictive...I know that from experience....I also suggested the potential wedding first-timer purchase the exact,same lens that DerekSalem's father happens to use--a 17-50mm f/2.8 zoom. A nice 5-person group shot with a 50mm on 1.6x indoors....oh,what fun! (not) Table shots with a 50mm...a no-go. etc. I remember the first wedding I shot, in the pre-zoom era. I had a 35mm SLR and a 58mm f/2 lens and nothing more than a few rolls of Kodacolor print film. It was a civil service ceremony in a judge's chambers and it was over in about seven or eight minutes. I was 13 years old. Everybody has to do their first wedding, or never shoot one. I just think he should get a 17-50/2.8 and practice a bit with it. Stay calm, Check the LCD, keep the ISO at 400, and think about what he's shooting.


----------



## bigtwinky (Dec 17, 2009)

Or better yet, bring a variety of lenses so that you are prepared for the situation.  Or even visit the site ahead of time to see how a 50mm could work out.

The 50mm 1.4 is a great wedding lens, depending on what and where you are shooting.  The 1.4 is a good asset to have in lower light.  But as mentionned, it should not be your only lens.

I have seen 17-55 + 70-200 + 50 + 100Macro as a popular combo
Replace the 17-55 with a 16-35 + 24-70.

This normally being done while using 2 cameras for ease of access to the lenses


----------



## bhphotography (Dec 17, 2009)

My biggest thing when shooting weddings is making sure I don't loose the files! I shoot 2 / 4 gig cards and refuse to go bigger. I have a total of 40 gig cards and if I ever get an error on a card, I throw it out and replace it.

With your bigger cards, I'd suggest having a laptop with you and to back them up often. That way you know your not loosing half the wedding!


----------



## bryant40 (Dec 17, 2009)

Winning a case and bringing a case are two different things. The cost of defending yourself can be quite expensive. There are plenty of lawyers who will gladly take silly cases in hopes of making something.


----------



## burstintoflame81 (Dec 17, 2009)

Seriously, is this "how to avoid getting sued forums.com. " ? My family is not going to sue me. She is well aware of my photography experience ( or lack there of ) and is looking not be so traditional and have a professional there. She also is looking to not spend a any money on photography. She offered to pay me but I declined. I am by no means a wedding photographer, but am doing this as a favor. So please lets not hi-jack my thread with legal jargon. I asked for tips on the actual photography and equipment. Thanks for everyone that actually had something useful to add.

This is going to be a very laid back wedding. No dance floor. No garter belt crap. Just a small ceremony and small reception ( close family only and a couple friends ). 

I plan on scoping out the place ( its still undecided, but one possible location was where my own wedding was so I am quite familiar with it and I can walk there from my house. ) It is also undecided if it will be outdoors or indoors and which time of day.

I am planning on bringing my Wifes Rebel XS as a back up and also all of my lenses. Although I do agree that perhaps I should get a faster and wider lense. My 12-24 is an f/4 and I have the kit lense but its f/3.5.

I will mainly be taking pictures of the actual ceremony ( exchanging vows and rings ), pics of guests at their tables, and pictures of the bride and groom after the ceremony. 

My main reason for posting on here is to try and absorb anything I can so that I can do the best I can. ( this isn't the ONLY avenue of information that I am pursuing on this topic, but think that it is a very abundent source of information. ) I think one of the biggest things I need to learn is my flash. I do not want to be fiddling with it the whole time trying to get the right settings.


----------



## jensgt (Dec 17, 2009)

You know your family better than anybody here.  I can see their concern as if you have to come here and ask for tips people will worry you arent experienced enough as the wedding is a pretty damn important thing that hopefully you only do once.  That being said, I let my mom take pictures at my wedding...which was on the beach at Sandals in the Bahamas so there were no real lighting issues to worry about...I let her use my camera.  Even though we turned down the photographer from Sandals who charged a LOT for a photo session, they sent somebody anyways...and allowed us to go to their photo shack afterwards and pick out any pictures we wanted...at $20 a pop!  Turned out my mom took the best pics....but we did buy a few from Sandals.  

So if you feel confident you can do a good job....go for it...but dont be sour that people on here think its a bad idea.


----------



## burstintoflame81 (Dec 17, 2009)

I am not sour that people think its a bad idea, I am sour that 95% of my thread has been people bickering over the legalities of shooting a wedding. I appreciate all of the advice.


----------



## inTempus (Dec 17, 2009)

burstintoflame81 said:


> I am not sour that people think its a bad idea, I am sour that 95% of my thread has been people bickering over the legalities of shooting a wedding. I appreciate all of the advice.


You come here for advice from people *who have been there*, but you're upset because "95%" of it you don't want to hear.  I'm sorry it's not a back pat fest where we're telling you "go get'em champ".  

Your first problem is you're on a board asking for "advice".  What advice are you looking for that common sense won't tell you?  Do you need a second camera?  Yes.  It sounds like you have one lined up.  You need a flash.  It sounds like you have one.  You might need fast primes, it looks like you have that covered.  You will need a long telephoto.  Check.  You should know the venue.  It sounds like you have that covered.  Got a shot list?  Let's hope so.

Now all you need is *experience*.  We can't give you that.

Do your best and hope you make her happy.

/thread


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Dec 17, 2009)

burstintoflame81 said:


> I am not sour that people think its a bad idea, I am sour that 95% of my thread has been people bickering over the legalities of shooting a wedding. I appreciate all of the advice.


 
Spoken like someone who came in here asking a question and didn't get the answers they wanted.  

It's an internet forum, and you'll get the gammit of replies to your question, even if they don't directly address what you're asking.


----------



## burstintoflame81 (Dec 18, 2009)

InTempus, what you said was your advice, and you are right that I should expect that. What I meant is the bantering between others about whether or not to worry about the law. It just gets out of hand and the focus of the thread gets lost. There are other things that could be mentioned besides the obvious.  I was looking for any random creative tips that people have found througout their experiences that might be useful. (ie. bring a step ladder to get a better perspective it is very handy ).


----------



## Dao (Dec 18, 2009)

One time when I was at Borders book store browsing their books in the Photography section, I saw they have some books that talk about Wedding Photography.  Of course local library may have some as well.

You may get some ideas, tips as well as inspiration from those books.


----------



## bigtwinky (Dec 18, 2009)

burstintoflame81 said:


> InTempus, what you said was your advice, and you are right that I should expect that. What I meant is the bantering between others about whether or not to worry about the law. It just gets out of hand and the focus of the thread gets lost. There are other things that could be mentioned besides the obvious. I was looking for any random creative tips that people have found througout their experiences that might be useful. (ie. bring a step ladder to get a better perspective it is very handy ).


 
Bantering will happen.  It happens in real life.  How many times have you sat around at table with friends, asked a question, and you get a partial answer and the topic is diverted to something that wasn't your initial question?

It happens on forums as well.  People key in on certain items in a post and bring to the table their own ideas and experience.   Its even harder to keep an internet discussion on track for the entire thread as you may only come back and check it a day or so later.

Seriously, dont get annoyed, its a part of forum life.  Let those who want to discuss go off track, and discuss with those who are giving you the input you want.  However, dont fully disregard what others are discussing, as there is often good information found in there...you just may need to dig deep to find it


----------



## burstintoflame81 (Dec 18, 2009)

I am not like livid or anything, just trying to get things back on track. 

I am waiting for some books from my local library as well.

I will add this question ( and hopefully there is no risk in getting sued for buying the wrong lense or I may get more than I am asking for here  )...

Is I get a f/2.8 zoom, what focal length do you think would be best? It would pretty much be a choice between like a 16mm-50mm, 18mm-50mm and a 24mm-70mm. Do you think it would be better to be able to go wider or better to be able to get in tighter? I mean for the bride and groom pics I will probably use the prime lenses. I am mostly concerned with the ceremony where, as someone pointed out, I won't have time to swap lenses. Also during this part, the situation dictates what I do, as opposed to the portraits where I am in control and doing the posing.

I did like the advice about using the smaller cards incase of an error. That is something I didn't think of.


----------



## GeneralBenson (Dec 18, 2009)

Go for the 16/18-55, hand down.  In all honesty, the difference between 50 and 70 is barely noticeable, but the difference between 16 and 24 is huge.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 18, 2009)

GeneralBenson said:


> Go for the 16/18-55, hand down.  In all honesty, the difference between 50 and 70 is barely noticeable, but the difference between 16 and 24 is huge.



Yes, I have to concur with the General here...go for the f/2.8 zoom with 17 or 18mm on the bottom end and the 50-55mm top end; the 24-70mm lenses on 1.6x are very restrictive in small locations. If you need to do a group shot, with a 17 or 18mm you can include a wide view from a "normal" distance; with a 24mm that is roughly a 38.4mm equivalent.

Here's a rule of thumb for full-format photography, but it applies to a 24mm setting on 1.6 x just as well; With a 35mm focal length lens on Full-Frame, the angle of view is roughly one foot wide for every one foot of distance to the subject. On 1.6x, a 24-70mm lens isn't really a wide-angle to short telephoto lens; it is a semi-wide to short telephoto lens.

The reason the "kit" lens is now an 18-55mm lens is that is the angle of view range most people feel they "need" for a one-lens setup; the constant f/2.8 aperture 17-50 Tamron and Sigma 18-50, and the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 and the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 DX---those four lenses are evidence of what is "needed" as a wedding-event lens on 1.6x...f/2.8 aperture, and the right range of lengths. For longer working distances, the 24-70 is fine, but if you only have ONE lens length, I think I'd go for the 17-50 f/2.8 on a 1.6x cam.

If the event is outdoors,exclusively, and I wanted to shoot more posed formals, I would obviously ditch the 17-55 in favor of a 24-70. One small tip: with a 17-50mm, it helps to squat down  bit when shooting, to keep people from looking distorted; you need to keep the back of the camera parallel with the spines of the people when shooting wide and close; just a few inches lower a camera position will improve 17-50 people photos,especially those done at the shorter ranges at shorter focal lengths.


----------



## keith foster (Dec 18, 2009)

Thanks Derrel for the tip on camera position and angle for large groups.  I took a picture(37 people) and was not happy with what I got.  I will do better next time.


----------



## burstintoflame81 (Dec 18, 2009)

Thanks Derrel and everyone else. That is a good tip about the lower angle on the group shots.

I was actually thinking of going for the Tokina F/2.8 16-50mm. Get an extra 2mm on the wide end than the normal 18mm, and I have the Tokina 12-24mm F/4.0 that I have been happy with. Its built like a tank. I have to check some reviews though on everything.


----------



## RancerDS (Dec 19, 2009)

Darkhunter139 said:


> If he is doing it for free there wont be any kind of contract involved.  How would they have any kind of case if they tried to sue him? He doesn't have to shoot their wedding for them if he does not want to.  If they are not paying him anything and are unhappy what are they going to sue him for, to get their $0 back?



Any reasonable judge would agree that only the cost incurred would be due to the plaintiff (i.e. $0!!!).  But law isn't always rational or reasonable.  It is going to be based possibly on EXPECTATION and verbally you are committed just as if you had signed a contract.

So if the sister-in-law says "I don't really have the $300-500 (or more) to pay the photographer", if the in-law volunteers to help _au gratis_ and states that some of their stuff will be good/decent/usable to where they don't "need" a professional photographer; then there is a level of expectation which the person volunteering for free CAN be responsible for some measurable amount.  The decision might only cover the costs of tuxedo & location rentals... but could end up costing the volunteer anyway!


----------



## burstintoflame81 (Jan 17, 2010)

Well, I shot the wedding yesterday. I went with the Tokina 16-50mm which I am very happy with. I swapped my memory card mid way through in one camera ( had 2 16 gb cards for my T1i and also shot with my wifes XS with a couple 2 gb cards. I needed a camera to keep a long telephoto on. ) However, one of the 16GB cards crapped out on me almost at the end of the day. I recovered all the files though and saved the day. ( HUGE lesson learned though ). Like I said, I had two cameras 1 with the 16-50mm and one with my Tamron 70-300mm. I also did infact use my 50mm f/1.4 on some of the bride and groom portraits and am VERY happy that I did. I have 1148 pics so it will take me a while to go through everything and whittle it down. Then I will have to edit them. I will post some as soon as I can. I am not going to say that I did great, but I am happy with the way the day turned out. It was very stressful though so I am glad it was family. I don't have any desire to shoot a full on wedding for strangers.


----------



## Darkhunter139 (Jan 17, 2010)

Grats sounds like it went pretty well.  Can't wait to see some of the shots.


----------



## clbd39 (Jan 17, 2010)

yea definitely looking forward to see the results


----------



## jackieclayton (Jan 17, 2010)

if the bride and groom want FREE pictures i'm sure the quality of their pictures is the last thing on their mind.  I see the scenario now: "so and so has taken some pretty good shots and he's got a camera... why not see if he'll do it instead of charging thousands of dollars?"  I don't see why everyone is up in arms about suing, its HIGHLY unlikely... 
the bride in question probably saw the OP's pics and saw what she liked and thought the OP would be good enough for _*HER*_ wedding... who are we to say that he/she isn't?  

i saved the biggest chunk of my wedding budget for my photographer, because the pictures are what mattered to _me_ the most.  I did some research and found the going rate for professional photographers and spent less on my dress and invitations and etc so I could afford the quality... bc it _mattered_ to me.  Some women will drop $3Gs on a designer dress b/c thats all they care about, and $100 for cousin charlie to take pictures of it afterwards.  Me?  I could give a rats ass about a vera wang gown, i want my photographer.  To each his own! 


Editing in... sorry, i'm a little late, didn't see the update... post some of the pictures, we'd love to see!


----------



## burstintoflame81 (Feb 11, 2010)

Sorry for the delay, been a little busy lately. Here are a couple. I know I am going to take crap for the watermark, but oh well...

1) 






2)





3)





4)


----------



## chammer (Feb 11, 2010)

very interesting thread to read. glad it worked out in the end. the shots are nice, but one small tip for "next time"...

for #3 it appears that the bride is looking into the harsh sunlight, and thus is squinting quite heavily. try not to do this. instead place her back towards the sun, or off behind her at an angle so she can relax her eyes and open them up for you. 

...and the watermark is fine. can still see the pictures well enough.

btw...for #4 i cant tell if you added a soft blur of its because i've been up for way too long, but if you did...it was a nice touch. the picture has that airbrushed glamor type look to it.


----------



## FattyMcJ (Feb 11, 2010)

I'd say, for a first timer, you did a great job!  

I just read every page of this thread and I'm glad you chose to do it, and did it well.

Is the bride happy?


----------



## Layspeed (Feb 12, 2010)

FattyMcJ said:


> I'd say, for a first timer, you did a great job!
> 
> I just read every page of this thread and I'm glad you chose to do it, and did it well.
> 
> *Is the bride happy*?


 
+1 So what was the end result?


----------



## burstintoflame81 (Feb 12, 2010)

chammer said:


> for #3 it appears that the bride is looking into the harsh sunlight, and thus is squinting quite heavily. try not to do this. instead place her back towards the sun, or off behind her at an angle so she can relax her eyes and open them up for you.
> 
> 
> 
> btw...for #4 i cant tell if you added a soft blur of its because i've been up for way too long, but if you did...it was a nice touch. the picture has that airbrushed glamor type look to it.


 
Yes, I totally agree about the light and squinting.It was hard at the location we were at because there were people all over fishing at that pond, so I was at the mercy of many other factors. I knew the squinting was going to occur but luckily, this shot ( and a couple other similar experiemental shots ) were the only ones taken in this spot. I just liked the composition of it so I threw it in here. 

As for the blur, all of the pics are blurred to one degree or another. As for #4, I painted in some blur and then used OnOnes phototools and added a few things. ( I can't remember off the top of my head, but think I added a "vibrant glow" but then turned it down a bit.

#2 is my favorite. It was actually composed differently with a little more of the pond showing to the right, but due to background issues, I had to crop it. I like the pose though, it looks more relaxed.

And yes, the bride is very happy with the results. 

I am also glad that I did it, because of the shooting experience, but I also had to whittle down like 1000 pictures to about 160 and I post processed every single one of them, and I don't just mean quick color corrections. So I also got a crash course on stream lining my workflow, more out of neccessity than anything. So it was a good learning experience just from a business perspective and work ethic perspective.


----------



## JeramyJ (Feb 12, 2010)

Lots of misinformation in this thread about lawsuits. Always entertaining to see folks pass on the advice that a lawyer once dolled their direction. Suffice it to say that people get sued for everything. Lack of money changing hands does not always change things because consideration comes in many forms.  At least in US court systems. Also keep in mind that each local court may have different rules as well. Suffice it to say that if you are sued, you need a lawyer. Even small claims cases can get fairly complex, despite the lack of many Evidentiary rules. 

:mrgreen:
Jeramy Jarman
Attorney At Law
Law Office Providing Dedicated Legal Representation | Oklahoma City, OK


----------



## Darkhunter139 (Feb 12, 2010)

Nice so you didn't get sued?!


----------

