# Wedding Questions



## WDodd (Oct 10, 2007)

Alright I have been reading endlessly but still a few questions remain...I recently shadowed a wedding photographer that I know to get a real feel for what it is all about and really pick his brain about how this whole deal works. I will probably shadow him again and take some shots to test my skills.

But all that aside I have been thinking a lot about how I can get this business going when I am ready. 

How do I build my portfolio and get people to want me to shoot their wedding? In other words how did everyone else here get their start.

Currently I shoot a Rebel XT, 28-135 IS, 18-55, 75-300, 50mm f/1.8. I know I have like 3 of Canon's 4 cheapest lenses but can I get by with this glass? I also have a 430EX. I would be able to use a digital rebel as a backup camera and would pick up another flash probably a 580EX and use the 430 on the backup camera. My question: Will this setup get my by to start? I don't see why it wouldn't but maybe you guys/gals can. 

I appreciate all the responses.


----------



## JIP (Oct 10, 2007)

First off YOU NEED A SECOND BODY!!!!!!!.  Whatever you do, do not go out and sell yourself as a pro and show up at a wedding and have your only camera body crap out on you right in the middle of the ceremony while the birde is walking down the aisle with her father.  I see no reason why you cannot get by with what you have if your camera has a full sized sensor a 50 is the perfect focal length to learn with.  Personally in most of my career as a wedding photographer with medium format I shot only with 75mm wich is the "normal lens for 645 and I did alot of excellen work if I do say so myself.


----------



## WDodd (Oct 10, 2007)

Sorry I forgot to mention that I have 2 extra bodies. A film body as a third backup probably and a digital rebel. I would love to purchase a 40D by early next year.


----------



## S2K1 (Oct 10, 2007)

Fortunately when I started into wedding photography(still am starting), a few of my friends were getting married. And to develop a portfolio, I had to do a lot of free shoots in exchange for being able to use their pictures in my portfolio. Shadowing another photographer is always a great idea and can be a valuable learning experience. I have yet to be the only photographer at the actual wedding so far, just in case my pictures turned out horrible. Done plenty of engagements and bridals and they are a different animal. The 50 f/1.8 is a great starting point, but I'd certainly look into faster zooms. You'll need them. There's a lot of competition out there, so try to separate yourself from the rest of the pack with creative photos and a creative way to present them.


----------



## Sideburns (Oct 10, 2007)

He doesn't have a full frame sensor...it's a 1.6 on the XTi.

But anyways...I will agree with having a backup body...as well as at least 2 lenses that will do well in low light conditions.  In case you didn't notice the first time, churches are the worst possible place to take pictures...there's absolutely no light...and if there is...it's usually crappy...and mixed...

I say shadow as long as you can without making him angry, and then try it out.


----------



## Peanuts (Oct 11, 2007)

Personally I would upgrade the body so your performance in low light situations are better at least grain wise. Perhaps rent or borrow a 5D prior to an event and rent it that day as well - it is amazing how much difference is there. 

Second shoot more, I would say at least half a dozen times if you can before shooting solo (and yes I am being a hypocrite as I shot 3 as a second shooter prior to my 'solo' except, it was my cousins and no money exchanged hands)

Once you have some weddings under your belt, it is amazing the couples that will start flocking to you, usulaly they just want your services for cheap cheap cheap so choose your clients wisely or else it will just be one big pain after the other.


----------



## LaFoto (Oct 11, 2007)

Q&A-threads should not go into the Portraits and Weddings GALLERY, that's what the General Shop Talk is there for, even if you want to have questions on WEDDINGS answered, ok?


----------



## WDodd (Oct 11, 2007)

LaFoto said:


> Q&A-threads should not go into the Portraits and Weddings GALLERY, that's what the General Shop Talk is there for, even if you want to have questions on WEDDINGS answered, ok?



Sorry


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 11, 2007)

I agree that it would be helpful to shadow a pro as many times as you can.  If you ask nicely, they may let you shoot and use those shots for your portfolio.  

Another option, might be for you to attend weddings of families and friends and get shots there (if the hired pro is OK with that).

I got a lot of my practice and some of my portfolio shots doing just that.  I would offer to shoot all the things that the hired pro didn't.  Usually they only hired the pro to shoot the ceremony and formals, and I shot the rest.  Of course, it didn't hurt that I married into a large Ukrainian farming family...they usually have about 5 large weddings every year.

Another option to build up your portfolio would be to just fake it...by that I mean to get a couple dressed up as if for a wedding and make some beautiful images.  You could rent a wedding dress or buy a used one.  Hire a model or ask the prettiest girl you know to model for you.  An instructor of mine said that he had a student who shot his whole starting portfolio in his garage in one day, with a hired model and a few different backdrops.

Also, when choosing your portfolio....less is sometimes more.  10 fantastic images is better than 15 images with 5 that are not as good as the others.

Once you have a portfolio...get the word out.  Tell all your friends and family etc.  Somebody will know someone who is getting married and all it takes is a little word of mouth.  Once you start to get some bookings, do a good job and the word of mouth will start to spread.  A website will also help, as people will be able to see your work, without having to make an appointment.

For some people, that is enough to keep them busy.  You might need to do a little more advertising to get the word out.  There are plenty of good ideas so look around.


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 11, 2007)

Oh ya...you will need (well, really really want) to get some better glass.


----------



## JIP (Oct 11, 2007)

Honestly I have to tell you though if you intend on shooting weddings professionally you need to invest some real money.  The first time I got into wedding photography I started from scratch I got a loan and made the purchases I needed to make.  I bought 2 medium format cameras 2 professional strobes (Metz 60-CT 1+4) plus bracket, bag, etc....  al in all my investment was $5200 and I spent quite alot more after that I got a tripod and various small stuff.  I know gear does not make you a professional photographer but if you get into charging people $1000+ for shooting their wedings and you don't have the gear to back that up you are doing your clients a disserveice.  When I got into digital I also started from scratch because I did not have any pro 35mm gear my inital investment was $3500 and I have to say I did not spend nearly enough (you can see in my sig what I got).  The one thing you have to remember is when you go to shoot a wedding you do not want uncle Phil the enthusiast to have better gear than you, the guy who is charging $1000+ to be there that just causes instant doubt.


----------



## JIP (Oct 11, 2007)

Oh yeah and to answer your original question about how people got into shooting weddings.  For me I went to school for photography (a 2 year program at the Art Institute of Pittsburgh) I had also worked for several newspapers and done tons of freelance work.  When my wife's sister got married I kind of trailed the photographer a little.  When he had some downtime we got to talking and he told me to bring a portfolio to his studio and we could talk.  I went to him he liked my work and said (and this is the important part to you) "when you have the right gear I will ihire you" this meant a full system and a full backup and nothing less.  So after that the rest is history and I have been shooting wedding for 6-7 years now.  The main problem with working for these other people is getting access to your own work so you can have a portfolio to show to people.


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 11, 2007)

Good points JIP.



> The one thing you have to remember is when you go to shoot a wedding you do not want uncle Phil the enthusiast to have better gear than you, the guy who is charging $1000+ to be there that just causes instant doubt


That wouldn't be ideal...but it would be vane to worry about something like that.  Someone, somewhere will always have better equipment than you...so don't worry about what the other guy has...you are there to do a job, so just concentrate on doing it as best you can.


----------



## Mike_E (Oct 11, 2007)

Agreed that you have to have the equipment to be able to do the job and a back up to keep you out of court!

OTOH, you can go a long way by being like James Brown (before he died that is) and be the hardest working Tog in the business.


----------



## JIP (Oct 11, 2007)

Big Mike said:


> Good points JIP.
> 
> 
> That wouldn't be ideal...but it would be vane to worry about something like that. Someone, somewhere will always have better equipment than you...so don't worry about what the other guy has...you are there to do a job, so just concentrate on doing it as best you can.


It is not about vanity it is about trying to sell reprints and more pictures to your client.  When uncle Phil with the better camera than you tells them they can have his images for free why should they buy any of yours.  I have never had this happen personally because I always had the best (medium format) camera in the room.  So now wtih the advent of digital and _everyone _buying a DSLR it is more important than ever to _look _like a professional as well as produce quality prints.  I know one thing that was always impresed into me when I started out was make a good impression and it doesn't matter what your pictures look like.  This is not to say you can shoot bad images but if you have pro gear, know how to use it, are dressed professionally and, take charge of the situation this will give them a good impression of you overall.


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 11, 2007)

I agree with the principle...but what if you buy a 5D and Uncle Joe shows up with a 1Ds mk III?  So you go out and buy a 1Ds mk III and the next Uncle Joe shows up with a Hassy H3D...what then?  

If you are making money by selling prints, then have a rule that guest are not allowed to shoot.  That is pretty standard.

Of course, the bottom line is that you need to deliver a quality product.  Some of the lower end equipment is quite capable of being able to deliver great results...even if you don't look as impressive as they guy in 3rd pew with $16,000 worth of equipment.


----------



## sabbath999 (Oct 11, 2007)

JIP said:


> When uncle Phil with the better camera than you tells them they can have his images for free why should they buy any of yours.



To take your thought a step further, we have all heard something along the lines of "wow, great picture, you must have a really good camera..." until we are fit to be tied.

MANY people equate quality pictures with the LOOK of your equipment, not knowing (or caring) that while Uncle Phil may have spent a ton of money on his gear, YOU are the one that knows how to use the stuff.

There is so much more to being a wedding photographer than the equipment, BUT people won't be standing over your shoulder as you are there post processing or won't notice you pouring over your shot list to make sure you have a picture of the bride and Great Aunt Edith.

People like to look at fancy equipment, as sad of a fact as it is... and they equate fancy equipment with good pictures (although WE photographers all know the truth).


----------



## wildmaven (Oct 11, 2007)

sabbath999 said:


> To take your thought a step further, we have all heard something along the lines of "wow, great picture, you must have a really good camera..." until we are fit to be tied.
> 
> MANY people equate quality pictures with the LOOK of your equipment, not knowing (or caring) that while Uncle Phil may have spent a ton of money on his gear, YOU are the one that knows how to use the stuff.


 
Soooooooo true! When I first set up the studio, my husband told a friend that she could come in and shoot her son with her own camera, using my backdrops :er: (yeah......I killed him later). She showed up with a nice high-end DSLR and started taking really horrible shots. I sat on my hands as long as I could and then couldn't take it anymore. I stepped up to her son and positioned him, moved over to her, moved her around and then told her to shoot. She looked at the resulting picture on her display and said, "wow!!...I guess that's why you're the professional. Do you have a card?" :mrgreen:


----------



## WDodd (Oct 11, 2007)

I really appreciate the input from everyone and it is really helping me immensely. I am not the type of person to just jump into something. I absolutely have to have a plan of attack so to speak. 

I really don't know about taking out a loan for equipment at this stage of the game. I do have friends' weddings coming up and will make the necessary steps to gain the experience through that. It will be interesting to see where this all takes me.


----------



## JIP (Oct 11, 2007)

You guys are all right just go start shooting weddings with with the Rebel and your kit lens you really don't need all that gear to do a good job at a wedding.  The only reason any real pro would have fro using "pro" gear is to impress people.  In fact all this high-end gear is just a conspiracy to trick people into buying expensive gear they don't really need.  I really wish I had consulted with you guys before Imade the ivestment in gear that I did.  I understand an image from a Rebel and a kit lens is every bit as valuable to a potential client as an image from an EOS 1D Mk III with a 35mm f/2.0 what was I thinking??.


----------



## JIP (Oct 11, 2007)

WDodd said:


> I really appreciate the input from everyone and it is really helping me immensely. I am not the type of person to just jump into something. I absolutely have to have a plan of attack so to speak.
> 
> I really don't know about taking out a loan for equipment at this stage of the game. I do have friends' weddings coming up and will make the necessary steps to gain the experience through that. It will be interesting to see where this all takes me.


 
By the way if you just go to a few friends weddings to put together a book to show potential cliens your work the gear you have is fine but if you start charging people for weddings with the gear you have you will be short changing the client and making yourself look bad but I guess that is just my opinion.


----------



## WDodd (Oct 11, 2007)

As far as having professional looking gear I would definitely not buy gear just to look professional or have it look the best. I would much rather use cheaper gear and use it better than the next guy with the more expensive gear.

I just don't think having a big pro body is going to make you look any better than having a 20D or XTi. Its all about how you handle yourself and the air of authority and confidence or manner in which you act. I believe that above all has more of an impact that the gear.


----------



## wildmaven (Oct 11, 2007)

I looked at the bigger pro bodies (why does that sound so sexy?) but the weight is too much for me. I would end up in the emergency room if I used that all the time.


----------



## subimatt (Oct 11, 2007)

I was fortunate to have a few friends getting married recently, so I was able to use them to help build my portfolio. My business is just starting to take off after a year of hard work, if you have any questions feel free to email or msg me. Ill be happy to talk to you about my experience so far.


----------



## JIP (Oct 11, 2007)

WDodd said:


> As far as having professional looking gear I would definitely not buy gear just to look professional or have it look the best. I would much rather use cheaper gear and use it better than the next guy with the more expensive gear.
> 
> I just don't think having a big pro body is going to make you look any better than having a 20D or XTi. Its all about how you handle yourself and the air of authority and confidence or manner in which you act. I believe that above all has more of an impact that the gear.


Listen, first of all the image thing while important is not the whole reason I say to get into a better body.  Second, I am not trying to say you need to get an EOS 1Ds mkIII or whatever ora Nikon D3 but a 5D or a D200/300 is the minimum.  For me I purchased a D70s and totally regret it and fully intend to, when I am able to get back into weddings physically (I have been dealing with a broken leg for 1.5 yrs.) on buying a D300 with a grip.  Also, while happy with 2 of the lenses (in my sig) I regret wasting money on the kit lens and when I get a chance (before I do another wedding I plan to buy the 17-55 2.8.  But I really want to re-iterate the whole image thing was not meant to be as big an issue as you think it is I just think it is important for a person to have the proper tools to do the job he intends on doing.


----------



## subimatt (Oct 11, 2007)

JIP said:


> Listen, first of all the image thing while important is not the whole reason I say to get into a better body.  Second, I am not trying to say you need to get an EOS 1Ds mkIII or whatever ora Nikon D3 but a 5D or a D200/300 is the minimum.  For me I purchased a D70s and totally regret it and fully intend to, when I am able to get back into weddings physically (I have been dealing with a broken leg for 1.5 yrs.) on buying a D300 with a grip.  Also, while happy with 2 of the lenses (in my sig) I regret wasting money on the kit lens and when I get a chance (before I do another wedding I plan to buy the 17-55 2.8.  But I really want to re-iterate the whole image thing was not meant to be as big an issue as you think it is I just think it is important for a person to have the proper tools to do the job he intends on doing.



I disagree, you can take perfectly good photos on a cropped body, 20/30/40Ds are great cameras and are perfectly capable Cameras. Proper glass and skill, matched with a capable body will do the job just fine.


----------



## JIP (Oct 11, 2007)

subimatt said:


> I disagree, you can take perfectly good photos on a cropped body, 20/30/40Ds are great cameras and are perfectly capable Cameras. Proper glass and skill, matched with a capable body will do the job just fine.


 
That is exactly what I was saying with that last post. People mis-interpreted me as saying you _need _a 1Ds Mk III or a D3 but I said a 20D or D200/300 will do just fine.  I just did not say 20D because I do not know Canon so I just said 5D.


----------



## WDodd (Oct 11, 2007)

I just interpreted what you said to mean the pro-style body gives you more of a pro look. Nothing to do with IQ.

And thanks subimatt!


----------



## subimatt (Oct 11, 2007)

JIP said:


> That is exactly what I was saying with that last post. People mis-interpreted me as saying you _need _a 1Ds Mk III or a D3 but I said a 20D or D200/300 will do just fine.  I just did not say 20D because I do not know Canon so I just said 5D.




Ah ok! Makes sense now, The 5D is Canons FF, 12.3 MP, Pro level body. Kits are around 3k, great camera and on my list of things to get, but way more than minimum for weddings. 5D would be equal do the D200/300's if that helps! :thumbup:


----------



## JIP (Oct 11, 2007)

Well than yes, the 5D it is.  I wonder what a client woud say if they knew just how seriously some people took the job they hired them for.  Understand the D200/300 and the 5D is a base model semi pro camera and to me it should be a minimum when considering getting into weddings seriously and lets get off the whole apperance thing I do mean that but lets drop that part of the discussion.  Now I do agree you Canon users do have a bit of an advantage when it comes to entry level cameras (20D/30D) but they should only be considered a_ starter _body to be replaced later on with a better main body and use it as a backup.  With Nikon I really would never consider the D80 as an acceptable body for weddings a backup mabye but honestly D200/300 all the way.  And in case anyone wonders I bought the D70s before the D200 came out and I regret it everyday as an inadequate waste of money.


----------



## subimatt (Oct 11, 2007)

JIP said:


> Well than yes, the 5D it is.  I wonder what a client woud say if they knew just how seriously some people took the job they hired them for.  Understand the D200/300 and the 5D is a base model semi pro camera and to me it should be a minimum when considering getting into weddings seriously and lets get off the whole apperance thing I do mean that but lets drop that part of the discussion.  Now I do agree you Canon users do have a bit of an advantage when it comes to entry level cameras (20D/30D) but they should only be considered a_ starter _body to be replaced later on with a better main body and use it as a backup.  With Nikon I really would never consider the D80 as an acceptable body for weddings a backup mabye but honestly D200/300 all the way.  And in case anyone wonders I bought the D70s before the D200 came out and I regret it everyday as an inadequate waste of money.



whoops im sorry, maybe I meant 5D = D2/ D3?  it is a Pro level camera.  lets see... maybe you can give me a run down on Nikons. heres one of Canon.   XT<XTi<20D<30D<40D<5D<1D<1Ds, the 5D and 1D are considered pro level cameras. Man this is confusing... Im never switching sides


----------



## Peanuts (Oct 11, 2007)

The way I look at it Canona nd Nikon are kind of 'staggered' in regards to what is better, for instance the D40 is below an XTi, but a D70/80 is above the XTi but below the 20D/30D/40D line, the D200 and D300 is above the 20D/30D/40D line but below the 5D (debatle) and next is the Canon 1D, and then there is the D2X/D3X which is debatabily equivalent/worse/better to/than the Canon 1Ds line. Make sense kind of ish? Then again, these things are alwasy changing so you never really know who is goign to slip a line in where.


----------



## SpeedTrap (Oct 11, 2007)

JIP said:


> I bought the D70s before the D200 came out and I regret it everyday as an inadequate waste of money.


 
I have a D70 and a D70s and a D300 on order, I do shoot weddings with a D70s, if you think you can't you need to have another look at your camera.
There is alot you can do with that camera, when I do have a paid shoot, I rent some fast glass and have never had a problem or a complaint from a customer.

I will like shooting with my new D300 but I will never leave home without my D70s if the 300 ever breaks down, I know the D70s can take over no problem.


----------



## S2K1 (Oct 12, 2007)

I think people are still mis-interpreting JIP. A D70s, although capable of creating great pictures, doesn't have the same build as a D200/300. Therefore it's not as durable to withstand the rigors of wedding shooting. You may get by with your D70/80, but if you want to do this as a living, that better body and longer shutter life(not sure as I shoot Canon, but I'd assume so) pays for itself and ensures the customer gets the job they paid you for. I am getting into wedding photography and shoot with a 30D, but I know I will upgrade once I do more than a wedding a month, I value the stronger body of a 5D or the weather seals of a 1D so I can get my job done. I completely understand why JIP is suggesting not shooting with a D80 if this is more than a passing fancy because when your paycheck is dependent on your camera, you better be getting the right camera.


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 12, 2007)

It should be noted that the 5D (body) is no more 'pro' or robust than the 20D or 30D.  It's basically the same body but with a larger sensor.  The 40D may actually be a better body in those terms because it has some weather sealing.

Either way, wedding photography is not on-the-street photo journalism or even sports photography.  The entry and mid level bodies are built well enough to put up with most of what a typical wedding shooter will go through.  Sure, stronger is better but the clients probably can't tell the difference.

I agree that if you are being paid to shoot weddings, it would be very beneficial to have the best (or at least very good) equipment.  The lower end cameras can get the job done though, maybe not lower end lenses though. Maybe that's part of the reason why some charge $6000 and some charge $1000.  

It becomes obvious that there is no right or wrong...there are just different ways of looking at it and different ways of going about it.


----------



## Peanuts (Oct 12, 2007)

One other aspect to tink about is quality of the image - due to the sensor size of the 5D, noise is less then the equivalent ISO on the 40D (even though they have greatly improved it and I ahven't had the chance to test it out) - and there is that odd wedding where light is of a premium - actually, that barely defines it.

I can't remember whether it was in this topic or another but don't be concerned at all about weight - I am an average sized 5'8" female who lugged around a 1Ds, 20D, 70-200mm, 85mm (and other things like flashes other lenses, ya-da, ya-da, but those where in my bag which I put down... which is another note, alwas make sure you gear is secure. I have a lock on it, or, if there is a DJ, put one of the arm straps around the DJs table) and I woke up the next morning mildly feeling like I had been hit by a freight train - however, during the day itself it was no problem 

(I hope no one thinks I am bashing the 20D/30D/40D line, they are _wonderful_ cameras and I used the 20D excluisively to second-shoot my first two weddings and it never failed me, however, if you are wanting to go into this for the long run, perhaps an upgrade would be a good idea)


----------



## Christie Photo (Oct 12, 2007)

It's always a pleasure to work with nice tools...  it can make the work go smoother.

What matters most is results.  I think a lot of us here could shoot a wedding with a point 'n' shoot and do a better job than many so-called wedding pros.

To answer the original question, I feel you can "get by" for now with your present gear.  I don't want to diminish the importance of having reliable gear.  But for now, while you're building your business, I think you can do fine at weddings.

On a personal note, I would NOT advise going into debt to buy gear.  You'll be far better off to gradually purchase additional/upgraded gear as you go along.

I shot my first wedding with a Pentax Spotmatic, one lens and flash bulbs.  Now, it wasn't long before I moved up to a strobe and roll film, but too I was moving up to more formal and expensive affairs.  But, there's ALWAYS someone there with a "nicer" set-up than mine.  I don't care....  just as long as my stuff does what I need it to do.

One more thought:  WITHIN REASON, clients won't recognise the difference between the result you get with a Rebel or a D5.  In the film days, I would bring a 6x7 to weddings for the formals, and shoot the rest with a 6x4.5, handheld.  You and I could see the difference...  the client NEVER did.  I'm not suggesting we sluff off substandard images.  What I mean is your Rebel and current lenses are adequate to deliver an perfect acceptable level of work with proper lighting and posing.  It will take a bit more care while shooting.  Like I said...  better tools are always nice to use.

-Pete


----------



## JIP (Oct 12, 2007)

S2K1 said:


> I think people are still mis-interpreting JIP. A D70s, although capable of creating great pictures, doesn't have the same build as a D200/300. Therefore it's not as durable to withstand the rigors of wedding shooting. You may get by with your D70/80, but if you want to do this as a living, that better body and longer shutter life(not sure as I shoot Canon, but I'd assume so) pays for itself and ensures the customer gets the job they paid you for. I am getting into wedding photography and shoot with a 30D, but I know I will upgrade once I do more than a wedding a month, I value the stronger body of a 5D or the weather seals of a 1D so I can get my job done. I completely understand why JIP is suggesting not shooting with a D80 if this is more than a passing fancy because when your paycheck is dependent on your camera, you better be getting the right camera.


Thank you for trying to clear this up.


----------



## raider (Oct 13, 2007)

having the right look applies to everything - would you want your airline pilot wearing cutoff jeans, a muscle shirt, and a bandana?  It's the real professionals who file taxes, make an initial investment in equipment, have a downtown storefront, etc. who get perturbed with aaalll the others doing wedding photography because they just happen to have a camera and a family member getting married!  Thank goodness I can't buy a stethoscope and instantly become a doctor.


----------



## jols (Oct 13, 2007)

imo  if you have a portfolio of pics and show the client and they are happy to employ you based on those pics then the camera you are using is fine.

i do weddings well i have done three and three booked for next year. i also do portraits and kids parties and wait for it   i have a fuji s5000 and a fuji s5700.

[i am waiting to get totally slammed for that]

BUT  my clients see my portfolio and employ me if they choose.

its not what you have got its what you do with it.


----------



## raider (Oct 15, 2007)

charge 3000 dollars for a wedding and show up with a disposable kodak - see what happens.  Has anyone done this?  It would be a nice experiment to check out the reactions.  A professional should have professional equipment.  Anyone edit their photos with microsoft paint?


----------



## Peanuts (Oct 15, 2007)

I could have sworn I have read about a photographer who showed up at a wedding, told the party to get cozy for a shot and pulled out a disposable camera, snapped a picture of their worried expressions then pulled out his real camera - that is the kind of humour one learns to appreciate


----------



## jols (Oct 15, 2007)

i still think thats its the portfolio pics i would be interested in.

if they like the photos it should not matter what camera you have.

i have seen wedding togs with thousands of pounds of equipment and take awful photos.  

and people with basic cameras for a couple hundred poud take great pics.

you either have a good eye for a pic or you have not.


----------

