# How well will this wedding photograper do?



## Awiserbud (Mar 30, 2013)

I have not seen the results so at the moment i am reserving judgement but i have to say i am a little sceptical.
She was paid an awful lot of money (I believe her and her partner who was shooting video charged £3,500 UK, Thats about $5,300 US ) for most of the day up until the first dance at about 7PM, then they both dissapeared.
She was also absent for big chunks during the day (lunch break perhaps ??)
Anyway she had 2 cameras, the D700 you can see in the pic, and a D800 which had a 35mm or 50mm 1.8 prime on it (couldn't quite make out which one)
It was a very cold and cloudy day, as it has been here in England for the last few months, so apart from the group shots outside everything else was shot indoors, and in both the ceremony and the dinner/speeches the only light was ambient coming in through the windows right behind the couple.
She never used a flash/strobe all day, If i'm honest i don't think she had one. 
Only on a couple of rare occasions did i notice the videographer help her out by pointing his video light towards the couple while she took her shots.
Is it possible that her shots will turn out fine and i'm being over sceptical?
I thought about asking her if she wanted to use my SB700 but she didn't appear to be the friendliest or most cheerful person in the world.


----------



## amolitor (Mar 30, 2013)

None of the things you've mentioned sound like definite earmarks of a bad photographer. The D800 with a fast prime can take excellent pictures outside at night, so I don't think light was a problem. The absence of flash does indicate that there's going to be no photographs shot with flash. So what? That's a look, sure. There are other looks.

I'm not sure what you're looking for here.


----------



## Awiserbud (Mar 30, 2013)

amolitor said:


> None of the things you've mentioned sound like definite earmarks of a bad photographer. The D800 with a fast prime can take excellent pictures outside at night, so I don't think light was a problem. The absence of flash does indicate that there's going to be no photographs shot with flash. So what? That's a look, sure. There are other looks.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're looking for here.



I guess i'm just being a bit sceptical, She didn't appear to be very coordinated and just gave the impression that she was a little out of her depth.
I hope i'm wrong.


----------



## Designer (Mar 30, 2013)

Did she bring two cameras?
Did she bring an assistant?
Did she charge a lot of money?
Was she standoffish, arrogant, and full of confidence?

If the answer to these questions is "yes", then the wedding couple will like the photographs, and be awfully glad they hired her.

Are you planning to view the pictures with an eye toward a critique?  I think I'd let well enough alone in this case.


----------



## Awiserbud (Mar 30, 2013)

Designer said:


> Did she bring two cameras?
> Did she bring an assistant?
> Did she charge a lot of money?
> Was she standoffish, arrogant, and full of confidence?
> ...



Standoffish : yes
Assistant : Not really, Her assistant was the videographer who was mostly busy doing his thing
Charge a lot of money: yes, and then some
Confident:  Hard to tell, Not so much when directing people, She missed out loads of people (important family members) in her shots, For example my missus is the Brides very very close aunty, She never had a single shot taken of her apart from the 2 official group shots she was in. (and i was a bit miffed by this since i'd forked out a small fortune on her Audry hepburn outfit!)

I think most enthusiasts pay attention to the official photographer at functions like these, Isn't it in our nature? Obviously I never spoke to the photographer, She's the pro and i let her do her thing, But i just have a gut feeling that the happy couple might not get what they were expecting. 
I have shot a couple of weddings myself, but i never even considered doing this one since i know how extremely fussy the family are and how high their expectations will be.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 30, 2013)

This thread is going places


----------



## Overread (Mar 30, 2013)

Honestly you're panicking before you've even seen the results, its way too early to know how good or bad they will be. Wait and see the results and then before you launch into any action have a look at the advertised product. If the photographer delivers a product of similar quality as the quality that they have advertised then the photographer has done their job as agreed (no matter the cost paid). 

You can't guess at the quality of photos by equipment alone, I've seen some very mundane equipment do some fantastic shots and some very fancy gear do some terrible shots. You can't tell till you see them, so at least give the photographer enough respect to let them present their work before you start panicking that "they were not good enough" .


----------



## Awiserbud (Mar 30, 2013)

Overread said:


> Honestly you're panicking before you've even seen the results, its way too early to know how good or bad they will be. Wait and see the results and then before you launch into any action have a look at the advertised product. If the photographer delivers a product of similar quality as the quality that they have advertised then the photographer has done their job as agreed (no matter the cost paid).
> 
> You can't guess at the quality of photos by equipment alone, I've seen some very mundane equipment do some fantastic shots and some very fancy gear do some terrible shots. You can't tell till you see them, so at least give the photographer enough respect to let them present their work before you start panicking that "they were not good enough" .



You are absolutely correct, and if the results are poor then its not my place to say anything anyhow, I was merely wondering if it was possible to get great results shooting the whole wedding indoors and out relying on ambient light alone considering how dull it was that day.


----------



## Overread (Mar 30, 2013)

With the right DSLR body and the right lenses you can do well - esp for portraits and people shots where people are standing posed. ISO values have gone very high in the market and with noise reduction and proper editing on top you can get some very good results these days. That is without considering printing which also does a lot to "hide" noise present in shots (much of the time noise just doesn't appear in printed photos). So the delivered prints might well come out well.


----------



## KmH (Mar 30, 2013)

Many available light photographers lack a good grounding in photographic lighting. Some do.

Using only available light is very limiting, because the light sources can't be moved, often have differing color temperatures, and cannot have their intensity easily adjusted.

Really good available light photographers are able to demand a premium because of their skill and talent. The really good available light photographers are generally very knowledgeable about photographic lighting.

As far a we know, this wedding photographer has shot at this location before, or scouted the location prior to the event.

$5300 is not all that expensive for an wedding photographer that has an established and highly regarded reputation.
In addition you don't state what pre/post wedding products the $5300 includes for the customer.

FWIW, there are established and highly regarded wedding photographers out there that cater to high end clients and command fee's up to 10x+ what you state that photographer charged.

I'm always amazed to hear about weddings where more was spent on things that last just a few days, like flowers and a wedding cake, than on the photographs that will last a lifetime.


----------



## Tee (Mar 30, 2013)

Based on the pic provided, both those cameras can handle natural light with great results.  Maybe she had flash but never felt like she needed it?


----------



## Awiserbud (Mar 30, 2013)

Time will tell, I'm not sure what the package included KmH, I don't think there were any pre-event shots, 
Yes i agree the D700 and D800 are both very capable cameras, and in the right hands will indeed capture great results, I will keep you posted when she gets her shots back. No idea how long she will have to wait for them.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 30, 2013)

To answer the question which was asked, the photographer got paid over five grand, so I suspect she did very well.

Beyond that, though, a couple of observations:

First, was it your wedding? If not, don't worry about it; it ain't your money and it's not your special day. Your memories of that day will not be affected an iota if the bride & groom get lousy photos.

Second, what's your basis for even asking the question? You acknowledge that the gear used will perform fine under the conditions in the right hands. What leads you to believe hers were not the right hands? Clearly, the bridge and groom believe her are the "right hands". The bride and groom would've, I'm sure, seen examples of her work before hiring her. I think I'd defer to that until there's evidence to the contrary.

Sorry, I just don't see any reason why the question even needs to be asked...


----------



## table1349 (Mar 30, 2013)

In other world news tonight..............Cow Herd Chase: Austrian Police, Firefighters Trail Bovines Through Town

And now for the weather....


----------



## TATTRAT (Mar 30, 2013)

Awiserbud said:


> I guess i'm just being a bit sceptical, She didn't appear to be very coordinated and just gave the impression that she was a little out of her depth.
> I hope i'm wrong.



She was hired for a reason, right? Was her prior work reviewed? Was it your wedding or a friends? I would certainly hope that with shelling out that amount of money, it wasn't done blindly. If so, I need to start shooting weddings.


----------



## Awiserbud (Mar 30, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> To answer the question which was asked, the photographer got paid over five grand, so I suspect she did very well.
> 
> Beyond that, though, a couple of observations:
> 
> ...



It was merely an observation that many of her shots that (I felt) would have benefitted from more than just ambient lighting, Until the shots come back i can of course only speculate, The bride is a family member and naturally i want to see that her money was well spent.
 The shot i posted was right in the centre of the hall where the lighting was good, to the left and right of the couple the room was considerably darker as you can see here:




I am fully aware of the high ISO capabilities of many pro DSLR's including the photog's D700 and D800, But not being a wedding photographer myself i just thought it strange that she would shoot the whole day without a flash in sight.
I am sure many wedding photographers have done the same thing, but given the choice would it be better to have another light source instead of cranking the ISO up?


----------



## amolitor (Mar 30, 2013)

The point is that we can't judge, here.

Maybe she does a b&w hyper-photojournalistic style. That was pretty popular, um, I forget. A long time ago. Maybe it's back. There could be a bunch of things going on. Or, she could just be terrible. It's a big universe, all things are possible!


----------



## Awiserbud (Mar 30, 2013)

amolitor said:


> The point is that we can't judge, here.
> 
> Maybe she does a b&w hyper-photojournalistic style. That was pretty popular, um, I forget. A long time ago. Maybe it's back. There could be a bunch of things going on. Or, she could just be terrible. It's a big universe, all things are possible!



Yes i agree, I didn't start this thread to throw a spanner in her works, I genuinely hope she nailed it, The last thing i want is to see a wedding photographer screw up, 
the more i progress with my own photography the more critical i become and the more i notice what others are doing (rightly or wrongly)
I guess there is more than one way to skin a cat as they say.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 30, 2013)

Well, judging by the back of her jacket, and the color of the jacket, I'm gonna say that her photos will be awesome!!!!


----------



## Designer (Mar 30, 2013)

Awiserbud said:


> ...the more i progress with my own photography the more critical i become and the more i notice what others are doing...



Me too.  I'm with you; not expecting much in the way of excellent photography from this photographer.  My first post expressed my chagrin at the way some people are able to project themselves into a higher position than they deserve.

For this wedding couple it is too late to interfere, and like you, I simply hope for the best, but not really expecting work that is actually worth the money.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 30, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Well, judging by the back of her jacket, and the color of the jacket, I'm gonna say that her photos will be awesome!!!!



That is an amazing photograph producing red jacket, if I do say so myself.

Put that thing on... and you become David Burnett.


----------



## Lmphotos (Mar 30, 2013)

I say never judge. There are some pros who could probably kill me with a cell phone camera!


----------



## Krawler (Mar 30, 2013)

How much of the dislike of the photographer is based on the fact that you didn't get to see your wifes high dollar dress beside the bride? You said you wouldn't shoot the wedding because the family is to picky, Well you are part of that family. 

I only asked because it had to bother you and affect your opinion if you felt the need to bring it up.

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say this is  the only reason you didn't like the photographer and then felt the need to find other reasons to not like them . Just wondering how much it had to do with it.


----------



## bsinmich (Mar 30, 2013)

One of my pet peeves when doing weddings was that they would gladly pay the photographer and then think the organist was worth $25.00. That is why I still hate to play for weddings today. Give me a camera job for the wedding any day.  Wait for the pictures.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 30, 2013)

bsinmich said:


> One of my pet peeves when doing weddings was that they would gladly pay the photographer and then think the organist was worth $25.00. That is why I still hate to play for weddings today. Give me a camera job for the wedding any day.  Wait for the pictures.



Lol it's the opposite in my area. They will spend $2000 on flowers, but will go on Craigslist or to the university to find cheap student photographers.

This isn't even a selective thing either. Even the "expensive" options are comparatively cheap because the cost of living is so low here.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Mar 30, 2013)

Not sure what is more annoying.. a wedding photographer that doesnt know what he/she is doing, or an uncle Bob who shot a wedding, post the photos on his business page, slap signature on it like it was his gig, then talk trash about the actual photographer.

Kayleigh & Jason Wedding | Facebook


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 30, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Not sure what is more annoying.. a wedding photographer that doesnt know what he/she is doing, or an uncle Bob who shot a wedding, post the photos on his business page, slap signature on it like it was his gig, then talk trash about the actual photographer.
> 
> Kayleigh & Jason Wedding | Facebook




Are you a Photographer or Private Investigator?


----------



## manaheim (Mar 30, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> To answer the question which was asked, the photographer got paid over five grand, so I suspect she did very well.
> 
> Beyond that, though, a couple of observations:
> 
> ...



The following is a historical event...

I agree with Steve.  Completely.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Mar 30, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> Are you a Photographer or Private Investigator?



You dont need to be a PI when the link of his fb/website is on his signature.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 30, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Not sure what is more annoying.. a wedding photographer that doesnt know what he/she is doing, or an uncle Bob who shot a wedding, post the photos on his business page, slap signature on it like it was his gig, then talk trash about the actual photographer.
> 
> Kayleigh & Jason Wedding | Facebook



Ohhhhhhhhhh....BURN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Lmphotos (Mar 30, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Not sure what is more annoying.. a wedding photographer that doesnt know what he/she is doing, or an uncle Bob who shot a wedding, post the photos on his business page, slap signature on it like it was his gig, then talk trash about the actual photographer.
> 
> Kayleigh & Jason Wedding | Facebook




Ohhhhh my. Yes this changes things


----------



## Derrel (Mar 30, 2013)

Lmphotos said:


> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure what is more annoying.. a wedding photographer that doesnt know what he/she is doing, or an uncle Bob who shot a wedding, post the photos on his business page, slap signature on it like it was his gig, then talk trash about the actual photographer.
> ...



This is a lot like Christopher Columbus coming back and saying, "Uh, yeah, I think I found a little place you might be interested in Queen Isabella...but then again, it might not be much of anything...I dunno..."


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 30, 2013)

I mean this in the kindest way possible... well... the kindest way possible for what I'm about to say...


I can see why they booked the other photographer.


----------



## e.rose (Mar 30, 2013)

Sounds like a case of, "But why didn't they hire *MEEEEE*?!" (Also goes by the name of:  "I could have TOTALLY done a better job"; "I don't shoot weddings, because [insert excuse] but I KNOW they're doing it wrong"; "I'm a hobbyist that is either consciously or subconsciously angry that I don't get paid to do this and that person does, so I shall judge them to make myself feel better."; etc.)

GTFO.


----------



## e.rose (Mar 30, 2013)

Lmphotos said:


> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure what is more annoying.. a wedding photographer that doesnt know what he/she is doing, or an uncle Bob who shot a wedding, post the photos on his business page, slap signature on it like it was his gig, then talk trash about the actual photographer.
> ...



It didn't change anything for me.  With the attitude he has, I expected it. :er:


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 30, 2013)

e.rose said:


> Lmphotos said:
> 
> 
> > Robin_Usagani said:
> ...




Another Nashvillian!!!! How freaking awesome!


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 30, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Not sure what is more annoying.. a wedding photographer that doesnt know what he/she is doing, or an uncle Bob who shot a wedding, post the photos on his business page, slap signature on it like it was his gig, then talk trash about the actual photographer.
> 
> Kayleigh & Jason Wedding | Facebook



I laughed so hard at this post I woke up my kids....


----------



## e.rose (Mar 30, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > Lmphotos said:
> ...



:lmao:  HAHA!  Funny... I did the same thing in your thread!  :lmao:


----------



## manaheim (Mar 30, 2013)

I'm so confused... that facebook page... is that the OP's page?  And you people just pwned him?  Is that what I'm seeing here?  Because if so... that's pretty amazing.


----------



## e.rose (Mar 30, 2013)

manaheim said:


> I'm so confused... that facebook page... is that the OP's page?  And you people just pwned him?  Is that what I'm seeing here?  Because if so... that's pretty amazing.



&#8203;YUP.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Mar 30, 2013)

manaheim said:


> I'm so confused... that facebook page... is that the OP's page?  And *Robin Usagan*i just pwned him?  Is that what I'm seeing here?  Because if so... that's pretty amazing.



Corrected..  

JK


----------



## manaheim (Mar 30, 2013)

wow... that hurts. hurts bad.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Mar 30, 2013)

But seriously though OP, I really don't mind people uncle bobing my wedding gig.  Posting the photos on your business page isn't right IMO.  Just post it on your personal page, no watermark, and share them with the wedding couple.


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 30, 2013)

I'm now curious to see the professional photographer's portfolio and her previous work.... you know... for comparison...


----------



## TATTRAT (Mar 31, 2013)

e.rose said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > I'm so confused... that facebook page... is that the OP's page?  And you people just pwned him?  Is that what I'm seeing here?  Because if so... that's pretty amazing.
> ...


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 31, 2013)

manaheim said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > To answer the question which was asked, the photographer got paid over five grand, so I suspect she did very well.
> ...


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 31, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Not sure what is more annoying.. a wedding photographer that doesnt know what he/she is doing, or an uncle Bob who shot a wedding, post the photos on his business page, slap signature on it like it was his gig, then talk trash about the actual photographer.
> 
> Kayleigh & Jason Wedding | Facebook



Oh, that's gonna' leave a mark...


----------



## TATTRAT (Mar 31, 2013)

The shot of the actual photographers back is better than a lot of those in the set.


----------



## Awiserbud (Mar 31, 2013)

wow...you guys know how to throw an ambush...
Lets be very clear here, I have not trashed the hired photographer one bit, I think you are all putting words in my mouth, Read my posts and you'll see that, 
I merely asked if it was possible to shoot this wedding using nothing but ambient lighting.
For the record many of the wedding guests had made comments about the photographer, how they didn't feel like she was in control etc, 

I was asked by the couple to post the photos i had taken on FB, I have that in a FB message which i could post here to satisfy your interest, but thats completely irrelevent.
To add to that, I have already stated that i wouldn't have photographed this wedding for them, I don't think i would have pulled it off and i am nowhere near confident enough to have attempted it.

You guys do love to cut people down to size dont ya !!!!!!


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 31, 2013)

Awiserbud said:


> I don't think i would have pulled it off and i am nowhere near confident enough to have attempted it.



That not only keeps the questioned motive in action, it actually makes it worse.

If you know you're not skilled enough to have pulled this wedding off, why are you questioning a $5,000 wedding photographer's ability without first reviewing that photographer's work? I would assume at that price, she probably knows a thing or two. Especially in comparison to someone that just openly admitted that their skill level is sub-par (and don't say that you didn't just say that, because you very well did, indirectly).


----------



## TATTRAT (Mar 31, 2013)

Awiserbud said:


> wow...you guys know how to throw an ambush...
> Lets be very clear here, I have not trashed the hired photographer one bit, I think you are all putting words in my mouth, Read my posts and you'll see that,
> I merely asked if it was possible to shoot this wedding using nothing but ambient lighting.
> For the record many of the wedding guests had made comments about the photographer, how they didn't feel like she was in control etc,
> ...




Fine and dandy, but if you weren't up to it, or couldn't pull it off, why put it on your business page? Why not just simply share them as shots with your friends and family?


----------



## e.rose (Mar 31, 2013)

Guys... My car broke down earlier today... and my husband is on tour... Can someone bring me some popcorn and/or come get me and take me so I can get some myself?


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 31, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Not sure what is more annoying.. a wedding photographer that doesnt know what he/she is doing, or an uncle Bob who shot a wedding, post the photos on his business page, slap signature on it like it was his gig, then talk trash about the actual photographer.
> 
> Kayleigh & Jason Wedding | Facebook


----------



## Awiserbud (Mar 31, 2013)

Its not really a business page, I dont have a website, it just keeps albums i have taken seperate from my personal FB page. I dont promote it, I just put links to it on my main FB page when there is an album that I want to share.


Why am i defending myself here?


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 31, 2013)

Awiserbud said:


> wow...you guys know how to throw an ambush...
> Lets be very clear here, I have not trashed the hired photographer one bit, I think you are all putting words in my mouth, Read my posts and you'll see that,
> I merely asked if it was possible to shoot this wedding using nothing but ambient lighting.
> For the record many of the wedding guests had made comments about the photographer, how they didn't feel like she was in control etc,
> ...





Awiserbud said:


> Its not really a business page, I dont have a website, it just keeps albums i have taken seperate from my personal FB page. I dont promote it, I just put links to it on my main FB page when there is an album that I want to share.
> 
> 
> Why am i defending myself here?


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Mar 31, 2013)

Awiserbud said:


> *Its not really a business page*, I dont have a website, it just keeps albums i have taken seperate from my personal FB page. I dont promote it, I just put links to it on my main FB page when there is an album that I want to share.
> 
> 
> Why am i defending myself here?


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 31, 2013)

Beat me to it!!


----------



## TATTRAT (Mar 31, 2013)

point already made


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 31, 2013)

Awiserbud...

Bud, you're not being too wise here..


..Just stop.


----------



## Awiserbud (Mar 31, 2013)

Nice.

I ask a question about how well do you guys think someone will do without a flash... A genuine question... And it turns into a witchhunt !!!

You can continue this on yer own guys.


----------



## e.rose (Mar 31, 2013)




----------



## Robin_Usagani (Mar 31, 2013)

Seriously OP..  I assume you want to succeed on this business.  This is not the path you want to take, trust me.  9 out of 10, you will piss off other photographers in your area.  You want to build a good network.  Do not post other people's gig on your business page.. and for sure do not put signatures.  More than likely the main photographer will be pissed.


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 31, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Awiserbud said:
> 
> 
> > *Its not really a business page*, I dont have a website, it just keeps albums i have taken seperate from my personal FB page. I dont promote it, I just put links to it on my main FB page when there is an album that I want to share.
> ...






And he goes in for the KO!!!! lol


----------



## TATTRAT (Mar 31, 2013)




----------



## Steve5D (Mar 31, 2013)

I don't know that I've ever seen so much "win" and so much "fail" present in a single thread.

And I've been on the interwebs a really long time...


----------



## e.rose (Mar 31, 2013)

Vtec44 said:


> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > Awiserbud said:
> ...





That's what my thought was too!  :lmao:


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Mar 31, 2013)

If you did that to me, I will for sure talk about you with other photographers in the area.  It is just not a good move.


----------



## e.rose (Mar 31, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> If you did that to me, I will for sure talk about you with other photographers in the area.  It is just not a good move.




Don't waste your breath Robin.  He's not here anymore.  We can continue this on our own, remember?


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Mar 31, 2013)

Let's just forget this whole thing.  OP... I am sorry I put you on the spot.  I hope you learn a valuable lesson.


----------



## e.rose (Mar 31, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Let's just forget this whole thing.  OP... I am sorry I put you on the spot.  I hope you learn a valuable lesson.



What happens on TPF...


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 31, 2013)

e.rose said:


> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > Let's just forget this whole thing.  OP... I am sorry I put you on the spot.  I hope you learn a valuable lesson.
> ...


Will be easily found on a google search!


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 31, 2013)

Awiserbud said:


> Nice.
> 
> I ask a question about how well do you guys think someone will do without a flash... A genuine question... And it turns into a witchhunt !!!
> 
> You can continue this on yer own guys.



There's no witch hunt, merely a presentation of facts. It just so happens that the facts being presented cast you in an unflattering light, so now you're upset. You're just gettin' pissy because no one here has decided that your "logic" is a path worth following. Then, to top it all off, you say you don't have the skills to pull off a wedding, and someone posts something, which is apparently yours, in which you claim to shoot engagements and weddings.

If you honestly can't see why you're being given a hard time here, I don't know what to tell you.

Post honestly. Doing so goes a long way...


----------



## e.rose (Mar 31, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Awiserbud said:
> 
> 
> > Nice.
> ...



Truer words have never been spoken.


----------



## Awiserbud (Mar 31, 2013)

It wasn't in my "area". Not that i have an area, I am not looking to become a paid photographer, I have a job in a different field.
and we have no connection on FB with the paid photog so she will never get to see my personal photographs of this wedding.
In my eyes my photos of this wedding i posted are no different to everyone else posting photos on FB from their i-phones and P&S cameras.
You guys have made the difference based only on the fact that i have a signature on them.
I sat back and took my shots out of the way of the paid photogs way, I had enough respect not to get in her way and let her do her thing.

I'm sure you guys are enjoying this, I've seen it on this forum hundreds of times, slapping someone down rather than take an interest in what the OP initially asked.
And i could ask you all to read my posts in this thread and try and find the part where i trashed the paid photographer...but you wont, because i didn't, and that would be much less fun anyway wouldn't it.
shame on you all.


----------



## TATTRAT (Mar 31, 2013)

If only the actual wedding photographer had a flash. . .


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Mar 31, 2013)

Awiserbud said:


> It wasn't in my "area". Not that i have an area, I am not looking to become a paid photographer, I have a job in a different field.
> and we have no connection on FB with the paid photog so she will never get to see my personal photographs of this wedding.
> In my eyes my photos of this wedding i posted are no different to everyone else posting photos on FB from their i-phones and P&S cameras.
> You guys have made the difference based only on the fact that i have a signature on them.
> ...



Are you kidding me Steve?  You posted an FB album from a business page (which is automatically public) on the B&G's page.  You honestly think the photographer wont see it????  

Also, you are not looking to become a paid photographer??  Are you kidding me?  Let me repost this again.


----------



## e.rose (Mar 31, 2013)

TATTRAT said:


> If only the actual wedding photographer had a flash. . .



This pictures would turn out better.

I should tell all the Nashville photogs that I know that shoot weddings without a flash and charge $5,000+ that they need one.

They'll be worth the money then.


----------



## e.rose (Mar 31, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Are you kidding me Steve?  You posted an FB album from a business page (which is automatically public) on the B&G's page.  You honestly think the photographer wont see it????



WHOA............ I missed that part.

...I need to find more backpedaling memes.  I don't think that one was enough.


----------



## Awiserbud (Mar 31, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Awiserbud said:
> 
> 
> > Nice.
> ...



Yes this is true, but i honestly don't promote myself as a wedding photographer, I have been asked a few times and have turned it down simply because i don't feel i have the right equipment, or the experience.
The couple of weddings i have shot have been friends, who knew my limitations and were looking for someone cheap.
As i stated before, if i was asked by this couple to shoot it for them, i would have declined.

which part have i been dishonest about?


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 31, 2013)

Nevermind.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 31, 2013)

Dude, you need to seriously stop talking.


----------



## TATTRAT (Mar 31, 2013)

I kinda feel for Steve. All he had to say was, "not sure about this photog they hired, no flash and all, 5 thousand quid and no flash couldn't be legit, not sure about the outcome but we'll see. . . .  . . .I happened to be there too with my camera and flash, will be interesting to see the comparison".


----------



## e.rose (Mar 31, 2013)

Awiserbud said:


> i honestly don't promote myself as a wedding photographer


----------



## e.rose (Mar 31, 2013)

(Just in case you were confused... that's promotion.  No matter how often you decide or don't decide to click the share button on Facebook........ )


----------



## TATTRAT (Mar 31, 2013)

Even the kids in the background have a condescending, WTF look at the red circles, Steve.


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 31, 2013)

Awiserbud said:


> It wasn't in my "area". Not that i have an area, I am not looking to become a paid photographer, I have a job in a different field.
> and we have no connection on FB with the paid photog so she will never get to see my personal photographs of this wedding.
> In my eyes my photos of this wedding i posted are no different to everyone else posting photos on FB from their i-phones and P&S cameras.
> You guys have made the difference based only on the fact that i have a signature on them.
> ...



I can answer your question regarding shooting an entire wedding with just natural indoor lighting, since I have a D7000 and a D800 to give you some comparison.  The answer is yes and I have personally done it on my D800 with f1.8 and f1.4 lenses.  

But seriously, posting pictures from weddings that you were not hired to do with your watermark on them is considered rude and unprofessional in the circle of wedding photographers.  



Disclaimer - I'm not an expert on anything! lol


----------



## Awiserbud (Mar 31, 2013)

TATTRAT said:


> I kinda feel for Steve. All he had to say was, "not sure about this photog they hired, no flash and all, 5 thousand quid and no flash couldn't be legit, not sure about the outcome but we'll see. . . .  . . .I happened to be there too with my camera and flash, will be interesting to see the comparison".



I think you'll find this is pretty much what i did say.!


----------



## e.rose (Mar 31, 2013)

Vtec44 said:


> Disclaimer - I'm not an expert on anything! lol



TRANSLATION:  I am an expert on ALLLLLLLLLL the things!

  Just kidding.    :hug::


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 31, 2013)

Awiserbud said:


> TATTRAT said:
> 
> 
> > I kinda feel for Steve. All he had to say was, "not sure about this photog they hired, no flash and all, 5 thousand quid and no flash couldn't be legit, not sure about the outcome but we'll see. . . .  . . .I happened to be there too with my camera and flash, will be interesting to see the comparison".
> ...




No matter how you spin it, you need to stop. It's for your own good if you do.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 31, 2013)

IN A NUTSHELL:

View attachment 40610


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 31, 2013)

e.rose said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > Disclaimer - I'm not an expert on anything! lol
> ...




I can't photograph pregnant ladies... sorry I just can't!!!


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 31, 2013)

Awiserbud said:


> I am not looking to become a paid photographer...



Um, okay.

If (and this is an enormous "if") we assume that you're being truthful when you say you're not looking to become a paid photographer, why would you post something regarding "general photographic work"? I don't know what goes on in merry ol' England but, here in the Colonies, "work" implies "paid". Why would you ask that someone contact you for "cheap rates"? "Rates" implies that you have some sort of scale or schedule you use to determine what to charge people. Well, again, that implies that you want to be, you know... "paid".

I'm not even going to comment on the "cheap" aspect, nor will I comment on the photos posted on your Facebook page. 

So, if you want us to believe that you don't want to become a paid photographer, why is it proving to be _profoundly _simple to find evidence to the contrary?










> And i could ask you all to read my posts in this thread and try and find the part where i trashed the paid photographer...but you wont, because i didn't, and that would be much less fun anyway wouldn't it.
> shame on you all.



I guess if I'd suffered the same level of legitimate, deserved smack-down you just did, I'd lash out, too.

Your posts are littered with dishonesty.  Don't tell us you don't want to be a "paid photographer", because it's _glaringly _obvious that you do. Evidence of that has been posted. In light of that evidence, you simply come across as someone who's got a chip on his shoulder because he didn't get the high paying gig. Instead of simply manning up and accepting that, you question the skill of the photographer who _did _get the high paying gig, simply because you need to grab onto something that you hope will make you feel better about not getting the gig. YTou seriously need to wrap your head around the fact that, currently, there is no reason to question the proficiency of the hired photographer.

Lose the level of dishonesty that you seem to be relying on and maybe, just maybe, you'll get people willing to actually discuss the topic. But coming here and belching up dishonesty as you have will endear you to no one, nor should it...


----------



## TATTRAT (Mar 31, 2013)

Awiserbud said:


> TATTRAT said:
> 
> 
> > I kinda feel for Steve. All he had to say was, "not sure about this photog they hired, no flash and all, 5 thousand quid and no flash couldn't be legit, not sure about the outcome but we'll see. . . .  . . .I happened to be there too with my camera and flash, will be interesting to see the comparison".
> ...



No, Bro. No you did not.


----------



## Awiserbud (Mar 31, 2013)

e.rose said:


> (Just in case you were confused... that's promotion.  No matter how often you decide or don't decide to click the share button on Facebook........ )



perhaps your right, but as i said i don't actively seek work from it and if i do accept a paid job its usually a very low key casual gig.
I know very well not to distinguish myself with paid professionals who do this on a daily basis and i never pretended i am otherwise.


----------



## e.rose (Mar 31, 2013)

Vtec44 said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > Vtec44 said:
> ...



Don't feel bad.  I can't either.  :lmao:


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 31, 2013)

Awiserbud said:


> Yes this is true, but i honestly don't promote myself as a wedding photographer,





> which part have i been dishonest about?



Does the ad posted earlier _not _say "WEDDINGS"?

Start there...


----------



## TATTRAT (Mar 31, 2013)

Awiserbud said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > (Just in case you were confused... that's promotion.  No matter how often you decide or don't decide to click the share button on Facebook........ )
> ...




That's still being a paid photographer, yes? Semantics, I know, but just going off what you have said. . .


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 31, 2013)

I honestly wanted to be asleep by now, because I'm waking up early to go photograph Mount St. Helens.

I can't fall asleep though. The sound of me laughing is keeping me awake...


----------



## e.rose (Mar 31, 2013)

Awiserbud said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > (Just in case you were confused... that's promotion.  No matter how often you decide or don't decide to click the share button on Facebook........ )
> ...



So maybe you should change your advertisement wording to 

Low-key Engagements, Low-key Weddings, Low-key everything.

(Just kidding.  Don't do that.  You should probably just take it all down period.)

If you're not looking to be a paid photographer... there's no need for advertisements... PERIOD.  Whether you post them once or shout them from the rooftops.  

You'll get plenty of low-key gigs from your family and friends and you can happily serve them at the cheap quoted rate of "free".

Everybody wins.


----------



## e.rose (Mar 31, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Awiserbud said:
> 
> 
> > Yes this is true, but i honestly don't promote myself as a wedding photographer,
> ...



It did.  I circled it!


----------



## e.rose (Mar 31, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> I honestly wanted to be asleep by now, because I'm waking up early to go photograph Mount St. Helens.
> 
> I can't fall asleep though. The sound of me laughing is keeping me awake...



Yeah, and I had a date with House (the TV show... not the man himself... although, he *is* on my list of "Hot older me I would get with" :lmao: ), another glass of wine, and an ice cream cone.

Unfortunately my "happy buzz" is wearing off due to being stuck here by the monitor, feverishly clicking "refresh".


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Mar 31, 2013)

I am just telling you the fact.  There have been several people who did exactly what you did.  Brought a big camera to the wedding I am shooting (which I don't mind.. iPhone, point and shoot, dslr does not matter to me), then post the wedding photos with professional signature on it.  It just rubs me the wrong way.  I am sure most photographers will feel the same way.


----------



## Lmphotos (Mar 31, 2013)

I think if I was in your position at the wedding I would be watching her and studying her. Then once the final products came out if they were horrid I would of seen things she could of done to improve or maybe of a flash would have benefited. If they turned out great then I would of been highly impressed and would try and remember what I saw her doing when she took some pictures. Was she backlighting? Using angles? I would be looking at it as a learning oppourtunity. I will say at my cousins wedding the photographers busted a straight on direct flash in her face at the time I thought probably wouldn't have done that but ill wait and see what it comes back as..... I remember when my cousin got her picture back I was looking for her bridal portraits when they did that and guess what I found?? Pictures with ugly straight on camera flash and in a way I thought man I was right probably should not have done that. NEVER did I say anything to my cousing about it. She loved her pictures and the rest were decent I just took a mental note of all the things I seen they did right and didn't do right and I learned from it. I did not start a thread on here titled "how well will these photographers do" and then take a picture of them behind their back and post it on here about them. That is wrong as honestly would you want someone taking pictures of you posting them on the Internet questioning why you made so mj money?! How insulting IMO. 



P.S. I love her jacket


----------



## e.rose (Mar 31, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> I am just telling you the fact.  There have been several people who did exactly what you did.  Brought a big camera to the wedding I am shooting (which I don't mind.. iPhone, point and shoot, dslr does not matter to me), then post the wedding photos with professional signature on it.  It just rubs me the wrong way.  I am sure most photographers will feel the same way.



MOST photographers don't even like other cameras at a wedding.  You're generous.

I'm not even a main shooter and I don't like other cameras at weddings cause they always get in the f**kin way.

I had to shoot AROUND a guest who stepped into the aisle to take a picture of the bride walking down the aisle at the last wedding I second shot... WITH HER IPHONE.

IN THE MOTHER EFFING AISLE.

Dude.  No.

The bride hired the main guy I was working for... and he hired me to back him up... NOT your mother flippin' iPhone.

KTHANXBYE.

:lmao:


----------



## Lmphotos (Mar 31, 2013)

e.rose said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > I honestly wanted to be asleep by now, because I'm waking up early to go photograph Mount St. Helens.
> ...




Mmmmmmm.....House......he's on my list too but only with his accent


----------



## e.rose (Mar 31, 2013)

Awww, he really IS gone this time now guys.

On the bright side... maybe I can get up and get my wine and ice cream now.  :lmao:


----------



## e.rose (Mar 31, 2013)

Lmphotos said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



Um... DUH......


----------



## TATTRAT (Mar 31, 2013)

those photos were taken off pretty quickly. . .


----------



## Awiserbud (Mar 31, 2013)

Weddings in England are pretty much the same as everywhere, High key expensive weddings will no doubt involve expensive experienced photographers, but there are low key weddings also, the bride and groom may be on a budget, it may be their 2nd or 3rd wedding, It might not be the fairytale wedding of the year, possibly similar to drive through Vegas weddings. I doubt you would hire a $5,000 photographer in this case would you.
While it may have been easy for you guys to dig a little and post my FB banner (something which i firmly believe falls into the witchunt catagory ) I have never once promoted myself in this forum or elsewhere aside from FB as a wedding photographer.
Yes i thought at the time i made that banner i could perhaps get a bit more involved in that aspect of photography, But i always reserve the right to decline work if i feel its out of my depth, And i often do.
As i have stated numerous times, i am not at that level where i feel i could do this and quit my day job, I don't have the right gear at the moment or experience.
which part have i been unclear about?


----------



## e.rose (Mar 31, 2013)

TATTRAT said:


> those photos were taken off pretty quickly. . .



D'awwww.


----------



## TATTRAT (Mar 31, 2013)

Awiserbud said:


> Weddings in England are pretty much the same as everywhere, High key expensive weddings will no doubt involve expensive experienced photographers, but there are low key weddings also, the bride and groom may be on a budget, it may be their 2nd or 3rd wedding, It might not be the fairytale wedding of the year, possibly similar to drive through Vegas weddings. I doubt you would hire a $5,000 photographer in this case would you.
> While it may have been easy for you guys to dig a little and post my FB banner (something which i firmly believe falls into the witchunt catagory ) I have never once promoted myself in this forum or elsewhere aside from FB as a wedding photographer.
> Yes i thought at the time i made that banner i could perhaps get a bit more involved in that aspect of photography, But i always reserve the right to decline work if i feel its out of my depth, And i often do.
> As i have stated numerous times, i am not at that level where i feel i could do this and quit my day job, I don't have the right gear at the moment or experience.
> which part have i been unclear about?



I think you need to think of this as if it was happening to someone besides you, how would you look at the whole thing?


----------



## e.rose (Mar 31, 2013)

ALSO...



Awiserbud said:


> I doubt you would hire a $5,000 photographer in this case would you.



Not true.

I was a budget bride and my photographer was the most expensive part of my budget because I felt photos were of utmost importance.


----------



## e.rose (Mar 31, 2013)

TATTRAT said:


> Awiserbud said:
> 
> 
> > Weddings in England are pretty much the same as everywhere, High key expensive weddings will no doubt involve expensive experienced photographers, but there are low key weddings also, the bride and groom may be on a budget, it may be their 2nd or 3rd wedding, It might not be the fairytale wedding of the year, possibly similar to drive through Vegas weddings. I doubt you would hire a $5,000 photographer in this case would you.
> ...



He would OBVIOUSLY be cool with it.

See above meme about pedaling... the opposite way of forward.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 31, 2013)

TATTRAT said:


> those photos were taken off pretty quickly. . .



They're still up on Facebook; watermarked and everything.

I'm not a wedding shooter. When I shoot, it would be rare that I'm the only photographer there; auto racing, concerts, etc.

But, if I were the wedding photographer hired for this gig, I'd be waiting for an explanation from the bride and groom as to why they hired a second photographer without telling me before giving them their photos. 

When they ask "What the Hell are you talking about?", I'd direct them to the Facebook page in question, and let _them _pressure him into taking them down.

"Unprofessional" does not even _begin _to describe it...


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 31, 2013)

Awiserbud said:


> which part have i been unclear about?



Please... someone... make him stop...


----------



## TATTRAT (Mar 31, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> They're still up on Facebook; watermarked and everything.
> 
> I'm not a wedding shooter. When I shoot, it would be rare that I'm the only photographer there; auto racing, concerts, etc.
> 
> ...



You're right, I dunno how I missed 'em. . I need to go to bed.


----------



## TATTRAT (Mar 31, 2013)

e.rose said:


> See above meme about pedaling... the opposite way of forward.


----------



## e.rose (Mar 31, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> TATTRAT said:
> 
> 
> > those photos were taken off pretty quickly. . .
> ...



Most wedding photographers are not only off-put by it, but have it in their CONTRACTS.............


----------



## vintagesnaps (Mar 31, 2013)

I think the first post if anything was just an omission not mentioning having done some paid photography work, but it probably wasn't relevant at that point. As far as the original post, from the photos it looks as if there was a good bit of existing light at the venue with the large windows, but it does seem unusual for a wedding photograper to use only the existing light for the entire event. 

It does seem like it can be a questionable practice to put photos on a page that were taken as a guest/member of the family for presumably your or your family's personal use but come across as posting the photos related to possible future work opportunites. I don't think that's really any reason for what seems to happen in these type threads, where people seem to gang up on an OP - suggestions or opinions or criticisms can be made without knocking the other person.   

The original post was about how might the wedding photographer's photos turn out under the existing conditions at the venue; I suppose there's really no way to know til you see the photographer's final product.


----------



## Awiserbud (Mar 31, 2013)

TATTRAT said:


> Awiserbud said:
> 
> 
> > Weddings in England are pretty much the same as everywhere, High key expensive weddings will no doubt involve expensive experienced photographers, but there are low key weddings also, the bride and groom may be on a budget, it may be their 2nd or 3rd wedding, It might not be the fairytale wedding of the year, possibly similar to drive through Vegas weddings. I doubt you would hire a $5,000 photographer in this case would you.
> ...



I would be pi55ed yes, of course, However at no point did i say she was awful, Or that she screwed up, I asked the question how well do you think she might have done considering it was all ambient lighting. It was a genuine question. 
I also made the point that until the shots come back we can only speculate, which was what i was hoping might happen in this thread. the pro's and con's of shooting without flash etc.
somehow it all got turned around and i ended up the bad guy. 
Nobody knows this photographer, I have been careful not to mention her name, nor post a shot of her face.
And as i also stated i genuinely hope she nailed it and got some great shots.

I find it amazing that some of the people on this forum are more interested in pointing the finger at people and making them look bad instead of concentrating on the topic.


----------



## e.rose (Mar 31, 2013)

TATTRAT said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > See above meme about pedaling... the opposite way of forward.



DAMMIT!  I need to get better at my meme searching.

I'm still a newb.


----------



## Krawler (Mar 31, 2013)

I have a feeling no one read the first post and thought "Oh here is someone wondering how well these photos will turn out" I got the feeling that it was about bashing on the pro that you obviously did not like for whatever reason.

 If that was not the case then someone needs work on the way they compose a post.


----------



## Awiserbud (Mar 31, 2013)

Krawler said:


> I have a feeling no one read the first post and thought "Oh here is someone wondering how well these photos will turn out" I got the feeling that it was about bashing on the pro that you obviously did not like for whatever reason.
> 
> If that was not the case then someone needs work on the way they compose a post.



I strongly suspect that across the ocean my words have been misread.
"How well will this wedding photographer do?" in my language is a genuine question, not rhetorical, and was posted in the hope that an experienced wedding photographer might post and explain how perfectly feasible it was to shoot the whole day without flash.
This is the problem with the internet, that exact same sentence/question could be interpretated many different ways depending on which word was emphasised, And i assume many of you unfamiliar with the way English people talk have assumed the emphasis was possibly on the word "this".
This makes the question rhetorical and sarcastic, which wasn't my intent.
It still doesn't answer the question of why only 2 people addressed the question and the rest of you took great pleasure in ambushing me for whatever reason.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 31, 2013)

Please, dig yourself into a deeper hole.


----------



## nonamexx (Mar 31, 2013)

Awiserbud said:


> Krawler said:
> 
> 
> > I have a feeling no one read the first post and thought "Oh here is someone wondering how well these photos will turn out" I got the feeling that it was about bashing on the pro that you obviously did not like for whatever reason.
> ...



Hey man, I read through this thread and while I sympathize with you on the way you've been knocked about, I think it's wise not to talk about third persons on the internet, especially about their work. Even if you had looked at the work, you have no locus standi to publicly criticize because (1) it was not a public event, it was a wedding and (2) the photographer had not asked you to do it.

 Impliedly you were criticizing the other photographer without looking at their work and asking people to judge something they have not seen for themselves, which is wrong in my opinion. Perhaps you should have phrased the question in a technical sense and asked how to get great pictures in low light without flash. However, you posted about the conduct of the photographer and their mannerisms, which are not technical issues, making people here believe you had an axe to grind.

Having been online for a long time, this kind of thing never comes to a good conclusion. Better to let things go. The good thing you've done is not to identify that photographer in person. Had you done so, it might have been a defamation lawsuit in the making.


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 31, 2013)

> I have not seen the results so at the moment i am reserving judgement but i have to say i am a little sceptical.
> She was paid an awful lot of money (I believe her and her partner who was shooting video charged £3,500 UK, Thats about $5,300 US ) for most of the day up until the first dance at about 7PM, then they both dissapeared.
> She was also absent for big chunks during the day (lunch break perhaps ??)
> Anyway she had 2 cameras, the D700 you can see in the pic, and a D800 which had a 35mm or 50mm 1.8 prime on it (couldn't quite make out which one)
> ...





Versus...


"_I was at a wedding and saw a professional photographer documenting the entire event without using flash.  I'm just wondering if it is possible to photograph an entire wedding, including indoor locations, without using flash and still produce great pictures?_"


----------



## Awiserbud (Mar 31, 2013)

Vtec44 said:


> > I have not seen the results so at the moment i am reserving judgement but i have to say i am a little sceptical.
> > She was paid an awful lot of money (I believe her and her partner who was shooting video charged £3,500 UK, Thats about $5,300 US ) for most of the day up until the first dance at about 7PM, then they both dissapeared.
> > She was also absent for big chunks during the day (lunch break perhaps ??)
> > Anyway she had 2 cameras, the D700 you can see in the pic, and a D800 which had a 35mm or 50mm 1.8 prime on it (couldn't quite make out which one)
> ...



I was simply detailing the scenario, I have always been careful not to name the photographer, nor provide any links to her.
In fact for all i know she probably did a fantastic job and the happy couple will be extremely pleased with her work. I hope this is the case as i have stated all along.
Everyone here apparantly thinks i have a problem with her, or that i have a chip on my shoulder...Absolutely not, I merely asked a question about her method, something i would assume is a normal thing to do on a photography forum.
The answer may help me with my own photography, or others too, or it may turn out that there was a better solution, but either way at no point have i hinted that its all to do with sour grapes, Everyone on this thread has made that assumption very incorrectly i might add.


----------



## Overread (Mar 31, 2013)

And I think we are done here and the thread is going in circles. Time to bring it to a close and move on. 

Happy Easter all!


----------

